Dan Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, to the point just made by Mr. Jordan, it does strike me that what is being described, by the majority leader or by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is that some courts in the hundreds of Federal courts that we have--I am not even sure they are all Federal they are describing, but I assume so-- have decided that this is not an issue that is covered under one or more of these laws. But you know what usually happens is, the Congress waits for the court system to work this out to the United States Supreme Court; and when there is a decision there, if the decision is contrary to the intent of Congress, Congress responds. So again, in terms of picking up something that is unnecessary, that is what the majority is doing. It is not Republicans who bring the bill to the floor. It is not Republicans who pick a fight over something that most wouldn't even disagree about except in circumstances of safety, and then the question becomes one of the degree of burden imposed on employers, whether you want to drive lawsuits. I was thinking maybe, as Mr. Jordan was speaking, that it would be nice to bring, since the minority can get issues to the floor--I didn't know that. I have been here just since 2019, and we have been in the minority the whole time. I can think of a lot of things we should bring to the floor. We should bring a bill to unleash American energy independence. We really need that right now. Not just a bill cutting off imports from Russia, not just a bill driving prices higher so that Americans will not only be paying $4 and $5, thanks to Joe Biden, at the pump, but they will soon be paying $6, $7, $8 at the pump. If the minority could bring a bill to the floor, we could bring a bill to the floor that would say let's open up the ability to drill, let's encourage the energy industry in America to produce the energy that the world needs so that prices will be low and that Americans across the board, not just a few who have these extraneous handful of cases out of the whole Federal court system in which the result has not turned out the way we would like it to have turned out, let's worry about the millions and millions of Americans who will soon have to pay $7 or $8 at the pump every day, while it is $4 or $5 now. That is what I would do if the minority could bring something to the floor.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. It is not a question of avoidance. It is a question of priority. Here is a priority. In 2020, homicides across America increased 30 percent, from 16,500, roughly, to 21,500, an additional 5,000 homicides. And even if you want to view it through a racial lens, since that seems to be the subject, 55 percent of homicides are suffered by Black Americans, even though they make up 13 percent of the population. Of the increase I just described, Black Americans suffer 65 percent. So we could have--if the minority were capable of bringing a bill to the floor, we could bring a bill that would address the rising crime in America, the historically exceptional, historically unprecedented, I believe, at least I saw something since maybe 1900 or 1902--I don't know what the circumstances were then. But since then, the most, the highest increase of homicides in a single year in the history of the United States, grossly disproportionately borne by Black Americans. Driven by rhetoric about defunding police. We could prioritize that. That wouldn't be avoidance. And yet, we do not because, indeed, we are in the minority and the priorities are being set not by the minority but the majority.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to H.R. 963. There is nothing fair about the FAIR Act. The bill would undermine Americans' freedom to contract; burden the judicial system, both Federal and in all States in the country; and restrict access to justice. This bill would ban arbitration agreements across nearly all contracts. It outlaws arbitration agreements in employment disputes, consumer disputes, antitrust disputes, and civil rights disputes. It outlaws arbitration agreements with respect to not only big, huge corporations but the most humble businesses and parties in the country, those that I served in my law practice. Democrats propose that arbitration is bad for Americans, but it has been a fixture of our legal landscape for almost 100 years. They claim that arbitration is forced. Both of their claims are wrong. Arbitration has many benefits. It is more efficient and faster than going to court. The rules are not nearly as arcane. Injured parties get their relief sooner, and they spend less money along the way. Plaintiffs in employment and consumer disputes, according to studies, actually win more in arbitration than they do in court. They get more money in arbitration. They win more often in arbitration. Democrats know that arbitration has plenty of benefits. How do you know this? Because in this very bill, Democrats have carved out their union friends from the mandates of this bill. In other words, if the bill becomes law, powerful unions, and no one else, can still use these valuable agreements vis-a-vis individuals. This carve-out also tells us that Democrats know there is no such thing as forced arbitration. Agreements that are truly forced are already illegal under existing law in every State in the country. People are no more forced to agree to an arbitration provision than they are to agree to any other provision of a contract. The bill, instead, bans private parties from knowingly and willingly agreeing on a process to resolve future disputes. It tells Americans, no matter how informed or sophisticated they may be, that they can't be trusted to manage their own relationships by agreeing in advance to the means of resolution to be used in the event of a dispute. Our Democrat colleagues seem to believe that Americans can't be trusted to think for themselves. Big Government needs to tell them what to do. Their freedom to contract should be restricted by the wisdom from Washington. Democrats argue that this bill is no big deal because parties can still decide to use arbitration after a dispute arises, but that never happens in practice for much the same reason that many disputes go to court and are resolved outside of a jury. About 1 to 2 percent actually go all the way. The decision to get into a lawsuit is not always purely rational, taken from all points of view, and is often affected by tempers that are different once the dispute has arisen than when the