Louie Gohmert

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). Honoring Gene and Kathleen Shimkus

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I am greatly appreciative to hear that about Mr. Shimkus' mom. What an extraordinary woman. Mr. Shimkus and I both have been blessed in that regard. I know we both miss our mothers. My mother was an English teacher. Some people may find that hard to believe. My mother never quit teaching English even though I had her as a classroom teacher in the eighth grade, never quit teaching English. I would come home from football practice and say, ``Oh, I am exhausted. I am going to go lay down.'' And I would be hit with, ``Oh, what are you going to lay when you get there?'' ``Okay. I am going to lie down. I hope you are happy, mom.'' It is important to have a good, loving mom. It is a blessing to be in a country where there has been more freedom, more opportunity, more individual assets for more people than anywhere else. But it is important to take stock because no country lasts forever. That is just the way of history, and it is important we learn from history, good and bad. There are a lot of characters that are represented by statues in this building that I have serious problems with, the background, the things they did. But there is something to be learned from everyone, the good, the bad, the ugly. It is important because if you have a good basis in history, then it is easier to see the road ahead and which roads lead to what. Many in this country have begun to see that China really does intend to displace the United States, not just grow alongside it as a superpower but, ultimately, be the superpower. I have an article here from a magazine by Charles ``Sam'' Faddis titled ``The `United Front'--How China Has Co-opted The U.S. Media.'' It starts with a quote from Xi Jinping: ``Wherever the readers are, wherever the viewers are, that is where propaganda reports must extend their tentacles.'' The article then points out: ``We are now weeks into what amounts to a nationwide insurrection,'' and it needs to be looked at. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I appreciate Congressman Bilirakis being here tonight. Great observations, history of family devotion to this country, very impressive. I appreciate the bringing up of the once great cathedral being made into a mosque. I had seen it in the news. It is very concerning. You look at our country: Where are we going? It helps to know where we have been. Mr. Faddis points out that at this time of nationwide insurrection: ``Monuments have been defaced, statues toppled, and the commercial centers of our great cities gutted. Yet, throughout, most of our mass media has characterized violence and lawlessness on an unprecedented scale as `peaceful protests.' The scope of the destruction has been concealed. The demands of the anarchists and Marxists rampaging across America seemingly systematically mischaracterized simply as demands for justice and reform. ``What's going on? How, in a nation rooted in the rule of law and respect for the democratic process, have we reached a point where violence and lawlessness are not only condoned but championed? Why are the guardians of the First Amendment seemingly in league with groups dedicated to destroying existing social order? ``Some of the explanation no doubt lies in the fact that much of what passes for our mainstream media is simply so blind in its hate for Donald Trump that it will support anyone and anything that seems to oppose him. There are other factors at work, however, and some of what is transpiring may, in fact, be due to a decidedly anti-American agenda and the desire of a particular foreign actor not only to damage this great Nation but to promote its own particular ideology. ``The Chinese Communist Party uses propaganda and influence operations as a means of projecting its power and weakening its enemies. Chief amongst the targets for these kinds of operations is the United States. These operations are not run on some kind of ad hoc basis. They are coordinated and directed at a national level by the CCP's United Front Work Department. ``The CCP's United Front system mobilizes the party's `friends' to strike the party's enemies. The system has existed for a long time, but it has been greatly energized and expanded in recent years by Xi Jinping. It operates inside foreign political parties, diaspora communities, colleges, and corporations, all with the goal of promoting the party's interests. The express goals of the United Front system include undermining social cohesion, exacerbating racial tension, and influencing politics.'' I want to insert parenthetically here, a lot of people were led to believe that Vladimir Putin in Russia had a number one desire of seeing Donald Trump elected President, but Russia also did some things to help Hillary Clinton with her campaign. But anybody who studies Putin and studies Russia would understand his number one goal and some of the former communist leaders' goals in Russia are not for an individual candidate. They want to see the United States divided until it falls. They want to see the United States crushed. They were not able to do it from without, but they understand they can be divisive enough to turn us on each other in such a way that we would fall from within, as Lincoln said. You know, if murder is going to be our lot, it is going to have to be by suicide, and some seem to be helping that along. In this article, Faddis goes on: ``Offices known as `Confucius Institutes' on dozens of U.S. campuses have `longstanding and formal ties' with the United Front Work Department. As of this writing, there are 81 such institutes in the United States. The express purpose of these institutes is to shape American attitudes toward the Chinese Communist Party and Communism. The institutes are staffed by Chinese nationals, and their purpose within the United Front system is to feed American students and faculty members positive images of communism and the Chinese Communist Party. The students whose minds are shaped then, obviously, go on to careers not only in academia but throughout America, including in the media. ``Perhaps even more insidious than the obvious efforts of the Confucius Institutes to mold the thinking of both students and professors at institutions of higher learning across the Nation, however, are the direct inroads the Chinese Communist Party has made into the so-called mainstream media in this country. Armed with massive amounts of cash and leveraging the lure of the Chinese market, the CCP has, in essence, bought the voices of much of the `free press.' `` `You often see representatives from American companies with financial ties to China naturally become defenders of the CCP's policies and spreading the CCP's propaganda'. . . .'' You have even seen that in professional sports right here in the U.S. ``Most of the major American media outlets are owned by parent companies. These companies all have significant business interests inside China. They are dependent on Chinese goodwill and the approval of the Chinese Government to safeguard those interests. ``The New York Times. Carlos Slim, a Mexican billionaire, owns 17.4 percent of the company and votes for one-third of the board. Slim has massive business dealings with Chinese companies tied to the CCP. Among those ties is Huawei, which is currently subject to U.S. sanctions for espionage and actions detrimental to American national security.'' With regard to The Washington Post: ``In 2013, Amazon CEO and billionaire Jeff Bezos purchased The Washington Post for $250 million. Bezos has direct and massive ties to the Chinese market, which is controlled by the CCP. The production of Amazon's most popular products like Echo and the Kindle takes place almost exclusively in Chinese factories. When you purchase a Washington Post subscription, it comes with an advertising supplement called `China Watch.' This supplement is supplied courtesy of China Daily, a Chinese state-run media outlet. ``CNN. The company is owned and run by WarnerMedia, which has significant financial and organizational ties to the CCP. WarnerMedia is invested in China Media Capital, a media company overseen by the Chinese Communist Party. CNN, via its President Jeff Zucker, is involved with NBA broadcasts into China and efforts to expand NBA programming there. ``MSNBC and NBC. Both MSNBC and NBC News are operated by NBC Universal, a company with huge financial ties to the CCP. NBC is in partnership with China's state-run media organization. Xinhua has been identified by the U.S. State Department as a `foreign mission,' meaning it is completely an arm of the CCP and does not function as an independent news outlet. NBC Universal's Oriental DreamWorks is fully owned by a Chinese investment group. ``ABC. Walt Disney and ESPN are both owned by ABC. Both companies have large investments in the Chinese economy. In 2019, when the NBA refused to denounce Chinese actions in Hong Kong, ESPN's senior news director instructed the network's staff to avoid discussing Chinese politics or matters related to Hong Kong. ``Bloomberg. Both former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his company Bloomberg LP are heavily invested in China. Bloomberg LP sells terminals to its website in the Chinese market and helps finance Chinese companies by sending billions of dollars from U.S. investors to the Chinese bond market. Bloomberg LP supports 364 Chinese firms. Of these, 159 are owned by the CCP. In 2014, Bloomberg killed an investigation into the finances of the CCP elite. When the story was ready for publication, Editor-in-Chief Matthew Winkler crushed it, saying, `It is for sure going to, you know, invite the Communist Party to, you know, completely shut us down and kick us out of the country. So, I just don't want to see that as a story that is justified.' ``In short, essentially all major American media outlets other than those of a more conservative or libertarian bent are subject to powerful Chinese influence. What they cover