Jim Jordan

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good), my friend.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. JORDAN. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Virginia (Mr. Cline).

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I will say that the document that launched this experiment in freedom we call America, the Declaration of Independence, talks about all are created equal, endowed by our creator with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I think it is interesting the order in which the Founders placed the rights they chose to mention: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You can't pursue happiness; you can't chase down your goals and dreams if you first don't have freedom. You don't have freedom and true liberty unless government protects your most fundamental right: your right to live, your right to breathe, your right to life. That is what this legislation is about, protecting the most innocent, the most vulnerable's right to life. I urge a ``yes'' vote and hope this thing passes unanimously. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. A ploy? It is not a ploy when the Department of Justice treats parents as terrorists; moms and dads who are simply showing up at a school board meeting to advocate for their son or daughter. It is not a ploy when the FBI pays Twitter $3 million, not 1, not 2, $3 million to censor American citizens. It is not a ploy when the Department of Homeland Security tries to set up a disinformation governance board because we all know that the Department of Homeland Security can tell what is good speech and what is bad speech. You have got to be kidding me. I will tell you what, dozens of whistleblowers who have come and talked to Republican staff on the Judiciary Committee don't think this is a ploy. That is why they came to talk to us. They know how serious this is. The former Democrat chair of the Judiciary Committee is in the press today saying we are going to fight this tooth and nail. This is political. Meanwhile, the former Democrat chair of the Intelligence Committee pressured Twitter to censor a journalist. You have got to be kidding me. This is about the First Amendment, something you guys used to care about. I had actually hoped we could get bipartisan agreement on protecting the First Amendment, the five rights we enjoy as Americans under the First Amendment: Your right to practice your faith, your right to assemble, your right to petition the government, freedom of press, freedom of speech. Every single one has been attacked in the last 2 years. The Government was telling people they couldn't go to church just a few years ago; your right to assemble. Your right to petition the Government. The Democrats kept the Capitol closed. You couldn't, as a citizen, come to your Capitol that you pay for to address your Member of Congress to redress your grievances because Nancy Pelosi wouldn't let you in. Freedom of the press. I just told you what the head of the Intel Committee tried to do to a journalist. The most important right we have, though, is your right to talk. Because if you can't talk, you can't practice your faith, you can't share your faith, you can't petition your government. The right to speak is the most important, and that is what they are going after. That is why we have had dozens of whistleblowers come talk to us. We want to focus on that because we want it all to stop. We want the double standard to stop. This idea that, oh, if you are a pro-life activist, you are going to get your door kicked in and you are going to get arrested and handcuffed in front of your seven kids and your spouse for simply praying in front of abortion clinic, and telling the guy who was harassing your son to knock it off you are going to have the FBI raid your home; but the protests that went on at Supreme Court Justices' homes in the aftermath of the leak of the Dobbs opinion, oh, no problem there. Americans are sick and tired of it. We don't want to go after anyone. We just want it to stop. We want to respect the First Amendment to the Constitution that the greatest country in the world has. That is what this committee is all about, and that is what we are going to focus on. That is what we are going to do.