parties are considering a position of cool judgment in advance. Their incentives change after a dispute has arisen, and people will pick a strategy to resolve that dispute at that time. They won't necessarily be looking for a process, then, that is good for both parties for many reasons. When you are immersed in a dispute, there is also a greater chance that a lawyer that you may have retained would have an incentive to direct you in the direction of litigation rather than arbitration, and those incentives certainly won't necessarily be consistent with a faster and cheaper alternative. Rather than helping the little guy stand up to big companies, this bill would take the option to arbitrate off the table for everybody and put more money in the pockets of trial lawyers, most especially plaintiffs' class action trial lawyers. The bill would force more people into court. They will pay more and possibly recover less. But it would also force some people out of the justice system altogether. Some people will be unable to pay for an expensive lawsuit, or they may have a claim so small that it is only practicable for them to bring it themselves, which arbitration facilitates. Let's be clear, too. The surge in new lawsuits hurts employment. It hurts businesses and keeps them from being able to afford to hire more people. It will raise their costs at the worst possible time, when they are already dealing with supply chain problems and record inflation caused by failed Democrat policies, and not only by prohibiting the use of arbitration going forward but by retroactively eliminating it, rendering it null and void in millions of contracts already outstanding right now, at this point in the life of our Nation, when we have 8 percent inflation, another constraint on the supply chain imposed by Democrat policies. Everyone should be sounding the alarm on this blatant overreach. At the end of the day, this bill curries favor with the plaintiffs' bar and union bosses, and it does so at the expense of hardworking Americans and small businesses, especially. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 963, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The distinguished chairman of the committee offered to correct me by saying that the bill only prohibits forced arbitration, said that was a correction, as if I misspoke as to facts. Let me read from the language of the bill: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no predispute arbitration agreement or predispute joint-action waiver shall be valid or enforceable with respect to an employment dispute, consumer dispute, antitrust dispute, or civil rights dispute.'' The word ``forced'' was not in that language, Madam Speaker. It prohibits all predispute arbitration agreements and post-joint action waivers. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Florida, and as I suggested earlier, if the bill were a matter only of big businesses, it would be a very different bill, but just as there is no limitation to forced arbitration agreements in the language of the bill, there is no limitation to arbitration agreements entered into between little guys and big companies. The very first appeal I ever took in a 30-year law practice in 1992 was in a case called Bennish v. North Carolina Dance Theater, in which I represented a fledgling, very-hard-pressed economically arts group in my hometown that had an employment dispute with a dancer who wanted to litigate. They had an arbitration agreement. It would have destroyed that organization financially to have to engage in extended and expensive litigation. This bill would have made the enforcement of that arbitration agreement unlawful, and it has nothing to do with big business. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We still haven't heard an explanation for why this legislation deems it appropriate to eliminate arbitration for parties of all sizes. We keep hearing about the little guy versus the massive corporation. Even in that circumstance, of course, what we may be talking about is like the case from 2011, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, where the issue was people in California had bought cell phones, they had been offered a free cell phone, but it wasn't made clear that they would have to pay the sales tax. So there was a $5 claim per purchaser, and wealthy plaintiffs' class- action lawyers wanted to bring a big lawsuit. With tens of thousands of them, they might get a $5 coupon, but the lawyers would buy a new jet. That may be in some circumstances, even the dispute with the big guy. But leave that aside. We still don't hear any explanation for why you are wiping out arbitration as a means that parties choose, even if they are on equal bargaining power. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).

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

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The distinguished gentleman from Georgia suggests that this bill is about whether or not we are preserving the right to jury trial in the Constitution. But I submit, that is not really what is at stake. The question is whether you resolve a dispute through arbitration or you go to the court system. If you go to the court system, there are innumerable paths within the court system that lead to not having your case decided by a jury. In fact, only about 1 to 2 percent of cases end up proceeding to a determination by a jury. That means 99 or 98 out of 100 cases do not. They might be dismissed on a motion for summary judgment. They might be dismissed for failure to state a claim. There may be settlement processes that come to fruition during the course of the case. But it is almost never true--think about that--that a case in court goes to a jury. So this notion that this bill, by eliminating the choice of arbitration, somehow preserves everybody's jury trial magically is a false choice. And more to that point, the gentleman from Georgia, and also the chairman, in the inception, noted that we have just had a bill signing of a bill that excepts from enforceable arbitration agreements the category of sexual assault, sexual harassment. The majority of Republicans supported that. The majority of Republicans will not support this bill because it represents the throwing out of the entire mechanism of arbitration, which has been, as I indicated, a feature of the legal landscape used with great utility and utilized throughout the last hundred years almost, since 1925. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz).

