Jim Jordan

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie), my friend and a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, sexual misconduct is terrible and it is wrong. Those who engage in it should be held accountable. But this bill, while well intentioned, is misguided. For starters, it is a massive Federal overreach. It regulates contract law that has been and should be handled at the State level. Some States have decided to regulate confidentiality clauses in contracts. Others have decided not to. That is how our system of government works. That is how our Constitution works, States experimenting to find out what, in fact, works best. However, this bill creates a new Federal floor that undercuts the power of States in the process. This is just the beginning of a new push by Democrats to chip away at States' rights. The White House said as much this week. In commenting on the bill, the Biden administration said it ``Looks forward to continuing to work with the Congress to advance broader legislation that addresses a range of issues implicated in NDAs and nondisparagement clauses.'' They are not hiding the ball here. Federalism is a serious issue, and Congress should not be taking power from the States just to impose its top-down approach. Additionally, we should take a hard look at the findings included in the bill as passed by the Senate. House Democrats intentionally left these findings out of the version of the bill that the Committee on the Judiciary marked up. These findings include statistics about the percentage of men and women who have experienced some form of sexual harassment or sexual assault in their lifetime. It is not clear where these statistics and new findings come from, but they seem to rely on a study that uses a broad definition of sexual harassment, very broad, that included instances of ``misgendering'' as sexual harassment. That definition goes way beyond existing law. A finding of Congress that effectively treats ``misgendering'' on its own as a form of sexual harassment will doubtlessly lead to future efforts to expand the law in other ways. If Democrats are going to include findings like this, they should at least have to debate it in the committee. We should think carefully about these findings before cementing them in Federal law. Finally, this bill, as drafted, is too broad and will affect contractual matters completely unrelated to sexual misconduct. A confidentiality clause may cover a wide range of information. When the bill applies, it nullifies the entire confidentiality clause, with just a few poorly defined exceptions. As such, it will give trial lawyers an incentive to add unsupported allegations in litigation so they can void a confidentiality clause and access and use confidential information unrelated to the sexual misconduct. We all condemn sexual harassment and sexual assault, but this is a flawed bill, and it is going to create problems down the road. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I urge opposition, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, Marion Technical College in Marion, Ohio, will hold a ceremony on Thursday, November 17, to mark the induction of its 2022 Alumni Hall of Fame class. I am honored to commend to the House this year's inductees: Tammi Cowell, MTC Class of 1991, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer at Tri-Rivers Career Center. John ``Tom'' Gleespen, MTC Class of 1975, President of Gleespen Engineering and Surveying. Sue Jacob, MTC Class of 1981, retired River Valley School District educator. Darl Snyder, MTC Class of 1983, Territory Manager for 2J Supply Company. Selection for the Hall of Fame is a high honor accorded to only a small number of alumni each year. To be considered, alumni must demonstrate excellence in their respective professions and set a positive example for current and future MTC students. On behalf of the people of Ohio's Fourth Congressional District, I am pleased to join in the accolades for these four distinguished alumni as they are inducted into the Marion Technical College Alumni Hall of Fame.

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who has been representing the good folks of his State for over four decades here in the United States Congress and who has worked tirelessly on this issue.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the families of the 9/11 victims have our deepest sympathies. They have spent the last 20 years seeking justice through a maze of red tape. Due to errors made with how funds to compensate victims were structured, a disparity emerged between the compensation received by differently situated 9/11 families. This legislation would help remedy that inequity. Behind the scenes, we have been working to solve this problem for years. Unfortunately, the Democrats have not been particularly interested. During the last few years of trying to resolve this matter, the Judiciary Committee has not held a single hearing or markup to evaluate the problems with victims funds or how to best address the problem. In fact, according to a GAO study required by Congress, the shortfall owed to 9/11 families amounts to $2.7 billion. The proposal before us takes from COVID relief money that Congress appropriated for small businesses to make 9/11 families whole. There are potential solutions to this problem that we should have put forward earlier. Unfortunately, because Chairman Nadler has declined to allow the Judiciary Committee to consider these other possibilities, we are left with just the bill before us today. I do think it is important to recognize that we are here today thanks to the hard work of the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). I know Congresswoman Malliotakis and Congressman Smith have been working tirelessly on this during this entire Congress. It would have been nice to have their bill before our committee for some debate. We never would have gotten to a place of finding a solution for these victims without their tireless efforts. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis), who has worked so hard on this issue this entire Congress.

