Jim Jordan

Mr. JORDAN

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

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

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 reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN

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

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' First, as the gentleman from North Carolina said, this bill is redundant. There are 1,400 alerting authorities across the country that already alert citizens in those communities to an active shooter, so it is redundant. Second, it does seek to undermine the Second Amendment. Don't take my word for it. Take one of the Democrat supporters of the legislation on the Judiciary Committee. Here is what he said: 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. You have to view it in context. Remember, the last 4 weeks, all Democrats have talked about is taking away people's Second Amendment liberties. We have this huge debate going on in the Senate right now, red flag laws where you have no due process. Someone who doesn't like you comes and says, ``We are going to take away so-and-so's firearm,'' and goes to a judge or law enforcement to take away their firearm. There is a hearing you are not allowed to be at. They take it away, and then you have to go get it back. Your fundamental liberty, taking your property, your rights from you, this is the context with which they bring this legislation. The third reason, I don't know who in their right mind would want to give the Department of Justice more authority in light of what we have seen from this Department of Justice. Frankly, I don't know why you would give any Democrat-run Department of Justice more authority after what we have seen from the Obama Justice Department and now what we see from the Biden Justice Department. The Obama Justice Department spied on Presidential campaigns. The Biden Department of Justice is treating moms and dads as terrorists, using domestic terrorism, counterterrorism measures, the PATRIOT Act, against parents, for goodness sakes. We know that because we have had multiple FBI agents come forward as whistleblowers and tell us about the over two dozen investigations into parents. One of those parents was investigated simply because they owned a firearm. That is the context and why we have concerns with this legislation. I hope we vote ``no'' on this. More importantly, I hope the Senate doesn't pass this package they are talking about, which would certainly undermine liberties of law-abiding American citizens. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, such irony. Democrats lecturing Republicans on law enforcement and respect for law enforcement. This from the party who spent an entire summer talking about defunding the police, who had elected officials in this body, Democrats in this body, raise money to bail out the rioters and looters who they called peaceful protesters who were attacking police, and now he is going to lecture Republicans on respect for law enforcement. I mean, you can't make it up. This is how the Democrats operate today. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I would point out, we are not trying to hide behind the Second Amendment--we are trying to defend it. We are defending it. It is an important part of our Bill of Rights, an important part of our Constitution. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie), no better defender of the Second Amendment, and the co-chair of the Second Amendment Caucus.

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

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

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop), my friend.

