Jim Jordan

Mr. JORDAN

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

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The chairman of the full committee is right. This legislation would, in fact, codify Obergefell. But what it would also do is reverse the law in 35 States, where those States have said, marriage should be what--you know--traditional marriage. In fact, in 30 of those 35 States, the people of those respective States went to the ballot and voted for that. So let's be clear. He is right. You can codify what the Court said in that decision, but it would undo what the people in the respective States, 35 States, either in 5 of those States through their elected Representatives in the legislature, or in 30 of those States where the people went to the voting booth and voted, it would undo that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we thought the Democrats were obsessed with President Trump, but Justice Thomas is a close second. This bill is simply the latest installment of the Democrats' campaign to delegitimize and attempt to intimidate the United States Supreme Court. It started when President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh--that was just too much for the left to bear--and they launched a smear campaign in an attempt to derail his nomination. Then we saw Senator Schumer stand on the steps--remember, a leader in the legislative branch--stand on the steps of the Supreme Court, a separate and equal branch of government, and threaten Supreme Court Justices. He said: I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you've released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. Just last month, a crazed individual attempted to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh in his home. An assassination attempt on a sitting Justice of the United States Supreme Court. For months, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have pursued this narrative that the Supreme Court is somehow illegitimate. Members of the committee, including the chairman, have introduced a bill to pack the Court to add four associate Justices to our highest court. The committee has held hearings that can only be interpreted as an attempt to lay the groundwork for an effort to impeach Justice Thomas. Today, the Democrats bring forward a bill that is completely unnecessary. Why are the Democrats going down this path? Because, frankly, they have nothing else. We are debating this bill today because it is July of an election year and inflation is at a level not seen in 40 years. It is the highest inflation rate in 41 years. The price of gas, the price of food, the price of daily necessities have skyrocketed. We are debating this bill today because illegal immigration is at unprecedented levels. Last month, Customs and Border Patrol reported that we have already surpassed the prior years' total for encounters at our southern border, and we still have 3 months left in the fiscal year. We are debating this bill today because they can't talk about the fact that our country is gripped by an epidemic of violent crime in every major urban area in this country. Every day, Americans are being assaulted, robbed, and murdered in our cities. We are here because the Democrats have no answers and desperately hope that a manufactured crisis will help them in November. The Democrats want Americans to believe that the Supreme Court at any moment could step in and overturn its opinions in Obergefell and Loving--that is simply not true. The very decision that Democrats say creates this threat explicitly denies it--explicitly disclaims it. Here is what the court said in the Dobbs decision. The Dobbs decision should not be misunderstood, mischaracterized to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion. The court condemned the idea that the Dobbs decision would lead to an overturning of other cases, stating, ``Perhaps this is designed to stoke unfounded fear that our decision will imperil other rights.'' It is this unfounded fear that brings us here today. We are here for a charade; we are here for political messaging. The Democrats can't run on their disastrous record, they can't run on any accomplishments. It is less than 4 months before an election and all Democrats can do is stoke unfounded fears, and so that is why we are here with this bill. Mr. Speaker, I hope we can defeat it. I hope it doesn't pass. As I said, it is unnecessary and wrong. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentlewoman used the word ``violence.'' Violence? Fifty crisis pregnancy centers and churches have been attacked in the last 11 weeks--50 in 11 weeks. Think about that. As I said in my opening statement, the leader of the Senate stood on the steps of the Supreme Court and said to two specific Justices: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. The Speaker of this body waited 4 weeks to give protection to Supreme Court Justices' families after the left had posted online where her kids go to school, where their family attends church on Sunday morning. And in that interim, during that time after that bill had come out of the Senate unanimously, we had the assassination attempt on one of the Justices-- one of the very Justices that the Senate Democrat leader had referenced in his comments on the steps of the Supreme Court. And, of course, the Attorney General of the United States refuses to prosecute anyone who has protested at those Justices' homes in direct violation of the statute while the case was still pending in front of the court. Directly on point. So concerns of violence--yeah, we all have concerns. She is right about one thing: We all have concerns about violence. But I just want everyone to understand what is going on as we speak. Fifty pregnancy centers and churches in 11 weeks. I don't know if we have ever seen anything like that--that kind attack on the pro-life community. Even so much that a witness who came in front of our committee for the second time--she was here a few months ago and came back the second time. The second time she had to bring security with her because of threats against her life. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson), my good friend and the ranking member on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Subcommittee on the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy) have said, we think this legislation is unnecessary. Justice Alito was very clear--again, it has been read several times-- the Dobbs decision should not be misunderstood or mischaracterized to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion. The Court couldn't have been clearer. The Obergefell decision undid what 35 States have as law in their respective States. Thirty of those States it was the vote of the people, as I said before. But this legislation is going to, I guess, just go after the decision of the respective States, and, as I said, the voters in those States. I think it is also, as we have indicated, a further effort to intimidate the Court. We have had Senator Schumer's statements on the Supreme Court steps, we have had the AG's inaction with regard to protestors at Justices' homes, and, of course, we have had the Democrats' introduction of a bill to add four Associate Justices to the Supreme Court to pack the Court, and not focus on some of the things that are so pressing. I mean, Mr. Johnson was right when he talked about 50 attacks on churches and pro-life crisis pregnancy centers in 11 weeks. That last clause is important. In that short a time frame, that sustained effort by the left to go after the pro-life community and places of worship is as wrong as it gets. I would love to have a hearing on that issue and what actions we might be able to take to help stop that because that is not supposed to happen in our great country. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume while I am waiting because I have one more speaker who would like to weigh in. As has been said, this bill is redundant. States can already do it if they so choose. This bill is part of a series of legislation that the Democrats have passed that attacks law-abiding citizens' Second Amendment liberties. We know what happened a few weeks ago with the red flag law that was passed by this body. Someone doesn't like you, and they go to law enforcement or they go to a judge. There is a hearing. You are not allowed to be at the hearing. You are not allowed to have your lawyer at the hearing. You are not allowed to confront your accuser. You haven't been charged with a crime, but they can take your gun, take your property, take away your Second Amendment right, and then you have to go petition the court to get it back. This bill gives $2 million to the Department of Justice. I mean, giving more money to the Justice Department, the most politicized Justice Department I have ever seen, the same Justice Department where over a dozen whistleblowers have come to our office talking about concerns they have with investigations that the FBI and the Justice Department are doing, the same Justice Department that treated parents as domestic terrorists for simply showing up at school board meetings and voicing concerns about the curriculum being taught to their children, that Justice Department, we are giving more money to do this program? The same Justice Department that, sad to say, has joined the effort by the left to intimidate the Court, our highest Court in the land, we are giving money to that Justice Department? Make no mistake, this Justice Department has done that by their failure to enforce the statute to protect our Supreme Court Justices. When people are protesting at their home, trying to impact and intimidate the Court, this Justice Department refused to deal with the statute that is exactly on point. We are giving money to that Justice Department. So for all those reasons, we have real concerns with this legislation, and I would urge opposition to the bill. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky.