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. On the other side of the aisle, we hear repeated references to defending the Constitution and the American way. I would remind the Chamber that our economy, the American economy, is built on contracts; which contracts, under the rule of law, are not forced, but enforced when someone refuses to abide by his or her agreement. That is not forced. That is where a contract is enforced. We, our courts, our judicial system, and, yes, arbitration is the means by which we call people to live by their bargains, and that has been the key to the most successful economy in the history of the world. It has certainly been the state of affairs, as I said, for almost 100 years. Throwing that out, dispensing with a major component of that on the premise that you are pursuing the American system is contrary to fact. It is, as Democrats often seek to do, it is transformational. It seeks to transform America, not to reinforce and persist it. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for his remarks. It causes me to remark, as the gentleman from Tennessee said a moment ago, that it is Democrats who look out for the interests of the little guy and look out for the interests of the people. I wonder why it is that looking out for the interests of the people invariably involves restricting their freedom in some way. What a remarkable notion. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, one of the things that we have heard repeated a number of times, as the gentleman from Rhode Island suggested and the gentlewoman from Washington just said, is that if you go to arbitration, the company picks the arbitrators, and that is it. That is not, in fact, correct. Courts police the fundamental fairness of the arbitration process. If there is a process that is fundamentally unfair, the courts will modify it until it is fair. So, that is a misconception. Furthermore, it has also been suggested that it is by the whim of the arbitrator what the result is. That is exactly what Mr. Cicilline, I believe, said. That also is erroneous. If an arbitrator writes a decision that manifests a disregard of the governing law, like the soldier who had been in arbitration for 8 years that he suggested, the courts will vacate, strike down, that arbitration award. It is important to know those premises before you decide what to do on this bill. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I was intrigued by the situation we just had on the floor, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, I think she said she represented big corporations. Yet, she spoke to the fundamental unfairness of arbitration. It is ironic perhaps. I spent almost 30 years--29 years in the practice of law as a litigator representing people in court and in arbitration equally. I represented plaintiffs and defendants both, frequently individuals, often businesses, always small to medium-sized businesses, and occasionally a local government or two, never a big company. I have had clients who didn't want to have arbitration agreements enforced and sometimes I could defeat them or have them modified or change the results of them because the arbitrator had manifested disregard for the law. Sometimes I had clients who wanted to enforce those agreements. It depends on the circumstances. But I can tell you it is not a tool that is uniformly bad. Although I have voted for accepting enforceable arbitration agreements, arbitration clauses involving sexual harassment and sexual assault cases, I don't believe that throwing the baby out with the bath water is a good idea. It is a terrible idea. Let me let America in on the inside scoop. Here is what this is about. For the past, roughly, decade there have been a series of cases in the United States Supreme Court in which, through various efforts and methods, plaintiffs' class action lawyers, lawyers for big class litigation where they make millions and millions in fees, have tried various approaches to get the United States Supreme Court to allow class actions to be pursued through arbitration, and they have failed. That is why this bill is here. The bill is to reverse the result of that decade of litigation in the Supreme Court in order for class action lawyers to be able to have a field day and to make a lot of money. This bill protects and seeks the fortune of plaintiffs' class action lawyers, and of course, it protects the patronage of big unions both at the same time. That is what the bill is about. Madam Speaker, for that reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I am pleased with this amendment by the gentleman from Colorado. It has my full support in the Judiciary Committee. I also appreciate the chairman's non-opposition to the amendment. I believe it makes the bill better, and it makes the bill one that I am going to be eager and pleased to support. The problem before was that the bill possibly made unenforceable arbitration agreements going well beyond sexual harassment disputes. But for sexual harassment disputes, I am in full agreement that the victim in every case should have the opportunity not to arbitrate, notwithstanding an arbitration agreement. Therefore, this amendment succeeds. I am going to be glad to support the bill in full, and I am sure many others will as well.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. In the lengthy oration of the 1 minute from the majority leader, I agreed with one word, that this is a radical bill. And the majority leader's argument is a ``throwing the baby out with the bathwater'' argument. The States in this country remain a bulwark of democracy. The rhetoric from Democrats is that democracy itself won't survive without their elections bill. Well, nothing speaks of preserving our democracy like a late-night gut and replace in the Rules Committee. A bill about NASA gets 700-plus pages added and a floor vote within 18 hours. Nothing speaks of preserving our democracy like giving Washington control of voter ID laws when 35 elected State legislatures have adopted them and 74 percent of the people favor them. People in my State voted to put it in our State constitution. Most believe elections should be made more secure. Nothing speaks more of preserving our democracy than shifting