is what the CCP wants them to cover. What they say is what the CCP wants them to say. ``A recent example is telling. In a report looking at evening news broadcasts from January 17 through March 13, the Media Research Center found that out of 634 minutes of coronavirus coverage, just 3 minutes and 14 seconds were in any way critical of the Chinese Government's actions. In 20 percent of the stories, reporters cited Chinese statistics. Those statistics, regarded as fraudulent by most objective observers, went unchallenged 97 percent of the time. ``This relationship between the U.S. news media and the CCP is only getting cozier. Recently, the State Department asked all U.S. employees of the Chinese state TV network CGTN to fill out detailed questionnaires with personal information. Based on the reporting, at least six former CNN reporters were found to now be working for the Chinese company. ``Perhaps, then, when we turn on the television and see the actions of Marxists and revolutionaries being celebrated, we should not be surprised. When we see the President and law enforcement vilified, we should not be shocked. It's just Beijing and the CCP's minions doing their job. It's the United Front.'' So, when you have got not the country but the Chinese Communist Party and leaders in Russia wanting to see the United States collapse--and especially China. They are very dependent upon our money and our economy, but they are working hard and fast to get to a place where they can see our economy fall and they survive as the lone existing superpower. It has been well over a year, as I recall, but there were three people from Australia here, and I thought they would find it amusing, and I related to them that I had been in a conversation with some other Republican Members of Congress, and one of them said, Louie, we don't have to worry. If we lose our freedom in the United States, we can all just go to Australia. And that, I thought, would evoke a smile from all of the Australians. There was no smile. And one of them said, do you not understand, if you lose your freedom here in the United States, China will take us over before you could even think about getting there. That was a sobering thought, and it still is. It is also important to note, as in this article by Christopher Holton, he points out in the headline, Eerie Parallels Between Antifa and the Chinese Cultural Revolution. He says: ``If you think the tactics and rhetoric of antifa and Black Lives Matter demonstrators in America's streets are new, think again. They're old. ``The date is August 1966. Large numbers of students have organized themselves into a violent social movement to promote communism. ``The students ransacked whole villages, burned down homes and killed thousands of civilians, all in the name of communism. ``This activity 54 years ago happened in Communist China. The name of the student movement was the Red Guards. They were inspired and encouraged by the chairman of the Chinese Communist Party; a person named Mao Zedong. He dubbed this violent reign of terror the `Cultural Revolution.' '' It sounds familiar. ``The goal of the Cultural Revolution was to eliminate what Mao called the ``Four Olds.'' The Four Olds were old customs, old culture, old habits, and old ideas--everything that predated communism in China. Mao saw them as a threat to his Communist rule, so he unleashed the Red Guards to eliminate them. The Four Olds had to be replaced with new customs, new culture, new habits and new ideas--communist customs, communist cultures, communist habits, and communist ideas. ``The Red Guards didn't start out by killing people and destroying property. They started out with intimidation to back up Mao's Cultural Revolution to change place names, especially street names. People even changed their own names so as to break with any association with the Four Olds. ``The movement escalated from there. Anyone who seemed to cling to any of the Four Olds was harassed and intimidated. Property damage was next. Examples of old Chinese architecture began to be targeted for destruction by Red Guards mobs. Chinese literature books were seized by the Red Guards and burned. Artwork was destroyed by gangs of thugs who would go into homes to search for anything considered old. The Red Guards ransacked homes of those who were not considered reliable supporters of the Communist Party. Ancient, sacred Chinese temples were destroyed. Cemeteries were desecrated and corpses were even dug up and torn apart. Monuments were taken down. ``Does any of this sound familiar to you? ``I'm sure it does. And that's not surprising. ``Counterinsurgency experts, intelligence analysts, law enforcement officials and political scientists alike throughout America and the West are starting to wake up to the parallels between today's insurrection and the Red Guards' reign of terror during Mao's Cultural Revolution in China. ``Antifa rhetoric parrots Mao's communist philosophies. Some antifa affiliates have even called themselves `Red Guards'. Antifa's modern roots in West Germany during the height of the Cold War included the notorious Red Army Faction terrorist organization, which had a Maoist orientation. ``The antifa insurgents started by targeting Confederate monuments, gaining sympathy, particularly from those on the left, such as liberals and progressives. But it sure didn't stop there. Just as the Red Guards did in China a half century ago, the antifa thugs have moved on to statues and monuments of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, Winston Churchill, Christopher Columbus, and even Mahatma Gandhi. ``Now they are calling for tearing down statues and depictions of Jesus Christ. ``There have been calls for renaming Columbus, Ohio, St. Louis, Missouri, as well as U.S. Army forts named after generals who served in the Confederacy during the Civil War. ``When and where will it end? ``It won't end if American Patriots who aren't paying close attention don't wake up to the fact that what antifa is doing is waging a Communist insurgency within our own country. We must stop the mass virtue signaling and capitulation and stand up for America, the greatest Nation on Earth. ``Back in 1966, eventually even Mao and the Chinese Communist Party leadership had to rein in the Red Guards so that they did not become uncontrollable and threaten to compete for power. In just a matter of weeks, they had murdered an estimated 10,000 people. Probably the only reason this episode is not widely known is because 10,000 deaths during the Mao Zedong era in China was barely a drop in the bucket. Mao was the largest mass murderer of the 20th century, responsible for the deaths of as many as 70 million people by forced starvation, exposure, and execution. That's more than Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot combined. ``One cannot help but be suspicious that, at a time when the Chinese Communists have covered up the origins and spread of an unprecedented pandemic and used force belligerently on their border with India, in the South China Sea, in Hong Kong, and over the skies of Taiwan, an insurrection reminiscent of the Chinese Cultural Revolution led by American communists has sprang up seemingly out of nowhere. Who's been supporting Maoists in America and the West? Who is educating and indoctrinating them? Who is funding them? Who stands to benefit from the chaotic insurrection? These are questions that must be answered. I would not be surprised if the connecting of the dots leads to Beijing. ``Meanwhile, today in America, many Democrat Party leaders have taken a paternal, protective view of antifa, refusing to condemn their violence and denying that they are a terrorist organization. Like the Chinese Communist Party, the Democrats may find themselves wishing they could reign in antifa as the violence escalates and further chaos ensues in cities that have been dominated by Democrat rule for decades.'' Rather eye-opening, and it should find people waking up across America. I go back to the summer I spent in the Soviet Union, when it was the Soviet Union. I saw socialized medicine in its purest form, and I thank God that our healthcare system was so much better. Of course, that was before there was so much control here by the government, insurance companies, pharmaceuticals. It is a different system now. It is still better than what they have got. I have seen that in China, the system from inside, going into a hospital in Shanghai. It is interesting, as a foreigner, I was taken into this beautiful new little section where an MRI was conducted; not on me, but somebody I was there visiting. And it looked like it was really nice. But then, to pay for the MRI, we had to go through the biggest part of the hospital, where the Chinese people went, and it wasn't nice at all. And I was glad to get out of there. It seemed filthy. But it was very clear; if you are a foreigner, they didn't show you this big nice--well, it wasn't that big, but it is going to look like everything is modern, beautiful, wonderful. But for the people that are citizens, it is just not so at all. We need to wake up in this country. Violence is not the way to go. It leads to an end. There will be an end and, as the Australians over a year ago pointed out, you guys lose your freedom, and there really isn't going to be a safe place because the Communist Party of China will have big enough tentacles, no matter where you go. It is supposedly no longer communist in Russia, but it certainly appears to be totalitarian, under the vise grip of Vladimir Putin. But it is one of the reasons we have to have patriots that will defend our freedom, because if we are not willing to defend that with which we have been endowed by our creator, then we won't keep it. Some wonder, well, if it is really and truly an endowment bequeathed to us by God, our creator, as the Declaration of Independence said, then why do we have to fight for it? It is ours. But in this world, like anything you inherit, if you are not willing to fight for it, there are evil forces that will take it