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

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie), the co-chair of the Second Amendment Caucus.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we debated this exact bill 3 weeks ago, and it failed with bipartisan opposition. That is right. Even Democrats voted against it. The Active Shooter Alert Act is an unnecessary gimmick to cede more authority to the already highly politicized Biden Department of Justice. States already utilize emergency alert systems to warn the public about natural and human-made disasters, extreme weather events, active shooter situations, and other emergencies. Federal, State, and local officials already use the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System, IPAWS, to send emergency alerts to mobile devices and to alert media platforms. According to a 2020 report from the Government Accountability Office, every State has at least one alerting authority, and there were more than 1,400 alerting authorities across the country. If the States are already using an alerting system to notify the public about threats, what is this bill really doing? This bill is creating a new Federal job at the Biden Justice Department to encourage State and local governments to issue public alerts any time a firearm is used anywhere. Don't take my word for it. During the markup, Congressman Jones said that this bill would be most effective at reminding us that the threat of gun violence exists all around us, but it does little to actually protect us from it. That is right. This bill is about Democrat fearmongering that guns are an ever-present threat and we cannot be safe until Big Government rounds up every last one of them. In fact, Congressman Jones went further, calling the committee to consider another bill that would ban assault weapons. Chairman Nadler followed by voicing his support. It is no wonder Democrats want to push forward a bill that would create a reminder about this threat of gun violence against us. They want to create a culture of fear so they can achieve their ultimate goal. If they really wanted to improve emergency alerts for active shooters, we would be moving a bill to improve the system that is already in place that are sent to mobile devices. In a recent report, GAO stated that the local alerting officials had expressed concerns about the inability to target WEA alerts with accuracy which made local officials reluctant to use the system at all. For example, GAO found that one alerting authority sent an alert to a specific geographic area to warn the recipients about a suspicious package, but the alert was received by people located 4 miles outside of the intended target area. Another concern is that these alerts are one-way communication systems so alerting officials have no way of knowing if the messages are actually received by the public. GAO has also found that another local alerting authority sent an evacuation order through an alert but didn't know whether the intended recipients actually even received that notice. Utilizing these alerts for active shooter incidents could have tragic consequences. This is yet another reason this legislation should not have been rushed to the floor without going through regular committee order. We could have had hearings, we could have received expert testimony, and we could have been able to fully vet this initiative. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.