Jim Jordan

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, what is Congress doing today? What is the people's House--under the Democrat majority--what is the House of Representatives up to today? Passing a bill to prohibit conduct that is already unlawful under the law. Discrimination based on hairstyle is already unlawful. That is what the Congress, what the House of Representatives, is going to pass today. Think about it. That is the priority today when we have gone in literally 1 year's time from a secure border to complete chaos. Two million illegal crossings in 1 year on our border. In fact, we don't really have a border. We have gone from safe streets to record crime in every major urban area in 1 year's time. They are focused on a bill to make conduct that is already unlawful, unlawful again, I guess. We went from energy independence to the spectacle of the President of the United States begging OPEC to increase production. We have gone from stable prices to a 40-year high inflation rate, and Democrats are focused on this bill. This past summer we had the debacle that was the exit from Afghanistan. As we speak, the Ukrainian people are fighting for their lives, and Democrats are passing a bill to prohibit conduct already unlawful under Federal law, a bill that says you can't discriminate based on hairstyle, which is already unlawful. We have had a year now where Democrats attack every liberty we enjoy under the First Amendment, every single one. There are still some locations in America where a full congregation cannot meet on a Sunday morning. There are some places where you still can't assemble and can't petition. The Democrats have kept the Capitol closed to the American people, their own darn Capitol. How are you supposed to come in and petition your Member to redress your grievances if you are not even allowed in your Capitol that your tax dollars pay for? Of course, we know what they have done to freedom of speech and the attacks there. Their focus today is on this bill. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote. Let's focus on the issues that I think the vast majority of the American people want us to focus on like crime, like the 40-year high inflation rate, like the border problem, and like the fact that we were an energy independent country just a few months back. Let's focus on those issues. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. JORDAN

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

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I would just say that I hope we do have a unanimous vote and support this good piece of legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN

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

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota for her great work here in the Congress and for yielding time. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. We all know that sexual assault and harassment are as wrong as wrong can be. Victims of sexual harassment and sexual assault must have their claims heard. They must never be silenced or intimidated into silence. But the outrage we rightly feel on behalf of these victims does not mean we should rush to pass a bill that could leave many of them worse off. In the Judiciary Committee, we heard from experts about why this bill's approach is misguided. For example, some of the bill's supporters repeatedly claim that arbitration is what keeps victims from publicizing their experiences or going to authorities and law enforcement. But arbitration is not automatically secret or otherwise confidential. Agreeing to resolve a case outside of court is different from agreeing to silence. Arbitration does not prevent anyone from speaking out. Anyone who has agreed to arbitrate may still go to authorities and law enforcement to report the wrongdoing, and well they should. There is an important distinction between agreeing to arbitrate and agreeing to silence. This distinction matters because much of the push for this legislation comes from concerns about secrecy rather than from an honest assessment of whether arbitration advances justice. Yet despite the focus on secrecy, the text of this bill never actually addresses confidentiality or nondisclosure agreements. Another key talking point for supporters of this legislation is that it gives plaintiffs more choice over how to resolve disputes, but that is not how arbitration works. Giving one party the unilateral ability to cancel a two-way agreement to arbitrate will functionally take the option to arbitrate completely off the table. For one thing, contracts will be far less likely to include an option to arbitrate in the first place now. For another, we know that if parties can't agree in advance to arbitrate, then they are unlikely to agree to arbitrate after there has been a dispute. As a result, the plaintiff may never get to arbitration. More often than not, victims do not have deep pockets or the potential for large-sum litigation settlements like those that are available to high-profile figures. This bill will cause these women to lose the potential benefits of arbitration. Lawsuits are normally long and costly, and companies often have enough money to vigorously defend these claims. These lawsuits are an ordeal for victims who, in a normal case, must undergo discovery, give depositions, and may even need to give public testimony. The rules of litigation may make it much harder for victims to tell their stories in their own words and get the relief they deserve. Arbitration can be a welcomed alternative to the rigors and trauma of litigation, but Democrats want to pretend that this bill won't limit access to arbitration for victims of assault. In reality, the bill is more about empowering the trial bar than actual victims. As drafted, the text gives trial lawyers every incentive to craft complaints and allege sexual harassment or assault to get whole cases out of arbitration and into court. Ultimately, this bill will empower the plaintiffs' bar in ways that some of its supporters may not intend but that Democrats and trial lawyers certainly do. For years, Democrats have pursued plaintiffs' lawyers' wish to gut arbitration agreements for all kinds of different claims. If Democrats and the trial bar had their way, everyone from consumers of financial services, to civil rights plaintiffs, to those with antitrust claims and others would be forced into court even if they would rather agree to arbitrate at the outset. Don't be fooled. What is best for plaintiffs' lawyers is not always what is best for plaintiffs. Let's ensure whatever legislative vehicle we use actually makes things better. I am very concerned about this legislation and how it will actually play out for victims in practice and for the adverse consequences it could have. Madam Speaker, for those reasons, I would urge that we oppose the bill.