away. Jealousy abounds in some people that are just mean. It is tough to come to grips with that fact. Some many people used to call them sociopaths. Then it became--I think it was the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual III or IV, maybe III, got away from sociopath, psychopath, and we called them personality disorders; antisocial personality. But those personalities--as a judge that was trying to formulate the appropriate sentence for a felon that had either been found guilty or pled guilty before me, it is important to understand who is before you. And when you hear testimony about the antisocial personality, that they are not--the odds of rehabilitating them are not good, then you begin to understand deterrents, general and specific deterrents need to be guiding principles for their sentencing. Apparently, the mayor of New York hasn't figured that out. So, Madam Speaker, if you release somebody who is an antisocial personality, they are likely to just keep repeating the violence. In the same way if you just keep looking the other way from these people, you will destroy--and I still will say it--the most free country, at least it has been, with more opportunities. Madam Speaker, it is still a place where you can tell your child that if you want to be something badly enough and you work hard enough, you have a real shot at doing that. We have still got that here no matter what background you come from. It is worth fighting for, and it is worth protecting. We must suppress the violence and the victimization, especially in minority communities in downtown urban areas. Whether it is antifa or BLM, whatever the group is, the violence has got to stop. These people are not inspired by Dr. King. They are anathema to what he preached as an ordained Christian minister. People have got to wake up. This country is at risk. Our freedom is at risk. This is the way you go. There are so many people, whether it is George Soros or other billionaires, who are funneling money to make this a Marxist country. Sadly for them, they didn't learn enough history because the truth is, yeah, sure, the Marxists will take your money, and they will use it to create a Marxist country. But once that is achieved, the wealthiest don't end up in that tiny little group of rulers. Of course, there is no middle class. It is all the little rulers and then everybody else. They say: Thank you for getting us to this Marxist level. Now you are either going to die or you are going to a gulag, and we are going to take your money from you. That is how it works. Unfortunately, they haven't figured that out. I hope they wake up before it is too late for them and realize how fortunate they are to have been able to make the money they have in a country that had the freedom where they could make that kind of money. Unless they do, this country is in grave danger. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, recognition has properly gone to a great man, John Lewis, a colleague who will be sorely missed. He, along with the great Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., some people say: ``Oh, they did much for African Americans.'' But actually, they did a great deal for everyone in this country. As a young Christian, their efforts enabled me to treat brothers and sisters as brothers and sisters. For that, I will be ever thankful.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intention to raise a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: Raising a question of the privileges of the House: Whereas, on July 22, 2020, House Resolution 7573 was brought to the House floor for a vote with the purpose of eliminating four specific statues or busts from the United States Capitol, along with all others that include individuals ``who served as an officer or voluntarily with the Confederate States of America or the military forces or government of a State while the State was in rebellion against the United States,'' yet failed to address the most ever-present historical stigma of the United States Capitol; that is, the source that so fervently supported, condoned, and fought for slavery was left untouched, without whom, the evil of slavery could never have continued as it did, to such extreme that it is necessary to address it here in order for the U.S. House of Representatives to avoid degradation of historical fact and blatant hypocrisy for generations to come. Whereas, the Democratic Party Platform of 1840, 1844, 1848, 1852, and 1856 states: ``That Congress has no power under the Constitution to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several States, and that such States are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the Constitution; that all efforts of the abolitionists, or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery . . . are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences; and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our political institutions.'' Again, from the Democratic Party Platform of those years. Whereas, the Democrat Party Platform of 1856 further declares that new States to the Union should be admitted ``with or without domestic slavery, as the State may elect.'' Whereas, the Democratic Party Platform of 1856 also resolves that ``we recognize the right of the people of all the territories . . . to form a Constitution, with or without domestic slavery.'' Whereas, the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 penalized officials who did not arrest an alleged runaway slave and made them liable for a fine of $1,000, which is about $28,000 in present-day value. Law enforcement officials everywhere were required to arrest people suspected of being a runaway slave on as little as a claimant's sworn testimony of ownership. The Democratic Party Platform of 1860 directly, in seeking to uphold to Fugitive Slave Act, states that ``the enactments of the State legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect.'' The Democratic Party Platform again. Whereas, the 14th Amendment, giving full citizenship to freed slaves, passed in 1868 with 94 percent Republican support, 0 percent Democratic support in Congress; the 15th Amendment, giving freed slaves the right to vote, passed in 1870 with 100 percent Republican support and 0 percent Democratic support in Congress. Whereas, Democrats systematically suppressed African Americans' right to vote, and by specific example in the 1902 constitution of the State of Virginia actually disenfranchised about 90 percent of the Black men who still voted at the beginning of the 20th century and nearly half of the White men. So they suppressed Republican voters as well. The number of eligible African-American voters were thereby forcibly reduced from about 147,000 in 1901 to about 10,000 by 1905; that measure was supported almost exclusively by Virginia Democrats. Whereas, Virginia's 1902 constitution was engineered by Carter Glass, the future Democratic U.S. Representative, Senator, and Secretary of the Treasury under Democrat President Woodrow Wilson, who proclaimed the goal of the constitutional convention as follows: This Democrat exclaimed: ``Discrimination! Why, that is precisely what we propose. That, exactly, is what this Convention was elected for--to discriminate to the very extremity of permissible action under the limits of the Federal Constitution, with a view to the elimination of every,'' and I won't use his word, but African-American ``voter who can be gotten rid of legally,'' which was said by a Democrat and applauded by his fellow Democrats. Whereas, in 1912, Democratic President Woodrow Wilson's administration began a racial segregation policy for U.S. Government employees, and by 1914, the Wilson administration's civil service instituted the requirement that a photograph be submitted with each employment application. Whereas, the 1924 Democratic National Convention convened in New York City at Madison Square Garden; the convention commonly was known as the ``Klan-Bake'' due to the overwhelming influence of the Ku Klux Klan in the Democratic Party. Whereas, in 1964, the Democratic Party led a 75-calendar-day filibuster against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Whereas, leading the Democrats in their opposition to civil rights for African Americans was a member of the Democratic Party, Senator Robert Byrd from West Virginia, who was a known recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan. Whereas, Democrats enacted and enforced Jim Crow laws and civil codes that forced segregation and restricted freedoms of Black Americans in the United States. Whereas, on June 18, 2020, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ordered the removal from the Capitol portraits of four previous Speakers of the House who served in the Confederacy, saying this these portraits ``set back our Nation's work to confront and combat bigotry''; the men depicted in the portraits were Democrat Robert M.T. Hunter, Democrat Howell Cobb, Democrat James L. Orr, and Democrat Charles F. Crisp. Resolved, One, that the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall remove any item that names, symbolizes, or mentions any political organization or party that has ever held a public position that supported slavery or the Confederacy, from any area within the House wing of the Capitol or any House office building, and shall donate such item or symbol to the Library of Congress. Two, that any political organization or party that has ever held a public position that supported slavery or the Confederacy shall either change its name or be barred from participation in the House of Representatives. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intention to raise a question of the privileges of the House with the form of the resolution to be as follows.

Mr. GOHMERT. My understanding is that the rules allow any time a Member is properly recognized to speak that that privileged resolution then takes priority over all other business at that point.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I will wait for 1 minutes.