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

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Active Shooter Alert Act is unnecessary. It gives more authority to the Biden Justice Department, the most political Justice Department in history. 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 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 are more than 1,400 alerting authorities across the country. If the States are already using an alerting system to notify the public about imminent threats, what is this bill really doing? What is this bill really about? This bill is creating a new Federal job at the Biden DOJ to encourage State and local governments to issue public alerts any time a firearm is used to threaten anyone anywhere. Don't take my word for it. During the markup, Congressman Jones admitted 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 fear-mongering that guns are ever-present threats, and we cannot be safe until Big Government rounds up every last gun. In fact, Congressman Jones went further and called on the committee to consider another bill that would ban assault weapons. The Democrat chair of the committee followed up by voicing his support for that very concept. No wonder the Democrats want to push forward a bill that will create a reminder that ``the threat of gun violence exists all around us.'' They want to create a culture of fear so they can achieve their ultimate goal, which is getting rid of the Second Amendment. If they really wanted to improve emergency alerts for active shooters, we would be moving a bill to improve the IPAWS wireless emergency alerts that are sent to mobile devices. In a recent report, GAO stated that local alerting officials had expressed concerns about the inability to target WEA alerts with accuracy, which made local officials reluctant to even use the system at all. They have got a system out there. Let's improve the system and alert people to emergencies, not have legislation that is about ultimately undermining the Second Amendment. We could have had hearings. We could have received expert testimony. We could have been able to fully vet this initiative. This legislation is simply another failed attempt by Democrats to ``do something'' about the surge in violence and crime across the country. If we need to do something, we should start by supporting law enforcement and the rule of law instead of demonizing our police and actively encouraging illegal entry into this country. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the NDO Fairness Act is a significant step in addressing the government's overreach and abuse of nondisclosure orders, also known as gag orders. All too often, the government obtains a court order to secretly demand the communications of American citizens from third-party tech companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Verizon. Through these orders, the government blocks these companies from alerting their customers or users that the government is looking through their emails and phone records. In other words, you don't get to know. The frequency with which the government uses these orders to demand information is shocking. One company received 2,400 to 3,500 orders every year between 2016 and 2021. That is 7 to 10 orders every day-- every single day. Some of those orders do not contain an expiration. That means the government is authorized to spy on Americans' private information indefinitely. Think about that, Madam Speaker. You may never know that the government accessed and snooped on your most intimate information. More astoundingly, these nondisclosure orders are often approved by a rubberstamp process for routine investigations without any real showing of the need for secrecy. This bipartisan bill ensures that our rights enshrined in the Constitution are protected from government overreach. The bill requires courts to issue written decisions as to why orders are necessary. It sets a 60-day limit for such orders and allows providers to challenge unjustified orders in a court of law. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' 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, the bill is simple. Under current law, it is a crime to issue threats against former Presidents' immediate family and certain other persons. Specifically, this bill replaces the words ``wife'' and ``widow'' with ``spouse'' and ``surviving spouse.'' Both major parties have had women run for President, and this change makes sense. But while we are dedicating floor time to consider this minor technical change, President Biden's inflation has hit a 40-year high; his border crisis has left our Nation woefully unsecure; and leftwing defund the police actions have contributed to a crime wave that is plaguing our cities. Of course, this bill makes sense. It should be a crime to threaten the President or First Family. No one disagrees with that. But this body needs to get its priorities straight. Where is the legislation to address the crisis at the border, or address the crime wave, or to do anything meaningful about inflation or the price at the pump? The bill is fine, but I hope that House Democrats will spend some time addressing the real issues that face the American people. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, that is why Republicans have condemned violence every single time it happened. We condemned it when it happened on January 6. But guess what? We also condemned it when it happened in the summer of 2020. It hasn't been a few weeks since the leak of the draft opinion. It has been 6 weeks. The Senate passed this legislation unanimously, and they wouldn't bring it up. They wouldn't bring it up. In fact, the Speaker of the House, as I said before, the Speaker of the House said last week there was no need to bring it up, but now we are going to. Thank goodness for that. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), my friend.