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

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' While parts of this bill have some support, the package before us today does nothing but empower the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. Why would we support more funding for unaccountable officials in the Biden administration, particularly these two agencies, the Department of Justice, in light of what we have seen from them over the past several months? Time and time again, they have weaponized that agency to go after the American people. Now, some are asserting that oh, no, this wouldn't give more money to the bureaucracy. But this is the kind of Washington budget gimmick that the swamp uses to grow government all the time. In the majority's own committee report on the bill they acknowledge ``the updated fee structure would provide the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission with additional resources to review mergers and enforce the antitrust laws; more money for Merrick Garland and the DOJ to harass the American people. Even proponents of the bill are talking about how this would get resources to the agencies while saying it doesn't include an appropriation. This logic is laughable. We know where this money is going. In fact, the chairman of the committee said in his opening remarks that the DOJ and FTC are ``in desperate need of more resources.'' We know where this money is going, $280 million, $140 million to each agency, every single year. Congress has already appropriated money to hire 87,000 new IRS agents, and now we are going to give hundreds of millions of dollars to the DOJ and the FTC. Such a deal for the taxpayer. Where does it stop? If you want to do something about Big Tech, this bill is not the vehicle. A bill that empowers these two agencies to, I think, collude with Big Tech to come after conservatives is not the way to go. I hope we can vote this down. Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will respond to the gentlewoman from California. I appreciate the fact that she is a ``no'' on this bill, but I think her logic is all wrong. This bill would actually give $140 million to the DOJ so they can continue to do what they are already doing, work with Big Tech to censor certain information from getting to we the people. Why do I say that? Because we know it happened. Just a month ago, Mark Zuckerberg said the FBI came and told him not to allow the story about Hunter Biden's laptop to be on their platform. They gave him the old wink-wink, oh, we think this is Russian disinformation, which we know it wasn't. Now, we are going to give that agency $140 million more to go collude with Big Tech to keep we the people from getting valuable information before the most important election that we have, the election of the Commander in Chief of our country? That is why this thing is so scary and why we should be against it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), my friend.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to comments made by my friend from Colorado. He used the term ``overcooked theory.'' Let me tell you what is not theory. The Department of Justice's raid on a former President's home. Not theory. The Department of Justice taking the phone of a sitting Member of this body. Not theory. Fourteen whistleblowers coming to our office talking about the political nature of the Justice Department. Not theory. Those are facts. That is scary stuff. Now this bill, if passed, will give that agency $140 million each year for the next 5 years. That is what we want to do? For that reason alone, we should be against this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), my good friend, a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I would just point out that I find it interesting. First, we had Mr. Cicilline, the chair of the subcommittee say that DOJ and FTC don't get the money. It has to be appropriated next year. But then the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Nadler, said we know how the money is going to be spent. It is going to be spent on antitrust enforcement. It can't be both. So it can't be both. We know what is going to happen. This money is going to wind up in DOJ and FTC, and we know their track record in how they have been treating the American citizen. But I find it interesting that the Democrats can't even get their argument straight which just reinforces why this bill should not pass, because in the end it is more money for the Department of Justice--the same Department of Justice that has done their egregious actions over the last several months. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) who is a former judge, a great member of the Judiciary Committee, and a friend of mine.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, concentrated political power: that is what the Department of Justice is doing right now. They are weaponizing the Department of Justice against the American people. The most concentrated political power--awesome power--you can have is the Federal Government. And I would argue the agency within the Federal Government that is the most dangerous is the Department of Justice, and we are going to give them $140 million more over the next 5 years. It is amazing. Again, Mr. Cicilline can say what he wants, Madam Speaker, but that is not consistent with what the chairman said. The chairman said that this is going to give more resources to antitrust enforcement. Here is what the Democrats' own committee report says: ``The upgraded fee structure would provide the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission with additional resources.'' So either Mr. Cicilline is completely wrong, or the majority report is wrong, or the chairman is wrong. Somebody is wrong. We know what is going to happen. This is the same old game we hear all the time: Oh, it is not really appropriated, but we are charging more money. It will result in more money coming to the concentrated political power at the Justice Department, but it is really not going to go there. Give me break. We know where it is going. They have even said it in their own darn committee report. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I just point out that I didn't say that Congress shouldn't appropriate dollars to Federal agencies. What I said is that we shouldn't give more money to the Department of Justice in light of what we have seen them do and in light of what 14 whistleblowers have told us over the last several months what they are up to. That is a completely different point. I am all for looking for ways to cut certain agencies and reduce Government and the power that they have, but I didn't say that. I just said that we shouldn't be giving them more money, for goodness' sake, in light of what they have been doing. I think that is a pretty reasonable position, and, frankly, I think it is the position the vast majority of the country would have when they look at the actions they have seen from their Department of Justice and the tax money that supports that agency. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I would just add I have talked a lot about my concerns with the DOJ in light of what we have seen from that agency, and I think that is the main reason why this bill is so wrong and it should not be supported. But the FTC is also engaged in all kinds of things that I just think are interesting. One commissioner said that she supports prioritizing FTC investigations related to ``systemic racism and rulemaking for racist practices.'' A senior FTC adviser who called Kay James, the former head of the Heritage Foundation, she called her a bigot and criticized viewpoint diversity. She is the one who developed FTC policy on AI and discrimination. Republican Commissioner Wilson described Democrat goals as ``rooted in unified world view that draws heavily on Marxism.'' This is an agency controlled by people who have a radical belief system, radical opinions, and radical political views. Again, not only is the Department of Justice getting $140 million more a year, so is the FTC which is run by people with those kinds of positions. So, again, I think we don't want to be giving more money to agencies with this kind of track record, particularly, I think, now when the American people are about to speak on whom they want to control their Congress. That is why I think we should vote ``no'' on this legislation, hopefully it goes down, and do the oversight that needs to be done of these two agencies so we can point out the facts and the truth and get that to the American people. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the chairman just said that the Democrats have always been for--I think the direct quote was: ``equitable funding for law enforcement.'' That is interesting because, just 2 years ago, here is what the chairman said in June 2020: There should be substantial cuts to police budgets. I don't know how you can say you have always been for something when 2 years ago you said that you weren't, but that just seems what Democrats are up to today. Let's call this package of bills before us today exactly what it is: It is an election year ploy from Democrats to look like they care about funding law enforcement. In the wake of radical leftwing efforts to defund the police, it is no surprise that violent crime is on the rise in America. Every major urban area has seen a huge uptick in violent crime. It should also be no surprise that Democrats are now trying to run and hide from their radical ideas and dangerous rhetoric. For more than 2 years, we have seen violent crime surge all across the country, particularly in Democrat-run cities while many of those same Democrats not only advocated for defunding police departments, but they did it. They cut them. Now, the Democrats want to use Federal tax dollars to paper over the problems they created in their local Democrat-run cities. These bills do nothing to solve the underlying problem. They simply create more grant programs within the bureaucracy of the Federal Government. Under current law, there are already grants available to law enforcement to hire personnel. In fact, last year, the Justice Department awarded more than $139 million in grant dollars through the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. That money provided funds to 183 law enforcement agencies and allowed them to hire more than 1,000 additional officers. We don't need more Federal grants so Democrat-run cities can then divert taxpayer money to fund their woke agenda. What we need are prosecutors who are willing to prosecute crimes and jurisdictions with laws that actually keep violent criminals in prison. Nothing in these bills prevents jurisdictions that choose to defund their police from receiving these grant funds. In fact, when Judiciary Republicans offered an amendment to preclude jurisdictions that defunded their police from receiving grant funds, the Democrats rejected it, and they rejected it unanimously. Faced with an election just over a month away, House Democrats now want to pretend they actually support law enforcement. The timing of this bill should tell you all you need to know about where Democrat priorities are. Democrats who are in full control of this body have had 2 years to show their support for law enforcement. Only now, when faced with an impending election, are Democrats beginning to feign support for our men and women in blue. Democrats could have shown their support for law enforcement. Instead, Democrats passed bills to infringe on Americans' Second Amendment rights, legalize marijuana, and further empower the Biden Justice Department to spy on concerned parents. These bills are just another admission by Democrats that the defund the police movement is wrong and irresponsible. Perhaps, if the Democrats weren't in a cleanup mode after their irresponsible embrace of defund the police rhetoric, the Judiciary Committee could have had an opportunity to consider and improve most of these bills before they came to the floor. But we didn't. Instead, Democrats are rushing to consider these bills to give themselves some pretense that they support funding the police. No one is fooled. Americans know where Democrats really stand. Americans aren't buying the Democrats' revisionist history. They have seen years of Democrats embracing and supporting the radical defund the police movement. Americans know that the Democrats are the party of soaring crime and defunding the police. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.