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, Judge Al Green. He is a brother, and I appreciate him very much. We have differences of opinion, but I know we are going to end up the same place together. Madam Speaker, there is so much that has been going on that has been disrupting the country, and I am not sure what all my good friend, a former judge in Houston, was saying. I didn't get to hear that. But I believe he was addressing some of the unrest. He and I both want to see freedom. We want to see equality. We want to see people treated fairly and equally. Those are things we share, and I know that is what is on his heart. But I am highly concerned about the legitimate peaceful protests that were taking place as a result of the cruel death, the killing of George Floyd. And his family, and the way they approached it, was inspirational. There deserve to be protests over that horrendous death. The Floyd family pointed out they did not want the legacy of George Floyd to be violence and suffering and death and looting. That was not, and is not, what they want for the memory and legacy of George Floyd. But the movement has been hijacked. The violence they don't want, just the justice they want. It has been hijacked. And it is very important that Americans understand what is going on here, so that it is not just those who have spent our lifetimes studying history that see so clearly what is going on by instigators who want to see the country that has been in an ongoing state of getting better and better--for years, even with unfairness and inequality, it has still been the hope of the world when it comes to freedom and a shot at equality. Antifa, short for antifascist--and there has been no greater irony in the world that Hitler and Stalin--two mad men, evil men with a globalist desire--ended up against each other. Of course, it is quite ironic that when they got together and signed a treaty, both of them, behind the scenes, were talking about the day when that individual would breach the treaty with the other. One of the things Stalin was so furious about when Hitler moved east was that Hitler broke the treaty before Stalin had the chance to. They were two evil people, and they were pushing an evil idea: with Hitler, the evil of fascism; with Stalin, the evil of Marxism, communism, socialism, whatever you want to call it. It is all about the same thing. So, you have communism and fascism. Both of them want globalism. They want to control the world, and they don't want anybody else to control it. They want to control it. The treachery and the evil that went under both of those leaders is legendary. Hitler killed over 6 million Jews in some of the most horrific and evil ways conceivable. Stalin did the same thing, except he killed many millions more. Then in China, decades after that came Mao, who brought communism to China. It is hard to get your arms around a proper number. We know Stalin killed around 20 million Ukrainians, starving them to death, but he killed no telling how many millions more. You just look at the evil treatment of the poor Polish people that when he liberated them, he took so many who were what he saw as good slave labor and brought them back in slavery to the Soviet Union, where they either worked as slaves under Stalin or they were killed. When the Iron Curtain fell, just as many historians, including a brilliant historian I eagerly learned under at Texas A&M--she was not allowed back in the Soviet Union after she wrote about the evil that was done to so many of the Polish officers and people. One of my favorite history teachers, she was terrific, brilliant. But when the Iron Curtain fell, we found out the things that she said and discovered, and others did, were exactly right. Reagan was right. It was an evil empire. And the one Hitler was trying to build was just about as evil--in some ways, much more evil. But it is important that young people and millennials understand what we are talking about here. This country, warts and all, has been, as moviemaker Ron Maxwell said, ``a history of liberation.'' It wasn't founded on slavery. It was on the march toward liberation, each step. So many Christians, like the Pilgrims and so many others, came to avoid persecution for being Christians. Sometimes, people came who were considered unwanted in other countries. If you look at the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, who owned slaves, had entered what probably was the biggest paragraph setting out a grievance against King George. It is spelled out in this grievance against King George, that he ever allowed slavery to get going in the Colonies, because it was so terrible. It was evil, and it took too long and cost too many lives to get rid of it. By the way, that grievance didn't end up in the final draft because there were States that objected, that supported slavery. So that grievance Jefferson had originally put in was taken out. It was not in the final draft. But it took a war that took half a million lives in a country that didn't have half a million lives to spare, devastated the United States. Lincoln believed the Union should be held together, and it would be held together, and this would be the capital of the whole country. And he wanted no malice to anyone at the end of the war. He wanted to bring the country together. But it took an ordained Christian minister named Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and so many others, including some who served in Congress, it took them standing for equality and what is right to ensure that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution would mean what it said. In some ways, in recent years, we have been distracted by people who have been at war, on offense against Christianity, so that now we are to the point where, if you believe what Jesus said, as set out in the New Testament, then you, among so many millions now in our country, are to be an object of scorn and hate. So, as you see these groups that are really Marxist groups-- antifascist does not mean it is a good group; it means it is Marxist. And that is where they want to take us, and it means Christianity will be persecuted to the extent we have seen, with the horrors we have seen over the centuries since Jesus was here. So there is an article by Igor Norinsky, June 28, in American Greatness, talking about Black Lives Matter. I really don't believe at all that there is a single member of Congress who doesn't agree Black lives matter. I don't know anybody who is in Congress who does not believe that Black lives matter. This article starts out saying: ``To the 60 percent of Americans not polling for Trump, many firmly left-of-center, a thought experiment as November draws nearer: What must be true so that Trump gets your vote? It is a miserable question because many Americans are, to put it mildly, negative on the President.'' The article goes on--don't have time to go through the whole thing. But the point is made here: ``The emotional call-and-response appeal of `black lives matter' ''--and that is with little B, little L, little M--``entices all who repeat it into believing they are antiracists and that everyone else must be the opposite. But `black lives matter'--with small letters--which no one disagrees with, is not the same as''--capitalized--``Black Lives Matter.'' They had what they believed at one time--that has since been taken down, as I understand it--and substituted for one that is a little more palatable, but make no mistake: You look at the history of this group, it is a Marxist group. The article points out: ``Communism,'' which is simply ``Marxism applied, was responsible for over 100 million deaths during the last century alone, which says nothing of the psychological terror, the Auschwitz of the mind, that imprisoned the untold millions who did not perish. The systematic oppression and terror Marxist ideas engendered is nowhere better described than Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's `Gulag Archipelago,' a painstaking and harrowing account of the forced labor camp system under Soviet Communism. In a telling passage, he provides an insight into the engine that made the tyranny possible.'' And he quotes from Solzhenitsyn: ``Macbeth's self-justifications were feeble--and his conscience devoured him. Yes, even Iago was a little lamb, too. The imagination and spiritual strength of Shakespeare's evildoers stopped short at a dozen corpses. Because they had no ideology. Ideology--that is what gives evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination. That is the social theory which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own or other's eyes. . . . That was how the agents of the Inquisition fortified their wills . . . the colonizers, by civilization; the Nazis, by race. . . . Without evildoers, there would have been no Archipelago.'' The writer says: ``I was spared those horrors thanks, in part, to being born near the dismal end of the Soviet Union and thanks, in part, to the courage of parents who dared seek permission to leave from a central authority notoriously brutal to the unbelievers. As Jews ostensibly bound for Israel, we had the great fortune of being unwanted anyway. Almost all of your life's possessions stay behind--they belong to `the people,' after all--but the scars most certainly do not. Scars travel with you. The many hundreds of thousands of refugees and exiles from Communist countries living in America today can fill entire libraries with the stories behind those scars. Go seek them out and listen. ``Whether in Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, the precepts of Marxism led humanity as close to the abyss as it has ever come.'' ``Neither do Marxism's purveyors and apologists all sit in Beijing. For years, many intellectuals in the West openly espoused Marxism. Its great utopian appeal should come as no surprise particularly in our present age of social justice. Solzhenitsyn would later lament at the West's failure to accept the grim warnings of his testimonial.'' And, again, from Solzhenitsyn: ``Modern society is hypnotized by socialism. It is prevented by socialism from seeing the mortal danger it is in. And one of the greatest of all is that you have lost all sense of danger; you cannot even see where it's coming from as it moves swiftly toward you. ``You imagine you see danger in other parts of the globe and hurl arrows from your depleted quiver there. But the greatest danger of all is that you have lost the will to defend yourselves.'' Hate Donald Trump if you want. So far, for now, we have that freedom. But the fact is, he saw the dangers from China before anybody in public office did and