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this bill would provide U.S. courts with jurisdiction over war criminals if the victim or offender is a U.S. national or a lawfully admitted permanent resident alien, a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, or otherwise present in the United States. In order for a case against one of these individuals to be prosecuted, the Attorney General or their designee must certify that the prosecution is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice. We all agree that those who commit war crimes should be brought to justice, but this bill is not really that simple. This bill has had no process in the Judiciary Committee. We have had no hearings. We have heard from no witnesses. We have not fully examined the potential ramifications of the legislation. We don't know how this bill may align with the laws of foreign nations or if, by passing this bill, we may cause other countries to pass their own laws that would imperil our servicemembers or citizens around the world. We have not considered the standards that the Attorney General is directed to follow in certifying these prosecutions. If we have learned one thing in the Judiciary Committee this Congress, it is that the Biden Justice Department's definition of ``public interest and substantial justice'' is radically different from most Americans. Does the Biden Justice Department believe it is in the public interest to conspire with Big Tech to stifle speech and censor views, as we have seen in recent disclosures? Does the Biden Justice Department believe that using the weight of Federal law enforcement to target concerned parents at school board meetings amounts to substantial justice? The standards in this bill are vague and unworkable, and I am concerned about how they may be abused by this Justice Department. The Judiciary Committee should have wrestled with these issues and others, but we never had the chance. Madam Speaker, for the reasons I cited in my opening statement, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, S. 3949 requires that certain services be provided to trafficking survivors with a history in the State child protection and welfare system. For example, it would require that trafficking victims with a history in the child welfare system receive basic education, life skills training, job skills training, and other professional development. The bill also prohibits officials who are investigating trafficking from engaging in illicit relationships or contact with witnesses, victims, potential witnesses, and potential victims during the course of the investigation. It also requires all Federal agencies to ensure that all staff receive training related to human trafficking and acknowledge the agency's code of conduct as it relates to human trafficking. Additionally, this bill requires the Comptroller General to report to Congress on the prevention of trafficking of persons in the Federal contract supply chain. Madam Speaker, I would just say if we really want to deal with the trafficking problem, the number one thing we could do, the number one thing we should do, the best thing we could do is actually secure the border. But this week, the Democrats are looking to do just the opposite and make an already chaotic situation even more chaotic with the repeal of title 42. That is what we should be focusing on. If we really care about this terrible human trafficking concern and problem, we would secure our southern border, but that is not, unfortunately, where this administration wants to go. This legislation is fine, but if we really want to address the overriding problem here, we would be focused on the border. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, again, this legislation is fine. I will just say this--my colleague and the chair of the Judiciary Committee said this-- this problem is everywhere. I don't disagree. It is a terrible problem. But let's be honest, where the problem is the worst is our southern border. Four million illegal migrants have come into this country in the 23 months of the Biden administration. That is where it is the worst. The cartels are making tons of money on moving people. What happens to women and children in that journey is so wrong, and that is what we should be focused on. My colleagues on the other side do not want to address it, they don't even want to go see it, the President hasn't even been there. This legislation is fine, and it can be helpful--God bless America. But let's focus on the real issue here: the 4 million people the cartels are bringing across our border--we no longer have a border. If title 42 goes away, that chaotic situation gets even worse. That is what we should be focused on, and my colleagues don't want to do it. Madam Speaker, this legislation is fine, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I am honored to commend to the House the memory of W. Michael Byrne, who passed away in the Dominican Republic on October 16 at the age of 99. Mike Byrne was born in Minot, North Dakota, in 1923. At age 3, his family moved to Port Huron, Michigan, where at age 8 he began working various jobs to help his family during the Great Depression. Drafted into the Army Air Corps in 1943, Mike served as a bombardier/navigator during World War II, rising to the rank of Second Lieutenant. After the war, Mike was recruited by the Westinghouse Electric Corporation for its small appliance division. His Westinghouse career started in Mansfield, Ohio, where he met the woman who would become his wife of 64 years, Lois. Mike quickly rose through the ranks at Westinghouse, ultimately becoming national marketing manager, where he oversaw the company's sales and marketing work. In 1966, Mike started his own company, Michael Byrne Manufacturing, which became a leader in the field of tunneling and augering equipment. His outstanding work led to his induction into the North Central Ohio Industrial Museum as a Champion of Industry. Mike's dedication to volunteerism and civic duty was a model to all. He served as the first president of the Saint Peter's High School Booster Club and as a member of the Saint Peter's Board of Education. His passion for service to others continued after he and Lois moved to the Dominican Republic, where they helped fund the construction of a primary school in Puerto Plata. They also worked with CitiHope International to create a program to import and distribute much-needed medicine and medical supplies to the poor. Madam Speaker, Mike is survived by 8 children, 19 grandchildren, and 9 great-grandchildren, On behalf of the people of Ohio's Fourth Congressional District, I offer them my condolences as they remember Mike's extraordinary life and his lifelong devotion to helping those in need.

