Dan Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to honor Donald Overcash, the longest-serving EMS employee in Rowan County. Donald selflessly served North Carolina as a paramedic and first responder for 36 years. During his tenure, he pioneered the county's shift to modern paramedicine in the 1970s and 80s. In fact, Donald is the longest-serving Rowan County EMS employee, breaking the previous mark of 34 years. He also served his country for 8 years as a Sergeant in the United States Marine Corps. Donald served North Carolinians in Rowan, Cabarrus, and Stanly County through many major weather events including Hurricane Hugo in 1989, the 1993 superstorm, known as the ``Storm of the Century'', and the North Carolina Ice Storm of 2002. He bravely served as a paramedic during the 2000 Lowes Motor Speedway Walkway Collapse and the 2008 Salisbury Millworks Fire. His leadership and service are greatly admired and will serve as an example for future first responders. I thank Donald for his remarkable leadership and dedication to his fellow North Carolinians. From the people of North Carolina's 8th Congressional District, congratulations on a successful career. I wish him a long and happy retirement.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, attacks on churches and pro-life pregnancy centers are unconscionable and un-American. Thugs elevate their extreme political ideology over the most basic gift from God: Life. This phenomenon is fed from here. We all recall Senator Schumer's threat to Supreme Court Justices that they ``will pay the price.'' Now we see the price: firebombing pro-life pregnancy centers and assassination attempts. In my own State there is rhetoric amid the broken windows, red paint, and anarchist symbols. ``If abortions aren't safe, neither are you.'' That sentence is repeated over and over across this country. That is a threat. This is the death cult's echo of the KKK's burning cross on the lawn; brazen, violent intimidation. The Federal Government responded to the KKK. Where is the Biden Justice Department amid this violent campaign of national scope? Mr. President, it is time for action. Do your duty.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, with great power comes great responsibility. We entrust our Department of Justice, FBI, and intelligence community with great power to keep us safe. And yet, as long as these agencies have existed, they have violated everyday Americans' civil rights. The security state believes itself to be above the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress, or perhaps the belief is only tacit. It is aware only of power, not authority--power. The FBI spied on Frank Sinatra, John Lennon, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Muhammad Ali because they were national security threats-- celebrities, but everyday Americans as to their constitutional rights. The intelligence community abused their power to spy on Presidential candidates, a sitting President, and Members of Congress and their staffs. The FBI continuously coordinated with social media companies to moderate social content, the public square. So contemptuous and out of touch are they that when confronted with this just weeks ago, they said: We were merely engaging with our community partners. Leading up to the 2020 election, the FBI worked hand in hand with Twitter and Facebook to silence the Hunter Biden laptop story. Concealment from everyday Americans. They have continued to censor in silence criticism of COVID policies and vaccine mandates to the harm of everyday Americans. In 2013, the former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, lied to Congress about the NSA collecting data on millions of Americans. Yet, he has escaped a reckoning. The NSA spied on groups, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and other NGOs. FBI contractors conducted thousands of searches on NSA databases. The intelligence community spied on journalists and political opponents in clear violation of the First Amendment.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. That is not just all illegal, it is un- American, and it cannot continue. The government's massive surveillance apparatus is well-documented, but there is still much more that we do not know. We owe it to the American people to reveal the rot within our Federal Government and cut it out so that it can no longer harm everyday Americans. Mr. Speaker, today we are putting the deep state on notice: We are coming for you on behalf of everyday Americans.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Clerk, I rise to place in nomination the name of Byron Donalds of Florida. I will begin by saying how much I have anticipated the arrival of the gentleman from Michigan, Congressman James, in this House; not in the Senate, not in the old, staid, unchanging Senate, but in the House where we make change. Yesterday, we could have elected the first Black Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. Hear me clearly. Had the cascade of votes begun, it would have extended to every Member of this body. It could begin today. Last night, I sat within feet of Mr. Donalds as the tweet of another Member-elect appeared on the screen. That Member-elect wrote and sent out to America that Byron Donalds is a prop. I have spent a good bit of time with Mr. Donalds, especially lately. He ain't no prop. If he were a prop, he wouldn't be sitting where he is sitting. This is the tired, old, grotesquely racist rhetoric that we have seen far too long. Today, a Member-elect quote tweeted a FOX News story that incorrectly reported that I said that if I don't prevail on the question before the House, I