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

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

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me say this. Reading from a headline here, this group, Ruth Sent Us, ``. . . hinted at targeting Supreme Court Justice Barrett's children, church.'' Let me read the headline here. ``Group gave details on Barrett's routine, her children's school, and family's spiritual life.'' In plain English, this group was saying where Justice Coney Barrett goes each day, where her kids go to school, and where her family goes to church. They gave those details. Last week, the Democrats said no one is in danger. After an assassination attempt on Justice Barrett's colleague, Justice Kavanaugh, they said not to worry. Everything is fine. We don't need to pass this legislation after the Senate had done it unanimously. That is the position of the Democrats in this body. That is why we are saying: Why did it take so long? Six weeks ago was when the draft leak happened, and the protests started at Justices' homes almost immediately after the leak of that draft, that unprecedented leak of that draft opinion. They have been doing it now for weeks and weeks and weeks. Here is the email from this organization, this Ruth Sent Us organization. Here is one of the messages: ``If you are in the D.C. metro area, join us. Our protests at Barrett's home moved the needle to this coverage. Falls Church is a People of Praise stronghold. She sends her seven kids to a People of Praise school that she sat on the board of directors for. She attends church daily,'' as if that is bad to go to church daily. I think that is a good thing. But this is what they are saying, this group, giving the details of where her kids go to school, where they go to church, and her daily routine. And the Democrats said: Nothing to worry about. That is our concern. So thank goodness this bill is here. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, why did it take so long? Why did it take so long to bring this legislation to the floor? It has been over a month since the leak of the draft opinion, over a month of threats on Supreme Court Justices and their families, over a month of protests at their homes. Why did it take so long? I mean, the protests at their homes are a direct violation of the law, 18 U.S.C. section 1507. Over a month. It has been over a week, or actually a week, since an assassination attempt on a Supreme Court Justice, on Justice Kavanaugh. Think about that for a second. An assassination attempt on a sitting United States Supreme Court Justice. And what did the Speaker of the House say last week? No one is in danger. No rush on this legislation. No concern here. The Senate passed this bill a month ago. Why hasn't the House? Why did it take so long? I think the answer is obvious. Because they have always wanted to intimidate the Court. That has been their goal since the get-go. Their goal was to intimidate the Court. That has been their objective all along. Think about the history first. We had the Kavanaugh confirmation mess where the left has made up things about Justice Kavanaugh and his family. Then we had the leader of the Senate, the Democrat leader of the Senate on the Supreme Court steps say to two Justices, Mr. Kavanaugh and Mr. Gorsuch: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. Last April, the Democrat chair of the Judiciary Committee introduced legislation to do what? To pack the Court, to add four Associate Justices to the United States Supreme Court. Why four? Why not one? Why not two? Why not three? Why four? Because four would give them a majority on the Court. Then there was the sustained attack on Justice Thomas and his wife over the last several weeks. The Democrats on the Judiciary Committee even had hearings about Justice Thomas. Then, of course, there was the leak of the draft opinion itself, something that has never happened. And then there were the protests at Supreme Court Justices' homes, again in direct violation of the statute. And then, finally, there was the hearing the Democrats had in the Judiciary Committee about the abortion issue while the Dobbs decision is pending in front of the Court. You remember that hearing. That was the one where the Democrat witness said men could get pregnant. That is the history here. And then, of course, last week, we had an assassination attempt on Justice Kavanaugh. Intimidation is their goal. It is the same reason the Department of Homeland Security stood up the Disinformation Governance Board. It is the same reason the Department of Justice is targeting parents who have the nerve to show up at a school board meeting and speak up for their kids. It is all about intimidation. That is how the left operates, and we have seen it play out now against the Supreme Court. But the good news is, finally, this bill is going to pass and give the Justices of the highest Court in our land the protection they and their families deserve. I say better late than never. We support this legislation. It should have passed a darn long time ago. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We condemned what took place on January 6. It would have been nice if Democrats would have done the same thing in the summer of 2020 or passed this legislation 6 weeks ago or a month ago when the Senate passed it. Let me just recite a few things here that have been said by our colleagues on the other side. Former Attorney General Eric Holder said in 2018, at a campaign event in Georgia, to kick Republicans. ``No. No. When they go low, we kick them.'' That is what this new Democratic Party is about. It sure is. It is all about intimidation: intimidating the court, intimidating parents who have the nerve to show up at school board meetings, setting up a Disinformation Governance Board to intimidate free speech rights of all Americans. That is what the new Democratic Party is about. We have seen it time and time again. In the summer of 2018, we saw one of our colleagues from California, a Democrat Member, say: Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from the Trump Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, out in a crowd, you create a crowd and push back on them, and you tell them--think about this. This is a Member of Congress saying this to a Cabinet member--you tell them they are not welcome anymore, anywhere. A Cabinet member of the administration not welcome in their own darn country? That is what a Member of Congress said on the Democrat side. We had another Member of Congress on the Democrat side say this: There needs to be ``unrest on the streets,'' calling for unrest on the streets while there was unrest on the streets in the summer of 2020. That is why this legislation is so darn important and why we cannot figure out--the gentleman just said something that wasn't accurate. The Speaker of the House last week said no one is in danger. I just read you what they are posting about Justice Coney Barrett and her family and where they go to church and where her seven kids go to school. Of course, this is in the context of everything they have done to intimidate the Court and an assassination attempt on another Justice, Justice Kavanaugh. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, the employees of the Supreme Court are already protected. This is about protecting the Justices' families, and we know that is needed based on the headline I read and the email that Mr. Bishop just talked about. The gentleman said that Democrats condemn violence. No, they don't. No, they don't. They called rioters and looters the entire summer of 2020, they called them ``peaceful protestors.'' And that same summer, then-Senator now-Vice President Harris raised money to bail those rioters and looters and people who went after the police out of jail. So you have got to stick with the facts here, and that is just not accurate what was stated earlier. For all the reasons we have highlighted, Madam Speaker, we are glad this bill is finally going to pass. We just wish it would have happened when it should have, weeks and weeks ago when this threat was first present for Supreme Court Justices. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.