talked about them. But anyway, Solzhenitsyn wrote that ``in 1976 as the United States was deep into the Cold War. Nearly 45 years later, long after the Cold War has ended, the generation that is driving today's revolutionary agenda has little to no conception of what socialism is and what brand of misery it left in its wake. It is nearly impossible to cultivate any sense of dread or urgency in a society where connection to that chapter of the human experience has all but been severed. But we have to try.'' And he is so right. ``BLM,'' he says, ``is pure ideology. It appears bent on redefining America and its institutions pursuant to progressively tribalistic commandments. Draped in the powerful, albeit deceptive, cover of racial indignation''--which we should all stand for equality there--``the movement has convinced many Americans that being White is an original sin, that America is evil, and that the sinner's day in court has arrived. It prescribes class struggle, exponentially amplified by the battle cry of racial reckoning.'' ``Revolutions vilify the past.'' And he goes on. But it is important that people understand that, as we try and move closer and closer to end any injustice in America--it will never be perfect, but it is the closest humanity has ever gotten, and still there are things we can do to make it better--it is critical to understand the evil that is so close to taking over and embracing this country, because we have generations now that have not learned true history. They have learned some misbegotten professor's idea, as he or she dealt with their own hate and own prejudice, as they rewrote our history. But if you look fairly at the history, you see injustice, none more so than slavery's existence. But if you go back to the late 1940s, early 1950s, when Whittaker Chambers, who had had a very unpleasant childhood, unpleasant family life growing up, thought maybe communism, Marxism was the way to go, and he began working with people like Alger Hiss, who was one of the most respected people in the State Department, right at the top. And because he had an Ivy League education, Ivy Leaguers loved the man, just thought he was fantastic. But both Alger Hiss, Whittaker Chambers, and others with whom they worked and believed in communism, were working to bring down the United States, just as antifa and so many others are today. When Whittaker Chambers began to see that this Marxism that he thought so much of actually caused more suffering than the very type of government he was trying to bring down, that was revolutionary in his mind, and he realized he was fighting the wrong people. His book ``Witness''--I should have read it years and years ago, but it is only in the last couple of years I read it. Some great statements he has in his book. ``Few men are so dull that they do not know that the crisis exists and that it threatens their lives at every point. It is popular,'' he said, ``to call it a social crisis. It is, in fact, a total crisis-- religious, moral, intellectual, social, political, economic. It is popular to call it a crisis of the Western world. It is in fact a crisis of the whole world. Communism . . . is itself a symptom and an irritant of that crisis.'' He quoted Stalin's statement: ``Is it not true that social democracy and social fascism are twins? '' Our current chairman of the Judiciary Committee has gotten very upset when some of us have pointed out that Hitler and Hitler's party were the National Socialist Workers Party in Germany. And he tried to draw that distinction, but Stalin himself says: Isn't it true that social democracy and social fascism are really twins? But Dostoevsky, he quoted, saying: ``The problem of communism is not economic problem; the problem of communism is the problem of atheism.'' I have seen it, lived it for a summer in the Soviet Union. They didn't want Christianity. They only allowed one authorized seminary. I was told, when I visited there, that they allowed only 40 people to go to the only authorized seminary back during those oppressive years under communism. Whittaker Chambers says: ``One day the Communist really hears those screams. The screams . . . do not merely reach his mind. They pierce beyond. They pierce to his soul.'' ``A communist breaks because he must choose at last between irreconcilable opposites--God or man, soul or mind, freedom or communism.'' This Marxist ideology that is being pushed on us by groups that hate America is very dangerous. Chambers points out `` . . . the crisis of the Western world exists to the degree it is indifferent to God. It exists to the degree in which the Western world actually shares communism's materialist vision, is so dazzled by the logic of the materialist interpretation of history, of politics, and economics, that it fails to grasp that, for it, the only possible answer to the communist or Marxist challenge is to choose either faith in God or faith in man. . . . `' He said: ``Freedom is a need of the soul and nothing else. It is in striving toward God that the soul strives continually after a condition of freedom.'' I think every American has felt that. He says: ``God alone is the insider and guarantor of freedom. He is the only guarantor. External freedom is only an aspect of interior freedom. Political freedom, as the Western world has known it, is only a political reading of the Bible. Religion and freedom are indivisible. Without freedom, the soul dies. Without the soul, there is no justification for freedom.'' Vladimir Ilyich Lenin made this comment on religion in a November 1913 letter: ``Every religious idea of God, even flirting with the idea of God, is unutterable vileness . . . of the most dangerous kind.'' I think that is why, on visiting that sole recognized seminary at Zagorsk decades ago, I was struck because there was a building there, and on the side of the building--this is where you turn into the gates of the seminary--was a big painting of Lenin's face and the words: ``Lenin s nami.'' ``Lenin is with us.'' So anyone going into this Christian seminary had to see, as they went in, that message from the government. You may be going into this Christian seminary, but don't ever forget it is Lenin who is with us. Now, I had a chance to see Lenin in his tomb. There were rumors that his ear was deteriorated and had been replaced by a rubber ear. I don't know if that was true, but Lenin was not with us, I can verify. He is long gone to his just reward, such as it was. Whittaker Chambers said: ``If I had rejected only communism, I would have rejected only one political expression of the modern mind, the most logical because the most brutal in enforcing the myth of man's material perfectibility. What I sensed, without being able to phrase it was what has since been phrased with the simplicity of an axiom.'' This axiom is: ``'Man cannot organize for himself without God; without God, man can only organize the world against man.' The gas ovens of Buchenwald and the communist execution cellars exist first within the minds.'' He said: ``What I grasped was that religion begins at the point where reason and knowledge are powerless and forever fail--the point at which man senses the mystery of his good and evil, his suffering, and his destiny as a soul in search of God.'' ``Against liberalism's social optimism,'' which is progress by reform, ``and the social optimism revolutionary left,'' which is progress by force, ``Dostoevsky asserted the eternal necessity of the soul to be itself. But he discerned that the moment man indulged his freedom to the point where he was also free from God, it led him into tragedy, evil, and often the exact opposite of what had been intended. In human terms, there was no solution for the problem of evil.'' Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to hear people that have been trained in the Constitution disregard it so. But we are taught at law school the ability to rationalize absolutely anything. But the fact is, Article I, Section 8, there is not one of the 37 States that have been brought in by Congress that is addressed in the Constitution like this district is. And it says specifically--this is the right of Congress-- ``To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding 10 miles square)''--that is this one--``as may, by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of Government of the United States.'' And if you go back and look at Federalist Paper 43, you look at the debate at the time, they understood. We have had the capital in New York City. We have had it in Philadelphia. And that is dangerous. Because it means if you are surrounded by a State and the capital is part of that State or in the middle surrounded by the State, then pressure can be brought to bear that would be so unfair. Look at the debate. That is why that is in there, to protect that. Mr. Speaker, now, one of the things that we agree on is that it is wrong to make the residents of the District of Columbia pay income tax. I have been filing a bill since 2008, I think it was, that would eliminate the Federal tax. None of the territories--who also don't have full voting Members of Congress--pay Federal income tax. D.C. shouldn't either. That is a legislative fix we can do.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), my friend. JUSTICE Act