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats want Americans to believe that the Supreme Court at any moment--in fact, the chairman just referenced this--at any moment could step in and overturn its opinions in Obergefell and Loving. It is just not true. The Supreme Court is not poised to overturn its opinions in either of those decisions. Just look at what the Court has said. The Dobbs opinion does not undermine other substantive due process rights in any way. Just in case anyone is not clear on the meaning of does not undermine them in any way, the Court later reiterated that the Dobbs decision should not be misunderstood or mischaracterized `` . . . to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.'' The Court condemned the alarmist idea that the Dobbs decision would lead to the overturning of other cases as ``perhaps . . . designed to stoke unfounded fear that our decision will imperil those other rights . . . '' It is that unfounded fear that brings us here today. Democrats have conjured up this nonexistent threat based on one line in Justice Thomas' concurrence in Dobbs, and they are misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting what Justice Thomas wrote. Justice Thomas made the same point that he has made for years: that the collection of rights secured by the doctrine of substantive due process is better understood as being a function of the Constitution's privileges and immunities clause. That is it. From his statement that a body of law should flow from one place in the Constitution instead of another comes the hyperbolic arguments that we have heard about the necessity of this bill. After the House last considered this bill in July, the Senate was forced to make significant changes to the bill. Unfortunately, those changes do not go far enough in protecting religious liberty. For example, the Senate amendment does not protect a private entity that is determined to be a State actor as a result of the services they provide on behalf of a government. These entities could be adoption agencies, shelters, or other service providers operated by a religious organization under contract with a city or State. Across the country, people of faith serve their neighbors and their communities through these charitable efforts, but this bill could force them to abandon their faith or abandon the service. That is an unacceptable outcome in the United States. For years, the Democrats have been playing a dangerous game with the Court. They want Americans to believe that the Court lacks transparency and struggles with its ethics. That is simply not true. This bill is simply the latest installment of the Democrat's campaign to intimidate the highest court in our land. They have engaged in a smear campaign against sitting Justices and nominees. Democrats have stood on the steps of the Court and threatened Justices by name for not ruling the way they want in high-profile cases. Democrat members of the Judiciary Committee, including the chairman, have introduced a bill to pack the Court; to add four Justices to our highest court--not one, not two, not three, but four, because they simply want to take it over. Democrats have held hearings to showcase fringe legal and conspiracy theories about the Court and its rulings. In fact, later today, the Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing to again suggest that the Court has somehow been compromised based on a totally unsubstantiated allegation that Justice Alito leaked information 8 years ago about an opinion in the Hobby Lobby case. There is just one problem: Justice Alito denies this allegation. The individual who allegedly was the conduit for the leak denies it ever happened. Even the media admits there are holes in the story. Politico said this: We spent several months attempting to corroborate the allegation but was unable to locate anyone who heard about the decision directly from Alito or his wife before the release of the case. The New York Times reported that there are ``gaps'' in the allegation. The New York Times is the one who broke the story. They reported there are gaps in this allegation about a leak from Justice Alito 8 years ago. Gaps in an allegation. Do you know what that is? That is liberal-speak for that story doesn't add up. But the Democrats are determined to not let the truth get in the way of their story and their intimidation tactics on the Court. This is not the way we are supposed to operate. I hope that we can vote this bill down. I hope it does not pass because I think it is dangerous and takes the country in the wrong direction. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Virginia (Mr. Good).

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the great State of Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I would just first say, the previous speaker talked about being out of step with the American people. Are you kidding me? The Democrats are the party who think men can use women's restrooms; the Democrats are the party who think boys can participate in girls' sports; the Democrats are the party who think you can take the life of an unborn child right up until their birthday; and the Democrats are the party who actually had a witness in committee who said that she thought men could get pregnant. And we are the ones who are out of step? You have got to be kidding me. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Florida (Mr. Mast).

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

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

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 reserve the balance of my time.

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 reserve the balance of my time.

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 reserve the balance of my time.