the power to set election law from 50 decentralized States, where legislatures controlled by different parties have predominantly held and exercised that power for all 233 years of our experience under the Constitution, and centralizing that power in a single agency, the Department of Justice, at any time controlled by one party. Nothing speaks of preserving our democracy like abandoning historic parliamentary norms to accomplish this radical transformation with bare majorities in both Houses of Congress without one vote from the minority party. Democrats may continue gerrymandering in Illinois and Maryland with abandon, but they assure you that if you just put all control of elections into their hands in Washington, they will save democracy for you. It calls to mind the iconic Vietnam-era phrase: ``We had to burn the village to save it.'' America, that is Democrats' message to you. They will burn your democracy to the ground in order to save it. And they can't let anything stop them from getting it done before they face your verdict this November.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, today, I rise to pay tribute to the Airspeed XP8 8-Way Formation Skydiving Team, which won the gold during the recent World Skydiving Championship in Russia. Team Airspeed XP8 is based out of Raeford, North Carolina. The team competed during MONDIAL 2020, the largest world skydiving championship in history. This year's event brought together the greatest skydiving athletes in the world from more than 33 countries. Even just competing is a huge honor and privilege, and Airspeed XP8's taking the gold is truly an extraordinary achievement. I am proud to salute the fine athletes who worked so hard and have accomplished so much and am honored to represent them in Congress.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, today, I rise to honor James H. Freeman, Founder and President of the Emerging Technology Institute. On December 10th, Mr. Freeman was awarded a Native American 40 Under 40 award by the National Center for American Indian Enterprise Development. These award winners truly represent the best and brightest minds in Indian Country, Mr. Freeman is a member of the Lumbee Tribe and it is a great honor for him to be included in this distinguished category. The Emerging Technology Institute is an integration hub for the Department of Defense, located in the town of Red Springs. I recently had the chance to visit ETI, where I got to fly one of the many drones on site. I congratulate James once again on this honor. The Lumbee Tribe and Robeson County are very proud of him.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I have no hesitancy to take on the distinguished gentleman from Maryland on the points that he has made. I would say first of all this: I hope that he will continue to read those text messages because they don't prove what he thinks they prove; quite the contrary. I can't think of how many times the gentleman from California has spoken in derisive terms about Donald Trump, Jr., but Donald Trump Jr.'s tweets show that he was concerned about exactly the right things. You don't see tweets coming from Republicans about bailing out violent rioters, abolishing police forces, or decrying the plight of Jussie Smollett. I think the issue with the effort today before the body is how Democrats are dealing with the President's close counselor and the legal principles that arise therefrom, especially the constant and repeated threat of criminal prosecution in the face of an unresolved issue of privilege. When you treat noncompliance as willful noncompliance, you mean there is a lack of good faith basis. But the record in this case in the House Report is replete with contentions over the nature and extent of the President's executive privilege. The positions that are taken on Mr. Meadows' behalf are those that have been continually asserted by the Department of Justice; in fact, many others. Many other potential objections he has completely waived. He has not attempted to assert the fact that your subpoena is inquiring into legitimate First Amendment rights to associate, to speak, to petition for redress or in the absence of a legitimate legislative purpose. And to the point repeated over and over by the gentleman from Maryland, the current position on privilege is entirely sensible. Mr. Meadows has produced those documents that are implicated by the current President's waiver of privilege, but he preserves that core part of privilege that President Trump is likely entitled to preserve; that is to say what he was told by one of his closest advisers. Nothing illegitimate about it at all. What is illegitimate is the decision made on how to deal with the counselor of a President, the representative of a coordinate branch of government. The Democrats are setting a new bar. Even while the handwriting is on the wall, may you enjoy the fruits. Let the contempt resolutions and the criminal referrals flow freely and quickly as a river. Merrick Garland, Ron Klain, Hunter Biden, Chuck Dolan, Marc Elias, Andrew Weissmann, Alejandro Mayorkas. Let them come. This is the choice that is being made by the Democrats.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for yielding. I was just sitting on the floor and it occurred to me, as I listened to the debate, that the point just has to be made that the majority is so obsessed with Donald Trump that they will run roughshod over the Constitution to continue to try to persecute him. Do they not see that they twice-impeached him and the court of impeachment twice acquitted him? Do they defer to the decision of our constitutional process in terms of what was just characterized that the President did? Or do they stubbornly override that and continue to pursue him endlessly, despite what our processes and constitutional provisions require and provide for? What about the provision requiring Presidents, who the Constitution specifies the qualifications for office, that they be required to submit private tax returns in order to pursue that office? Perhaps, if you'd like it, if it is a tradition to do so, for you to impose it by law means you disregard the Constitution of the United States. To what end will you go? To what end will you go to prevail?