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday I attended the funeral of former Congressman Clarence J. ``Bud'' Brown, Jr., in Ohio. As a result, I was absent from the House floor during that day's two roll call votes. Had I been present, I would have voted no on Roll Call No. 16, ordering the previous question on H. Res. 900, and no on Roll Call No. 17, agreeing to H. Res. 900.

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats have objected to counting the Presidential electors every single time this century a Republican has been elected President. They spent 4 years trying to overturn the 2016 election. Democrats spied on a Presidential campaign, they did impeachment in secret based on a so-called whistleblower, whose identity only Congressman Schiff got to know. This Congress they have closed the Capitol, enacted proxy voting, kicked Republicans off committees, and for the first time in American history denied Republicans seats on a select committee that was chosen by the minority leader. They are trying to make D.C. a State, end the electoral college, end the filibuster, pack the Court, destroy executive privilege, take Federal control of elections, and are currently allowing in jurisdictions illegal immigrants to vote. And finally, the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol has altered evidence and lied to the American people about it. But somehow, they tell us it is President Trump and Republicans who are undermining democracy? Give me a break. Undermining democracy because we actually think you should show a photo ID when you go to vote? In 1 year's time, while Democrats are doing all that, in 1 year's time they have given us record crime, record inflation, record illegal immigration. And as bad as all that is, it is not the worst. The worst is how they have used the virus to attack our freedoms, how they have used the virus to attack our First Amendment rights. And here is the irony: They used the virus to attack our liberties, even though everything they have told us about the virus has been wrong. They told us it didn't come from a lab. They told us it wasn't gain- of-function research. They told us it was only 15 days to slow the spread. They told us masks worked. They told us we have a Federal plan. Joe Biden said that himself. They have told us there would never be a vaccine mandate. They told us people who get vaccinated can't get the virus, the vaccinated can't transmit the virus, and they told us there was no such thing as natural immunity. Think about this: At the same time Democrats require you to put on a mask, show your papers and an ID to get a Big Mac at McDonald's, they want to allow the Federal Government to stop States from requiring a photo ID to vote. This is ridiculous. Vote ``no'' on this legislation.