will resign. That Member-elect quote tweeted that incorrect story for his own political purposes after the story had been corrected and the actual statement contradicting that report had been provided. This is the old trafficking in lies from Washington that the American people know far too well. And, by the way, I am not leaving. Kevin McCarthy released to the public on New Year's Eve a document entitled: ``Restoring the People's House and Ending Business as Usual.'' To his great credit, Mr. McCarthy made a statement of huge significance to the country. The nominal leader of a major party acknowledged publicly that this institution is broken, and he committed to make changes to fix it. So let me help my colleagues in the majority understand. We are doing the people's business. That is what these 3 days have been about. We are committed to make changes to this institution that has lost its way. It is epitomized in the $1.7 trillion omnibus rammed through this institution just 2 weeks ago. I say to my colleagues that I came to fix this broken system. America has seen that problem for a very long time, too. The commitment to change it is new. The genesis of the prospect of changing it emerges from this moment and those, since June, that led, at long last, to the New Year's Eve statement of Mr. McCarthy and to these 3 days on the floor. America needs men and women of courage to do something new in Congress so that Congress can serve the American people. The Lord said, Behold, I do a new thing. We need more Byron Donalds. I know Byron. He is not a prop. He is a man of personal conviction. He arrived at his convictions through authentic and genuine life experience. People ask me, what is the endgame? How does this end? The answer to this question is that this is a dynamic process. All of the decisions on this floor result from the coming together of minds, one way or another. This is the people's business. We will resolve the people's business, and when we do, we will go to the mat for the American people because we will be led by people of conviction, like the gentleman from Florida, Byron Donalds.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, in the hearing on this bill in the markup in April before the Committee on the Judiciary, I raised an amendment or proposed an amendment that we protect the United States, if this bill were to pass, by providing that the Chinese Communist Party not be allowed to abuse it. I submitted for the record evidence that Chinese technicians under H- 1B visas had been part of the censorship routine at Facebook, that H-1B visa holders were involved in the Confucius Institutes in colleges and universities across the country. We ought to, at a minimum, provide that the Chinese Communist Party does not use our immigration tools as a means to impair American national security and favor inculcation of the Chinese Communist Party's influence in the United States. In response to the amendment, the bill's sponsor argued that the Immigration and Naturalization Act already provided for defense against this threat. In fact, she gave a particular section of the code, section 212(a)(3)(D), which already fully took care of this problem. Except in further debate on the amendment, it became apparent after a while that, no, section 212(a)(3)(D) only addressed risks involving aliens, not immigrants. That was finally conceded, but the problem was not addressed in the markup. Now, as the bill comes to the floor today, it comes with a manager's amendment, not vetted in the Committee on the Judiciary as it should have been that day, and it doesn't do the job. It is loaded with exceptions that raise subjective questions that may be circumvented by agents of the Chinese Communist Party to come into the United States exploiting this greater latitude for these visas. I believe the bill sponsor spoke to it in her opening comments, that there is an exception. Yeah, okay, the Chinese Communist Party can't take advantage of this. But if somebody is an involuntary member in the Chinese Communist Party or they accept membership in the Chinese Communist Party for the purpose of obtaining employment, well, they are not going to be excluded. Well, who won't say that is what happened? And who is to decide now who was an involuntary member or one who was eager to participate? There are exceptions for close family members and exceptions for past membership. We will offer a motion to recommit that will eliminate those exceptions. The motion to recommit would prevent the Department of Homeland Security from issuing an H-1B visa to anyone who is or was a member of a communist party or totalitarian party. It is just that simple. Why, if this is harmless and helpful, is the Democratic Party so reluctant to provide for the most elemental of protections for the American people, that it not be exploited by the Chinese Communist Party, the most notorious adversary of the United States in the world, and to be done simply and completely so that, above all, we protect America in the course of doing this? Mr. Speaker, if we adopt the motion to recommit, we will instruct the Committee on the Judiciary to consider my amendment to H.R. 3648 to provide real safeguards against Chinese Communist Party influence and espionage. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I want to say about Louie Gohmert is that Louie is a hero to many, many Americans, and he is a hero to me. One of the pretty heady things about walking onto the floor of the United States House of Representatives is that you meet these people you have seen on your television screens across the country that you have heard from who have spoken the words that you wish you could have spoken. Louie was one of the first heroes I met. You meet some people who are not necessarily heroes, too, here. But Louie was a hero that I met maybe my first day walking on the floor. Another thing about this place is sometimes everything has been said, not everybody said it, but there are moments when having the opportunity to join the chorus is as important as anything I can think of. To Louie Gohmert, I say thank you for being a hero. Thank you for always being a loyal fighter for freedom. All of us seem to fail, and sometimes at the moment when most needed, Louie, you have never failed. You have persisted. While sometimes I am uncertain how to fill up the time, you will stand on this floor and you will rely on your inner substance, and you can lay it out as long as you need to go to communicate to the American people, to communicate on their behalf, to say what matters. I don't know what we will do without you. God bless you, Louie Gohmert.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the future chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Ohio. I think whatever else voters said a week ago, they said, don't go too far. That is the reason the gentleman to my right will be the Judiciary Committee chairman and the gentleman far to my left will no longer be. This goes too far. In the chairman's comments in support of the bill, he gave the pieces of information that help us to detect why that is. One, he made reference to a bill, H.R. 4445, Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021, and he said, appropriately so, that that bill had bipartisan support, including mine. It made it so that women who suffer sexual harassment, anyone who suffers sexual harassment is no longer limited if they have entered into a contract forcing arbitration; for mandatory arbitration of a dispute of that nature, they can bring it to court. Court is public in the United States. That bill was supported on a bipartisan basis because it is fair and equitable. The other thing the chairman said is that this bill, the one we are talking about now, will empower survivors of sexual harassment and sexual assault, but it also will empower nonsurvivors. That is to say, anyone who wishes to bring a nonmeritorious claim of sexual harassment forward in order to destroy someone's life also will be empowered by this to ignore any contract to do otherwise. ``A Rape on Campus'' is a retracted defamatory Rolling Stone magazine article written by Sabrina Erdely and originally published on November 19, 2014, that describes a purported group sexual assault at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. Rolling Stone retracted the story in its entirety on April 5, 2015. The article claimed that a UVA student, Jackie, had been taken to a party hosted by UVA's Phi Kappa Psi fraternity by a fellow student. At the party, Jackie alleged in the article, her date led her to a bedroom where she was gang-raped by several fraternity members as part of a fraternity initiation ritual. Jackie's account generated much media attention, and UVA President Teresa Sullivan suspended all fraternities. After other journalists investigated the article's claims and found significant discrepancies, Rolling Stone issued multiple apologies for the story. It has since been reported that Jackie may have invented portions of the story in an unsuccessful attempt to win the affections of a fellow student in whom she had a romantic interest. In a deposition given in 2016, Jackie stated that she believed her story at the time. On January 12, 2015, Charlottesville police officials told UVA that an investigation had failed to find any evidence confirming the events in the Rolling Stone article. UVA President Teresa Sullivan acknowledged that the story was discredited. Charlottesville police officially suspended their 4-month investigation on March 23, 2015, based on lack of credible evidence. The Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism audited the editorial processes that culminated in the article being published. On April 5, 2015, Rolling Stone retracted the article and published the independent report on the publication's history, and so forth. Everyone remembers the Duke lacrosse incident in Durham, North Carolina. Everyone remembers the lives destroyed by these and other false allegations. They do happen. The balance that we brought to the law by ensuring that every victim of sexual assault or harassment could come forward and sue, and if it is a suit against a public figure or against someone notorious or against someone rich or powerful, I have got to tell you, that will get publicity. But it also is a system that has balance. People are subjected to discovery as to their motives. You have tools to find out and test the veracity of each side's views, each side's story. This bill gives the green light to the false accuser. This bill says resume speed. It is a resume speed sign to those who would make false accusations. We brought balance to the law with the participation of Republicans and Democrats. I grant you that that was a great bill. I congratulate you on bringing forward that bill, which I joined and voted for. This one is unfair and unbalanced. It goes too far.