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to call Virginia Foxx my classmate. We have been through a lot together, but nothing like what is currently going on in this country right now. Extraordinary. And we are hearing from people back home and from those who are not from my district that have called my office--or called my wife's phone--and left nasty, vicious messages about our hearing. People who saw the subterfuge going on in the Committee on the Judiciary yesterday, they need to understand, back before I became a district judge in Texas, handling major, civil litigation and felony, criminal cases--up to and including death penalty cases--I tried a lot of cases, a lot of different courts, Federal, State. And from time to time, you would see judges who were not fair, and they played their partisan, silly games. Sometimes it was just a power thing. But I determined, when I was a judge, nobody was going to be treated like that, and we didn't do that. There were time limits on opening statements and closing arguments, as there were when I was chief justice of our court of appeals. I enforced the times, and I made sure that both sides had those times followed because, to me, what applied in court applies here, one of the last bastions of civility in the country. Even when there are riots and protests going on, as long as the legislature and the courts are acting civilly--and that doesn't mean you can't yell at each other. Sometimes, debates get very, very emotional, and some of us get very passionate about the things we feel. But it should never lead to violence. We have those arguments. Everybody gets treated fairly. And I have to say, I have been unhappy with some Republican committee chairs in the past, but at least they treated both sides the same way. But we have seen in the Judiciary Committee, which has a storied history, with strong, freedom-loving patriots like Daniel Webster-- possibly the leading advocate against slavery of his day, and certainly the most articulate advocate against slavery in this country, a strong Christian, ethical, moral man. But we have seen such incredible partisanship in our committee, and I mean by that unfair enforcement of the rules. Yes, I get passionate about it because I still believe in fairness. You shouldn't treat people the way Republicans have been treated in the Judiciary Committee. Why is that important? Well, for one thing, it sets an example to the rest of the country that it is okay to just run over, ignore, threaten, create havoc for the people who you disagree with. That message goes out loud and clear: I am screwing over the other side by the rules, by using and flaunting my authority, and so what? If you agree with me, join me in abusing our discretion. Well, we are seeing that abuse go across the country. What are we seeing across the country? We have seen Democratic Governors, some of them, and in our biggest cities where the biggest problems are occurring, and Black lives that matter are being shot in record numbers, as they were in Chicago, and instead of using our system to address the problems that have arisen, we have statements like this, this headline from a Black Lives Matter leader: ``If this country doesn't give us what we want, then we will burn down this system.'' Well, this system has had millions of Americans suffer and over a million die in the service of our country so that we would have the freedoms we do. One thing has been very clear to me from studying history. I really got into it in high school, majored in it, and never stopped studying it. But one thing is very clear: This country is an anomaly. You know, Jesus said, you remember, they are going to hate you; they hated me first. We were told you will suffer for Christ's sake. This was a country where you didn't suffer for being a Christian. That is an incredible little bubble in time and in space in the history of the world. This is an unusual country. As Alexis de Tocqueville pointed out about the churches and the amazing--yes, there are other religions, and we respect that, respect those, as long as they are peaceful and don't want to tear down the system or burn down the system. But de Tocqueville pointed out that this country seems to have adopted Christian principles throughout their government. They are more at play in what is happening in America than anywhere else. That is paraphrased. I don't have his quotes, but there are many of them. Some of them that he was given credit for saying he didn't say. But he certainly observed that. But this little anomaly of self-government in time and space is in grave risk. Anybody that has studied world history understands that. There are people all over the country we have heard from that understand that. So when people are allowed, even without burning down the system, to burn down minority communities, burn down other people's property, destroy businesses, tear down statues that reflect history, good and bad, without going through the system the right way, the peaceful way, the way available, they are already figuratively burning down this system. You want a statue removed or you want a name changed, you do what they are doing in Tyler, Texas, where they have petitioned, as I understand it, the school board. I am not sure if they have taken action yet. But that is the way you do it. You go make your case. If you don't like what is going on, then you simply run for office and replace those people who are not doing what you believe is the right thing. That is the way it goes; that is the way it is supposed to go; and that is the way people who want to destroy America are not doing it. If there is an offensive statue, go get it changed, but we might want you to pay for replacing that with something else. Those who refuse to learn from history, as we know, are destined to repeat it. It is good to talk about people who made big mistakes in our history instead of doing like the Marxist leaders of the crime wave across the country are trying to do. Now, there are some who aren't Marxists, and they don't know they are being used by Marxists. But the things that are going on are right out of the Marxist playbook. It was seen in 1917 in and around what became the Soviet Union. It was seen by Chavez in Venezuela. It has been seen in many places. It was seen by the Chinese under Mao. Hitler was a monster. And his murder of and the attempted genocide of the Jewish people should never be forgotten. But some people are denying it even happened. It did happen. So you have two basically totalitarian socialist forms of government. And I know my friend, my colleague--he probably wouldn't call me his friend-- as chairman of the Judiciary Committee immediately reacts when you mention that the fascists were really socialists. It was the National Socialist Workers Party in Germany. That is what the Nazis were. They believed in the same kind of totalitarian socialist government that Soviet leaders believed in, and they created in the Soviet Union with their communist government and in China with their communist government what so many want to drive us to right now. They killed more people than any form of government in the history of the world. Now, 20 million is only the estimate of what Stalin starved to death in Ukraine when there was actually plenty of food, but he intentionally starved them to death. Mao, there was probably 40, 60 million, depending on whom you believe, that he killed, determined to make the country better. If you look at how many people the coronavirus has killed, which came from China--you can give them credit for killing millions more, I am sure, before this is all over. Although we do have some in the U.S. Government that have an interest--maybe it is pecuniary, some kind of interest--in defending China and condemning the United States. It kind of tells you where their heart is. This country, as Ron Maxwell said some years back, from its beginning, it has been about liberation. We have George Washington over there. People are trying to tear down his statues. When you travel the world, people know the good about that man more so than American students do anymore because the Bill Ayers of the country, the terrorists of their day--terrorists in another way now. But they realized blowing things up, sit-ins, riots were not getting it done, so they went into our colleges and universities, many of them, and began to teach their socialist/Marxist ideas that have never worked and have led to more death and suffering than any other type of government. But they have taught them this is the way to go. Many millennials have bought into that because they don't know true history. This is serious stuff. As I have talked to parliamentarians, members of parliament in Europe, members of government in other parts of the world, including Australia--and there are things about America that bug them. Some think we are too arrogant. But when it comes down to it, wise people in other countries that have freedom at this time, they know if the United States' freedom is destroyed by Marxists or anybody else, there will be no other safe place in the world that Americans can go to find the freedom that is at risk right now. If America's freedom goes down, there is no other place to go. I know Ronald Reagan said no generation that has ever lost freedom ever got it back in the same generation. I am telling you, if we don't stop the insurrection that is being allowed to occur under liberal mayors, liberal Governors, then we are going to lose the country. And Donald Trump is determined not to let that happen. But under our Constitution, there are some places if the mayor or the Governor won't request help, the President is going to have difficulty getting it there to protect things. That is just the way it is. There are consequences to electing feckless leaders who are afraid to do what needs to be done to protect this greatest bastion of freedom that has ever existed. As I said earlier, this has been a history in this country of liberation. Slavery should never have been allowed to get started here. But this country, despite the liberal garbage that is out there, it was not founded on the basis of slavery. If you look at Thomas Jefferson's original words in the original Declaration of Independence, his first draft, he knew slavery was bad and destructive to this country. Perhaps it is the longest grievance against King George--if it is not the longest, one of the longest. He lays at the feet of King George of England the horrible thing that was going on in America, the atrocity called slavery. King George should never have allowed that to get started here, to be legal here, but it was. People in Virginia at the time were not supposed to free their slaves. George Washington, he knew it was wrong as well. In his will, he freed all the slaves upon his wife's death. Now, there are some things that don't make sense to some of us here and now because we weren't living in that day. But the thing that we can be absolutely certain about is that no human being--only one--has ever been perfect. Anything that involves humans is going to be imperfect. Again, our history has been one of setting freedom as the goal, recognizing that freedom is a gift of God. But like any inheritance, if you don't fight for it, you are not going to have it. Slavery, we had a revolution after the first great awakening, the great Christian awakening in the 1700s, followed by the Revolution, the pursuit of freedom and freedom of choice. The second great awakening in the 1800s was followed by a horrendous civil war. What Lincoln said, the words are inscribed on the inside of the north wall of the Lincoln Memorial, and you can tell he is trying to get a grip on this. He knows there is a God. He believes at that time in God. Steve Mansfield has a great book documenting Lincoln's days from his early 20s when he bragged about being an infidel, not believing in God, until the time he was elected President. He knew a guy like him could never have gotten elected President unless there was a God that allowed it to be. But in that second inaugural speech, I think it was about a month before he was assassinated, you can find it toward the middle of the speech, it is inscribed there. He is trying to work through how this horrible war could occur when there is a good and just God. He works through it, and he understands and quotes scripture in like three places in that part. But he says: Needs be that offenses come, but woe be to the person by whom the offense cometh. That offense he was talking about was slavery. He knew it was an atrocity. He wanted to end it. He talks about, though, both the North and South read the same Bible. Both pray to the same God. The prayers of both couldn't be answered. The prayers of neither have been fully answered. But then he goes on to point out that if it be God's will that every drop of blood drawn by the lash is going to have to be drawn by the sword, then we still have to say, as he said, what was said 3,000 years ago: The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous all together. Mr. Speaker, I am joined by friends here on the floor. My friend, the chairman of the Freedom Caucus, he is a freedom lover. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate so much my friend from Arizona. I was asked earlier today by someone: Everybody needs friends; who are your friends in Congress? And I am looking at two of my best friends right here. It may be sad, but that is the case, and I am grateful for the friendship. We had a press conference, the Freedom Caucus did, and I appreciate your leadership. I want to address my remarks to the Chair. I appreciate so much the leadership of the chairman of the Freedom Caucus in having the press conference. But one guy said he had a question, and Congressman Biggs called on him, and he ends up saying, you know, he made a case that you are not spending enough money here in Washington on local police. And this is probably the same clown that goes out and says, you know, we need to defund the police. We need to defund the military because that is going on. And the great irony, then he comes up to us and says we need you to spend more money because we are trying to defund the police back home. It is quite ironic. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho). We have been through a lot together, and I have such great respect, and I am going to miss the gentleman from Florida. It may be because he was a veterinarian before he came up here, so he was quite used to dealing with the wrong end of a horse and was trained well for being in Congress.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my brother. Frederick Douglass, what an extraordinary story, and he was extremely helpful to Lincoln, prodding him on when others were encouraging Lincoln not to do what needed to be done. Incredible man, how he could go through all of the horrors that he did and yet he still had his eyes on freedom, not just for himself but for everybody. As my friend from Florida was pointing out about ignorance of protestors, it could be ignorance--and I am quite sure they are ignorant of their history because of some of the things they are tearing down and vandalizing, including there is a story from Mary Margaret Olohan, ``Rioters Vandalize World War II Memorial, D.C. Monuments.'' ``Communist Emblem Spray Painted on North Carolina WWII Memorial.'' That is from Jake Dima. ``George Floyd Rioters Deface 16 Boston statues.'' And I don't think it is fair to say those are George Floyd rioters, because George Floyd's family has spoken against this kind of thing. They don't want George Floyd to have a legacy of violence and destruction in the wake of saying that is because of George Floyd. They want reforms. ``George Floyd Rioters Deface 16 Boston Statues, Including Memorial Honoring Black Civil War Regiment.'' These people aren't about Black Lives Matter, and you can tell that every time you see some spoiled White bourgeois person going up to a Black policeman or Black policemen and women and taunting them, calling them every name in the book. To that person, Black lives don't matter or they would not be treating an African American the way we have seen them do it on video. Another article from Daily Wire: ``Rioters Destroy Statue of Union Colonel Who Died Fighting Slavery, Confederacy. Also Destroy The `Forward' Statue.'' Washington's historic St. John's Church was damaged by rioters. Here is another one from the Blaze: ``Rioters Tear Down More Statues Including Ulysses S. Grant, Who Defeated the Confederacy and `Destroyed the KKK.' '' ``Rioters Deface Memorial Honoring Those Killed by Communist Regimes.'' ``Armenian Genocide Memorial in Denver Part of Mass Vandalism at Colorado State Capitol--Public Radio of Armenia.'' ``Park Volunteer Outraged Over Vandalism of Philadelphia Abolitionist Statue.'' And for those who are out there rioting, ``abolitionist'' means they were trying to end slavery. I know that is a big word for you. But as this park volunteer said, he--and he is talking about abolitionist Matthias Baldwin. The quote was: ``He Was BLM Before There Was a Slogan.'' And yet as Zachary Evans writes about, they vandalized his statue. And then George Washington's statue in Baltimore is defaced. Only man in history to lead a revolutionary military, win the Revolution. When it was all over, he comes in and they even sent him a copy of a bill where they gave him power to make contracts and pay whatever he needed to pay. And the cover letter basically said, look, we are giving you all this extra power, but we know when you have no further need for it, you will give it back. Except no one in the history of the world has, before or since George Washington, had that kind of power and gave it back. And he did. I was in the Maldive Islands some years back with a few other Members of Congress. It is a beautiful little island south of India in the Indian Ocean, and one of their leaders sitting by me during our lunch, he said: We are a relatively new democracy. He said: We are always hearing rumors about military coups. For those rioters out there, a military coup is when the military tries to take over the government from a civilian government, and he said there are always those rumors. And then he paused and he said: We never had a George Washington to set the proper example. On the other side of the world, 180 degrees from here, this little island, they know how important what George Washington did, how important that was. It was wrong to have slaves. Slavery was wrong. Thank God for William Wilberforce, for people like John Quincy Adams and Daniel Webster that fought so hard to bring an end to slavery. But it tells you these people, they are not about freedom. They are about Marxist, Leninist, the most murderous form of government in the entire history of the world. I am joined by a friend, and I sure don't want to hurt him politically, but I just love this brother, and he happens to represent an area in southern Texas, and that is Mr. Chip Roy, one of the most principled people I have ever met. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I don't want anybody listening to think when the gentleman asks why didn't we offer amendments that we had the opportunity to do that. The majority determined there would be no amendments allowed. I know my friend from Texas and I were talking earlier today about, you know, we could have voted for a bill that included some things that were in the Democrats' bill, but they would not allow any amendments. The qualified immunity, where law enforcement officers were going to get sued, every arrest they ever make, most likely they were going to end up spending more time in civil court than they were in enforcing the law, we needed to work those things out. But there were no amendments made, because the majority said, We don't need your input. This was figuratively what they said: We don't need your input. We don't want your input. We can pass it by ourselves. They stopped Tim Scott's bill. He was open to having amendments. They didn't want to make amendments down there. They want a symbol. And there is nothing that symbolizes that aspect that they want a symbol and not a real fix more than their adding the watered down Emmett Till bill into this law enforcement bill, which is an embarrassment to say that 10 years for being involved in a lynching would be the maximum punishment. Bobby Rush has been working on this for years, and he put a life sentence maximum in. I think it ought to be the death penalty, but okay, Democrats are in the majority, so I was willing to drop out the death penalty. They didn't want that. They wanted a symbol, not anything effective. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from Texas.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for being here tonight. I know he was asking rhetorical questions. And for those involved in the riots, let me explain: ``rhetorical'' means it is not looking for an answer back. When he said we weren't making amendments or we didn't do this or that, we weren't doing our job, I know for a fact that that was rhetorical, because the gentleman represents San Antonio and so much of south Texas doing everything he can to make a difference. We can work together if we are allowed and if the rules don't continue to be abused the way they have been. We do need good, trustworthy law enforcement. I think Bill Barr is doing everything he can, but we need a different FBI director. I don't think we are going to get much help there as long as Christopher Wray is there. He is too interested in trying to say the FBI is all well now, when it is not. But nonetheless, I hope we can work together. The country is suffering because we are not allowed to participate. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Arizona for yielding. There have been tragedies in this country, and yet it still hasn't been enough, apparently, to have the majority in the House, at least the leadership, try to work together to come to a solution. We have seen some of those solutions, and I have got the bill here, H.R. 7120, but there is no better example than the legislation that Congressman Bobby Rush has worked on for years and years trying to pay an appropriate tribute to a 14-year-old Black young man who was kidnapped, horribly tortured, and killed. And I can just read the last phrase of this section 250: The person may be in prison for not more than 10 years. So I have an amendment that I thought should get some Democrat votes. We are not going to pass any of ours unless we have Democrat votes. But I believe the death penalty in lynching cases is totally appropriate, certainly in some of them. That is why I felt it was totally appropriate that the two people under Texas law that lynched, that killed James Byrd got the death penalty. It has already been implemented. But I understood from hearing Chairman Nadler say three times, I believe it was, the death penalty is barbarous. It is barbarous. It is barbarous. Okay, he made clear to his members, do not support the Gohmert amendment. And I would be happy calling it the Bobby Rush amendment, because a life sentence was originally in his bill. I offered--and it was spur of the moment, I didn't have it planned-- okay. Look, you are stopping the members--this is what I am thinking-- from voting for my amendment. All right. I need Democrat votes. Let's take out the death penalty and just say ``any term of years, including life,'' and stop there, not the ``or death.'' They wouldn't even agree to that. No. They are going to stop anything that Republicans want to do. We ought to be setting the example to those who are creating a Marxist crime wave across our country trying to destroy what we have instead of playing partisan games in here. I am glad to hear in here how much the Democrats tried to reach out and work with us, because I sure didn't get that message, because we were ready, willing, and able. And it is further demonstrated in the Senate, when Tim Scott was doing everything he could to get a bill passed, and he couldn't get any support. Look, what do you see out in the streets? You see White spoiled adults coming up to Black law enforcement officers, spitting, just chiding them, giving them all kinds of crud. The message is clear: We are White spoiled brats, and you came off the plantation. Get back. That is what Clarence Thomas said he felt like because he was a conservative that wanted to think for himself. But those same law officers are the ones--I have seen the law officers I know run to the sound of a gun to save lives even of people that make fun of them. How did we forget 9/11 so quickly, when we saw example after example of their willingness to sacrifice? Look, this is not going to do anything. This immunity removal is going to help the law enforcement unions. They will make a fortune, like teachers' unions do, selling the insurance, but it is going to keep law officers tied up in civil court instead of criminal court, and it is going to leave criminals on the street. Madam Speaker, I say to my colleagues, vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, one of the advantages we have seen from having a typed speech is you don't forget things like I often do that are important points, but one of the weaknesses is you can't respond to the myriad of points that somebody just made explaining why we need massive reform to the FISA bill and the information that has come out. Now, I got here 15 years ago, and I was part of the reauthorization back in those days. We got lied to by the Justice Department about how this would be used. They came back in the private meetings: Oh, we don't go after Americans. We have seen from the information that has come out in recent weeks that they do exactly what they told us by behind closed doors they never did. This thing needs to be massively reformed. What happened in the last 24 hours? Something called a Rules Committee, and it wouldn't allow our reforms. It wouldn't allow this body to vote on important reforms. Go reread the Fourth Amendment. We are not supposed to authorize searches and seizures against Americans without the proper due process, without a probable cause, and without particularly describing the places to be searched and what to be seized. And the FISA court has violated that. Oh, some say, we just add an amicus in there and that will take care of it. The FISA judges did not even have the honor of their courts after finding out they were lied to repeatedly and fraud was committed against them to do something about it. That tells you we need massive reform. A vote to go to conference is a total abdication of this body's job to put out a good bill that does reform. Madam Speaker, I ask everybody, vote ``no'' to go to conference so that we can force this House to do its job.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, let me just read from the Constitution. Article I, Section 5: ``Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own Members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum.'' You can't pass a bill on this floor with proxies and have it upheld unless you change the Constitution, and this doesn't do it. Now, some here say: But if it saves one life, it is worth it. How about the million Americans who laid down their lives not for a wishy- washy, ``Oh, maybe we should be afraid. We might get something and die.'' They didn't do that in the Spanish flu days. They didn't do it in the Civil War. But now we are going to do it. Come on. There were people that died, saying things like: ``Live free or die.'' And now, we are going to amend the Constitution with a House rule. That is ridiculous. If you are going to destroy 40 million lives and livelihoods, at least have the courage to come here and do it in person. You didn't let the Member from Georgia do it years ago. You denied that, and I felt like you were right. We have to preserve the Constitution, not abuse it with a House rule.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), for yielding, and I am greatly sorry for the losses yesterday, as well as down in Brian Babin's district. I heard the Speaker say we need to move in a bipartisan manner, and I believe she meant that. But then I can't forget that she said the same thing about impeachment a year ago: we can't move forward with impeachment unless it is bipartisan. So what are we doing first? We are going to have a vote to create another oversight committee. So apparently the answer the Democrats have is if you have got eight committees that aren't doing their job, we have the answer: another committee. For heaven's sake, we have got people losing their businesses, they are isolated. Humans are social animals; we like to be around other people. There are suicides, like in Knox County, Tennessee: they have lost more people to suicide than the coronavirus. We have got to be careful about spreading fear. We can be concerned, but we shouldn't be afraid. But another committee? For heaven's sake, that is not what we need. It is interesting that the answer the Democrats have to potential waste, fraud, and abuse is to create another wasteful committee. Just make the committees we have do their job of oversight, and then we will be all right. There needs to be oversight. We apparently need a committee to give oversight to the oversight committees, because they are not doing their job, and that is why we need a new one.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting hearing all this talk about we have got to do it now, we have got to do it now. It has been delayed since last weekend because of our friends across the aisle. Also, regarding the bill that we previously passed, it exempted the big corporations we are now hearing are so evil. So we need to get our story consistent here. But thank goodness the President put a travel ban in while some were trying to conspire, spy, and impeach. He kept being persistent, and, as a result, there are fewer people with the disease. Now, $2 trillion is vastly too much money, but I spent much of the night reviewing all of the sunsets in the bill. I am satisfied that most of them will prevent most of the waste, but there are some pet projects in here. Mr. Speaker, it is time to turn back to the God that so many have turned from and then use the tools we have got to help those who have been put in jeopardy. I will vote for the bill.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I reserve the right to object.

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, we had rushed this bill to the floor--I would say rush. It had been an all-day thing Thursday and and all-day event Friday, and most of us were not part of the negotiations. We kept getting different versions of the bill that was going to be coming to the floor, and about 9 o'clock I got the latest rendition and had read that. I made a lot of notes and tags and things I was concerned about, and then I thought that was what we were going to be voting on that night; but then there was a new version filed immediately before midnight, and we voted about 12:30. So I had real concerns about some of the wordings, some of the problems. Of course, as President Obama said, elections have consequences; the majority is going to get a whole lot more of what they want in a bill than the minority. I totally understand that, but there were some concerns about matters. I am very concerned about small businesses. It had been changed from other laws, exempting those with over 50 or more--like in ObamaCare-- employees. Yet in this one, it changed exempting under 500 to under 50--I'm sorry--applying to everybody under 500. That included all those under 50. A big concern is that it was going to overwhelm some of our smallest businesses. We know a majority of Americans work for small businesses. They create more job opportunities. So this was a big deal. But though I didn't support the bill, and I still have big concerns, I am very grateful for the efforts of the majority, the President, the Secretary of the Treasury, and staff members of our minority leader who have continued to negotiate and work to try to get some of these problems figured out. So there is no question in my mind at this point that what are being called technical corrections make the bill better than it was when it got passed in the wee hours Saturday morning. So because of that, Madam Speaker, I withdraw my objection to the technical corrections so there may be unanimous consent now that I withdraw my objection.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is quite sad that something this important had this kind of procedure. Now, I got a bill at around 9 o'clock or so. I was told it was the most recent draft. I read through that, and I got through it in time to have a number of questions highlighted, tagged. I wasn't able--my staff was trying--to get a copy of the bill we were going to vote on. I got it right before the buzzer goes off that we are going to have a vote in 15 minutes. This is no way to handle something so important. Part of my problem, my concerns and questions I couldn't get answered: Is this going to put some people out of business? I get over here, and people hadn't read it, so they can't answer my questions. This is no way to handle billions and billions of dollars when we are trying to help people, and we don't even know whether we will help them or hurt them.