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank Representative Butterfield for those fine comments. I agree with him 100 percent. That bill that Congress passed back in 1956 said this, even as it recognized the Lumbee: ``Nothing in this act shall make such Indians eligible for any services performed by the United States for Indians because of their status as Indians, and none of the statutes of the United States which affect Indians because of their status as Indians shall be applicable to the Lumbee Indians.'' My goodness. What an error, what a mistake, and what an injustice. But that is what the Congress of that time said, and it is high time for us to correct that injustice. Therefore, I am proud to be a cosponsor with Representative Butterfield and Representative Hudson of this legislation. The Lumbee have for three centuries been a cohesive and distinct community of aboriginal origins and durable institutions, especially schools, living near the Lumber River in Robeson County. The Lumbee have been called by several names, but it cannot be disputed that they are the continuously present and vital people shown on a map drawn in 1725 whose common modern surnames appear on a document written in 1771: Locklear, Chavis, Dees, Sweat, and Groom. They are the Lumbee who were living in Long Swamp in the 1730s, the community now known as Prospect. I said these words last year when it appeared very favorable that we were going to pass Lumbee recognition then, and I am going to say it continuously until we get this done, that this is going to be the year. I know the Lumbee. I know the Warriors Ball and Lumbee Homecoming, UNC-Pembroke and Old Main, the Lumbee Cultural Center and the Cozy Corner. The Lumbee are supremely patriotic Americans, God-fearing and washed in the blood, devoted to the liberating cause of education and to civic involvement, proud of their community, and loving and welcoming to strangers. They are the best of America, and the only honorable course for the United States Congress is to accord them their due recognition at long last. So my thank-you to Representative Butterfield for sponsoring this legislation. I thank Representative Hudson and Representatives Grijalva and Westerman for permitting it to come forward--staunch supporters of the Lumbees' pursuit of justice. I thank Senators Burr and Tillis. Lumbee recognition took on new life when both North Carolina Senators began to champion it. Thanks also to former Representative Mike McIntyre of Robeson County, who worked for Lumbee recognition for more than a decade. We almost accomplished passage last year. This is going to be the year. Madam Speaker, I urge overwhelming support for the Lumbee Recognition Act.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, Hoke County Sheriff Dr. Hubert Peterkin died unexpectedly last Friday during surgery and from a previous unannounced affliction of cancer. For the people of Hoke County, whom Sheriff Peterkin served in that capacity for 19 years, it has been a devastating shock and loss. I consider it to have been my honor and privilege to have gotten to know him briefly. Sheriff Peterkin wore the badge over three decades. His fellow sheriffs elected him vice president and then president of the North Carolina Sheriffs' Association. But, of course, as sheriff, he maintained not only law and order but community cohesion in that special way that rural communities throughout my State do so well. Peterkin's terrific presence earned him many awards and recognitions, including the Order of the Long Leaf Pine and the key to the city of Raeford. Sheriff Peterkin leaves behind his wife and two children to cherish his memory as well as many colleagues and friends. The people of Hoke County will miss his leadership, and I join them in lifting up the Peterkin family in prayer.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina

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

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina

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

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, today, I rise to pay tribute to Garren ``Jon G'' and Kelly Kirkman, the proprietors of Jon G's Barbecue in Peachland, North Carolina. After only a year in business, Jon G's has already become a local institution, as evidenced by the consistently long line of customers who are readv to enjoy good barbecue. For the Kirkmans, barbecue is truly a labor of love and the establishment of their restaurant took many years of hard work and experimentation. Small business owners have been ravaged by the government response to the pandemic, and it is tremendously important during this time to highlight entrepreneurship and to support small businesses in our local communities. Jon G and Kelly, I hope your hard work will continue to pay off and that your barbecue restaurant will be a Peachland institution for years to come.