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor the life of Reverend Evert Locklear of Maxton, North Carolina. Evert was the oldest known Lumbee elder when he passed away on October 8th, at the age of 103. Evert will be remembered as a pillar of the Lumbee tribe, a dedicated pastor, and a World War II veteran. In 1943, Evert answered the call to serve our nation in the United States Navy. Not long after joining the Navy, Evert was deployed to Pearl Harbor on the USS Kay Perchwell. Following that stint, Evert spent the duration of the war stationed in the Philippines where his unit specialized in automotive repair. In August 1945, he returned home to his family in North Carolina. Back home in North Carolina, Evert was among the Lumbee Tribe members who famously opposed the Ku Klux Klan in what is now known as the Battle of Hayes Pond. He also served his community as the beloved pastor at Community Holiness Church of Rennert for 15 years. Evert loved fixing cars and trucks, working as an auto body repairman until age 95. His dedication to the Lumbee Tribe and his community will always be admired and remembered. Evert leaves behind 12 children and many grandchildren and great- grandchildren to cherish his memory. I will be praying for the Lumbee and for Evert's family as they reflect on his impactful life and remarkable legacy.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, today, I rise to honor J.R. Rowell, an exemplary public servant in North Carolina. J.R. is retiring after 36 years of dedicated service to his community as a state trooper and the Union County Superior Court Clerk. J.R. began his career as a state trooper in the N.C. State Highway Patrol. He then continued to bravely serve North Carolinians as a 1st Sergeant for 20 years. Following his law enforcement career, J.R. was elected to serve as the Union County Superior Court Clerk in 2006. Since assuming this position, he's sworn in nearly every elected official and judge in Union County over the past 16 years. J.R. is a Union County native and Parkwood High School alumnus. He studied social science and criminal justice at Gardner-Webb University before completing a master's degree in organizational management at Pfeiffer University. He's used these skills to help make Union County a truly great place to live and work. I thank J.R. for his many years of selfless service to Union County and the state of North Carolina. I wish him a long and happy retirement spent with his two children, Kane and Melody, and three grandchildren. Once again, congratulations to him on his successful career.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, today, I rise to honor John Dodd, an exemplary leader in North Carolina. John retired in 2020 after serving for 26 years as President of The Jesse Helms Center based in Wingate, North Carolina. As President, John organized a $5 million campaign to fund the Center's current headquarters, museum, and archives. John dedicated the headquarters building in 2001 alongside the former British Prime Minister, Lady Margaret Thatcher, and Senator and Mrs. Helms. John is also the Founder of The Helms Center's nationally acclaimed Free Enterprise Leadership Challenge, an educational program for high school students to further entrepreneurship and freedom. To date, the program has served more than 11,000 graduates around the world. Beyond North Carolina, John worked with government and education leaders in Mexico to introduce The John Templeton Foundation's Laws of Life character education program. He also co-authored a book, And The World Came His Way: Jesse Helms' Contributions to Freedom. John also maintains another important role in his local community: lacrosse coach. He's led three teams, from both the college and high school ranks, to national and state championships. I hope John is truly able to enjoy his retirement with his wife, Teresa, and children, Katie and Mary. I congratulate John on his successful career, and thank him for his remarkable leadership and dedication to his fellow North Carolinians. I wish him a long and happy retirement.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, today the Democrats give new meaning to the term progressive. This is the first time in American history, I believe, that a Chamber of the Congress will pass a bill openly defying the Supreme Court's explicit declaration of the constitutional rights of the American people. It represents the farthest-ever reach of the Democrats' long-pursued massive resistance doctrine. In markup I asked if any Democrat disputed that this bill bans guns and magazines in common use. Chairman Nadler candidly responded: ``That's the point of the bill.'' In other words, the essence of the bill is to stop commerce in weapons as alternatively described by the Court in Heller in 2008 as those ``typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.'' Heller explained the origins of the right to keep and bear arms in militia service. Ordinarily, when called for militia service, able- bodied men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. The Supreme Court further explained we also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and bear and carry arms. In Miller it said, as we have explained, that the sort of weapons protected were those ``in common use at the time.'' This was explained and recapitulated in Bruen just a month ago on June 23, and we see repeatedly that this is being defied. In fact, 1 week after Bruen, the Supreme Court granted petitions for certiorari, vacated, and remanded one State ban on MSRs and a State ban on magazines in common use to be reconsidered. This is in defiance of the Supreme Court.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. So as others have said--and this is the language that struck me--when this matter was in committee, before it failed under suspension of the rules here, for good reason, this paragraph struck me. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, ``imminent threat alerts include natural or human-made disasters, extreme weather, active shooters, and other threatening emergencies that are current or emerging.'' So the existing IPAWS system explicitly covers this issue, which again, takes you back to, then, what this debate has materialized as. The soon-to-retire gentleman from Michigan on the Republican side recited an event in North Carolina where Little League teams withdrew from a tournament because they heard shots. The police in Wilson say that they had no evidence that there was an active shooter involved. That incident had nothing to do with what we are talking about today, and yet, the gentleman from Michigan offered it in support of this bill. The gentleman from Illinois or the gentleman who just spoke about the Highland Park shooting in Illinois--by the way, according to the wisdom of the majority and some Republican Senators, we passed support for red flag laws--well, Illinois has a red flag law. That person had been implicated in all circumstances that a red flag law ought to respond to. It didn't work. We have been doing gun control since 1968. Are you satisfied with the trajectory? Does it salve your conscience to speak in a loud voice about how outraged you are and do something else that has no capacity to solve the problem? Because you refuse to grapple with the problem. I have said that all along. I am going to continue to say it. It is not the prevalence of guns. It is but for causation, ladies and gentlemen. We have always had guns in ample supply across this country. Always. But until the 1960s, you never heard of a mass shooting, and they have increased at a rapid rate in recent years. So it is not the guns that have changed. Let's look at what may have changed. We have changed the culture. Could that be it? Could that be the reason that some reckless idiot in an automobile leaving the area of that Little League tournament was engaged in gun play, firing off a weapon? That never would have happened at an earlier time in this country. The same political forces that tried to change the culture and succeeded is the side that wants to eliminate gun rights as the answer to a problem they have created.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. So we see it over and over and over again. Accountability would require you to point to the success of your actions. You have engaged in--Mr. Massie detailed them--bill after bill after bill after bill, slowly eroding people's gun rights away. Yet, the problems that you have caused get worse every year. They get worse every year in the cities that you control. Let's grapple with the problem, and let's stop the alarmism and the stigmatizing and the fearmongering that you believe to substitute for policy. It does not.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, in Dobbs earlier this great morning, and in the New York State RPA decision yesterday, the Supreme Court declared something astonishing, which has electrified the country and left radicals seething: The Constitution means what it says. In New York State RPA, the Court reiterated what Heller decided in 2008. To paraphrase, the decision said: Like we told you the first time, the Second Amendment protects an individual, fundamental right weighed and decided upon by the people at the founding. But just as most of the courts of appeals flouted Heller by reweighing that right over and over for more than a decade, the Senate again flouts the new decision before the ink is dry. What is the historical analog from the founding era under which the right to bear arms could be targeted for complete deprivation upon less than complete process rights? Name it. Name the historical analog. That is Congress' burden. The renewed assault on the Second Amendment is more than sufficient grounds to oppose this bill, but even the constitutionally permissible components repeat the terrible misjudgment that has afflicted this type of legislation for far too long. I have said before that you are not grappling with the issue: 60 years of targeted destruction of the American culture by the secular and postmodernist left. Foremost in that destruction has been the unrelenting assault on the family. So what does this ``do something'' bill do? It displaces families further by building a massive new mental health delivery bureaucracy into public school agencies; it connects Medicaid and CHIP directly to schools for early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment services in schools; and it supports the provision of culturally competent and trauma-informed care in school settings. Americans who have been watching will hear a familiar refrain in that jargon. It means beyond the reach of parents and the reach of common sense. Who is it that is delivering this double down on woke to your child at school? Republican Senators. Moms and dads across the country, if you thought that Washington has heard you loud and clear, you are sorely mistaken. Washington has yet to recognize that it is the author of the devastation we confront, and Washington is still failing to grapple with the core issue. They are taking another step down the long path we have trod that has transformed America just as they want.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this bill is, at the same time, an attack on constitutional rights and a dangerous, poorly thought out, ill-defined improvisation. Wringing your hands and doing something instead of the right thing will continue having the same result it has had since the 1960s. Show that honesty and courage does not reside only in the Supreme Court building across the street. Defeat this bill.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor and congratulate the Providence High School baseball team for winning the North Carolina High School 4A State championship. Not only did Providence win the championship, but they also dominated the season, compiling a record of 34-0. Never before in North Carolina 4A baseball history has a team gone undefeated. Along with these extraordinary young men, I congratulate Head Coach Danny Hignight, who told his coaching staff on the night of their big win: ``We . . . went 34-0. That is unreal.'' Well, Coach Hignight, it is my honor to say on the floor of this Chamber that it is real and that I and all of Charlotte, North Carolina, are proud of this amazing school and team. Congratulations, Providence High Panthers, on an incredible season.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I often think it is helpful to think about what Americans must be thinking as they watch debates here on this floor. In this instance, I am sure that Americans think, as Mr. Massie suggested, and as I just have been thinking and was thinking in our markup: Aren't we already doing this? Aren't there alert systems that go out all the time for times when a child has been abducted, an elderly person has gone missing, all sorts of things? Sure enough, Federal, State, and local officials already use the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System, IPAWS, to alert the public to emergency situations. Government officials use the IPAWS Wireless Emergency Alert, the WEA--a lot of acronyms, sure; it is government--to send emergency alerts to mobile devices and use the Emergency Alert System, EAS, to alert media platforms. According to FEMA, ``Imminent threat alerts include natural or human- made disasters, extreme weather, active shooters, and other threatening emergencies that are current or emerging.'' So, wait a minute, active shooters are already specifically covered by FEMA under the existing alert system? So, what is going on? A hint emerged in our committee markup when the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) offered an amendment to broaden the name of the bill, not just to cover active shooters. The gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) opposed the amendment--not only opposed it, but he termed Mr. Issa's proposal offensive. Now, we are getting to it. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean), who spoke a moment ago, called it gun legislation. An alert system is gun legislation? It comes down to another messaging opportunity--doesn't it?--the yearning to sensationalize an admittedly awful problem. But I have to say to my fellow Members of the House of Representatives, sensationalizing this problem is not a solution to it. The examples given by Ms. Dean on the floor today she herself said reflected her desire for radical change, but all of her examples avoided the topic at hand, this alerting system. How would a redundant emergency alerting system of national scope have impacted the Juneteenth day shooting on 14th Street here in the District of Columbia or the shooting last week, a gang-related shooting in Philly? How would an alerting system have changed that? Here is what I would say to the Members on the other side: You are still not grappling with the real issue. The Juneteenth shooting did not occur because the existing public alerting systems were inadequate nor because, in fact, guns are available or even prevalent, as they have always been in the United States since its founding. If you do not address what has changed, your efforts will only grow government and reduce freedom. Mr. Cicilline just said, well, small police departments don't have the resources to access alerting systems or to learn about best practices. Really? I was in the State legislature in North Carolina. I know what resources we made available.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, we would never fail to make available--and it is not beyond the resources of any State in this Union--public alerting systems and to consider such issues as whether or not we wish to activate vigilantes who might respond to such an alert. This makes no sense. You are not grappling with the issue. For that reason, this is not the answer. It should be defeated.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding. I have missed most of the debate on the floor. Mr. Jordan just made reference to an item that bowls me over. You wonder after you have been in Washington for a little while whether anything will surprise you. Yes, Madam Speaker, that tweet by the pro-abortion group, Ruth Sent Us, that identified Justice Barrett's church and identified the school that her children attend and encouraged protestors to ``voice your anger'' by demonstrating there, is a new low. Not just the identification of Justices' home addresses, which I never thought we would see, not just the crowds materializing there, which I never thought we would see, not just the appearance of an assassin at the home of a Justice, which we have never seen, and yet, the response is: What about January 6? As the gentleman from Ohio made the point, I have never encountered any Republican who declined to condemn the violence and rioting at the Capitol that day. I have never found one. I have never heard one. And yet, I never hear condemnation of such conduct as I have described from Democrats. I might be missing it. I am not hearing it now. I am hearing this, What about January 6? I condemn the rioting and the violence at the Capitol on January 6. I condemn the Democrat leader of the Senate standing in front of the Supreme Court to say to two specific Justices that, You have released the whirlwind. You will suffer the result. I don't remember the exact words. And then what I do remember, the phrase that sticks in my mind: ``You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.'' I never hear condemnation for that. I don't know why. I do think I know why this bill had to be delayed from last week when we were here and could have passed it. That is because you want to protect the leaker. That implies that although this has been pending for a month and a half and the Nation doesn't know who the leaker is, somebody knows who the leaker is; and that is who you want to protect, amazing as that is, unprecedented as that is. We certainly ought to pass this legislation and protect the Justices of the United States Supreme Court from assassins, assassins responding to the unprecedented advocacy on the left.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, the Fifth Amendment states: ``Nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.'' It is the paradox of the American experience that so many who swear to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, the supreme law enshrining our fundamental rights, are so often predisposed to strip those rights, always with noble motive. Weeks ago, the Biden Department of Homeland Security formed a Disinformation Governance Board to become the arbiter of right think, even since disbanded. Bad idea. In 2020, State Governors ordered the healthy to stay out of their churches for fear of the virus. Do you remember? In 1971, the Department of Justice obtained a TRO, a prior restraint, to abridge freedom of the press by forbidding The New York Times to continue publishing the Pentagon Papers. Lower courts approved that, too. In February 1942, another progressive Democrat, FDR, issued an executive order to intern U.S. citizens and residents of Japanese descent. It was greatly popular; 60 percent of Americans polled supported sending their fellow American citizens to concentration camps. It was approved not just by lower courts but by the United States Supreme Court in Korematsu, 1944. It took until 2018 for it to be repudiated. Look again at what you justified. The long-existing Baker Act provides due process. New York had a red flag law and did not detect the Buffalo shooter. The fierce urgency of now meets the protections of fundamental rights in the United States Constitution, and they must be vindicated.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, it is repeated over and over again that the Second Amendment is not unlimited, it has limits. No one contends otherwise. What are the limits? Wouldn't it be nice to hear that in the debate? The limits as set forth in Heller and McDonald is that it is improper, and you cannot ban weapons that are ``in common use at the time.'' You cannot require that firearms in the home be ``rendered and kept inoperable.'' The Ninth and Fourth Circuits have said that, like other constitutional rights, all of them, the Second Amendment protections apply to 18- to 20-year-olds. The dissenting judge in that opinion in the Fourth Circuit acknowledged that there is ``persuasive evidence of that.'' This bill bans for 18- to 20-year-old adults guns that are in common use. It bans for everyone ammo magazines that are in pervasive use. It requires that weapons be disabled in the home. This one doesn't violate the Constitution, I admit, but it even criminalizes a neighbor who buys a gun for self-protection for a victim of domestic violence. The Democrats say more is coming. They use the terminology ``weapon of war.'' They intend to ban this class of weapons entirely. You have made it clear in the House Judiciary Committee. Ms. JACKSON LEE: Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I will not yield. She has had a lot of time. Madam Speaker, you made it clear that you will proceed regardless of what the Second Amendment says. Mr. Jones made it clearer than anyone. If the filibuster obstructs us, we will abolish it. If the Supreme Court objects, we will expand it. Do something, is the mantra. It is probably worth remembering that that is short for the commonly heard phrase, ``do something, even if it is wrong.'' The last thing we need is something that is wrong. What is needed is an answer. You are not pursuing an answer because, frankly, you are not grappling with the problem. Could we begin with candor? Are these disasters enough to prompt candor? Could we have some truth? You have been doing gun control since 1968. Has it worked to your satisfaction? The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania said earlier: The country is sick. She has misdiagnosed the problem. They say it is the guns. Madam Speaker, guns have been prevalent in the United States of America since before our founding. We did not suffer the mass shootings. We did not suffer the chaos in the cities like she described. Why do we have this now? Chesterton, a British gentleman, came closest, he said: ``The disintegration of rational society started in the drift from the hearth and the family; the solution must be a drift back.'' Everybody knows it is true. If there is a sickness in the country, it is the product of 60 years of disintegration of American culture by the liberal project: Assaults on the family; hostility to God; cheapening life; pervasive expansion of the welfare state; ridicule for individual and parental responsibility; Soros DAs ending punishment for crime; delegitimizing, defunding, and abolishing police. Behold your handiwork. Stripping Americans of constitutional rights won't cure what ails us. Not the Second Amendment, not the First Amendment to which you are hostile, not the Fourth Amendment, not the Fifth Amendment. Join us to solve the problems you have caused. We can find answers together.