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, Democrats prevent Republicans from serving on the select committee. Democrats kick Republicans off standing committees. Democrats try to make D.C. a State. Democrats try to end the filibuster. They try to pack the court. They do secret impeachment hearings in the bunker of the basement of the Capitol. And they just said a naval veteran is afraid of the truth. Now, today, they are destroying executive privilege. The United States Supreme Court held those who assist the President must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way that many would be unwilling to do, except privately. The Court further stated Presidential administrations of both parties have asserted that the President's close advisers are an extension of the President. Who are these close advisers? Who are these individuals who are an extension of the President of the United States? Well, there are actually a bunch, but certainly, the three most important are the National Security Advisor, the White House counsel, and the chief of staff to the President. I would argue the chief of staff is the closest of the close. He is the one who spends more time with the Commander in Chief than anyone else. Now, why do we have this privilege? Why do we have it? Why is the decisionmaking process between the President and his closest advisers a private matter? Why is that? Well, guess what, the Supreme Court told us the answer to that one, too. Executive privilege serves ``the necessity for protection of the public interest in candid, objective, and even . . . harsh opinions in Presidential decisionmaking.'' Let me just say that again: Executive privilege serves the public interest. It is for us. It is for we the people. It is not for President Trump. It is not for Mark Meadows. It is not for any President. It is not for any chief of staff. It is for the country. But the Democrats are not going to worry about that. They are going to forget about that because they think this is good politics. They think this is all about politics. They used to care. They used to care about executive privilege. When Republicans wanted information during the Fast and Furious scandal, President Obama asserted executive privilege for bureaucrats at the ATF and DOJ. Think about it. A bureaucrat in a Federal agency gets privilege but not the chief of staff to the President? Because Mark Meadows worked for President Trump, and Democrats have been out to get President Trump before he ever took office when they first tried to spy on him, and actually did spy on him, in 2016. They are going to destroy this precedent even though this very question is in front of the courts as we speak. They are going to destroy this precedent that has been around since 1794 when our first President first asserted it. And for what? What did Mark Meadows do? He gave the committee thousands of emails; he gave the committee thousands of text messages; and he agreed to come in front of the committee and answer any question as long as it didn't violate executive privilege; the privilege that is not his to waive but belongs to the President; the privilege that the Court said is critical to executive decisionmaking; the privilege that exists for the benefit of we the people; and the privilege that has been around since George Washington asserted it. But Democrats say: No, not good enough, Mr. Meadows. You have to come in and answer any and every question we ask you, or we are going to try to put you in prison. It is so disgusting. Think about it. We weren't allowed to know who the so-called anonymous whistleblower was when they tried to impeach President Trump, did impeach President Trump, but Democrats can destroy executive privilege? The country wasn't allowed to know what took place in that bunker in the basement of the Capitol during impeachment, but they get to know any and everything they want about conversations between the President and his top adviser. This is so wrong. Democrats on the select committee also can't make up their minds. With Steve Bannon, they said: You have to appear in person to assert any privilege. And because he didn't come, they held him in contempt. With Jeff Clark, they said to come in person, assert privilege, which he did, and they said, no, that is not good enough. And they held him in contempt. Now, with Mark Meadows, he gave them thousands of documents and agreed to come, and they still said not good enough. What a charade. Make no mistake, when Democrats vote in favor of this resolution, it is a vote to put a good man in prison. Don't pretend to argue, either. Don't even attempt the argument: No, no, no, this is just the House acting; the Justice Department will make a decision whether to prosecute or not. Come on. Is there anyone who believes that? It took the Attorney General all of 5 days to treat parents as terrorists, all of 5 days. If a leftwing political group can write the White House asking the Department of Justice to use the PATRIOT Act against moms and dads and 5 days later the Attorney General of the United States does just that, then what do you think he is going to do when 225 Democrats in the House of Representatives ask him to put President Trump's chief of staff in prison? I have been in Congress for a while, 15 years. I have seen Democrats weaponize the government to attack their political opponents. Ten years ago, they used the IRS to target good people around this country, good, conservative people. Five years ago, they abused the FISA process and used the FBI to spy on President Trump's campaign. Two months ago, the Department of Justice used the Counterterrorism Division at the FBI to put a threat tag, a label, a designation, on parents who had the gall to go speak up at school board meetings and defend their kids, speak out against some crazy curriculum. Now, they are destroying executive privilege. Now, they are attacking that. This might be the worst, destroying a precedent that has been around since George Washington and treating Mark Meadows as a criminal. Mark Meadows is our former colleague. He is a good man, and he is my friend. This is as wrong as it gets. I think, deep down, everyone knows it. I think they know it as well. They know this is wrong. We have all served with this guy. He has done more work with Democrats than probably any Republican. We all know what a good man he is. This is as wrong as it gets. Madam Speaker, they all know it, but their lust for power, their lust to get their opponents, is so intense, they don't care. I hope they reconsider. I hope we don't take this action.

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, Americans want safer streets, affordable gas, and freedom. Instead, Democrats give us record crime levels, record inflation, and another bill attacking President Trump sponsored by the guy who spent years misleading the Congress and, more importantly, the country on the Trump-Russia investigation, on the Mueller investigation, and on impeachments. Remember when the sponsor of the bill said that his office didn't meet with the whistleblower? Found out that wasn't true. Remember when the sponsor of the bill told us that we would hear from the whistleblower during impeachment; we would actually have real process instead of having hearings and depositions in the basement in the bunker of the Capitol? Remember when the sponsor told us this: There was more than circumstantial evidence that President Trump colluded with Russia? That turned out to be false. Bob Mueller said it was false. Everyone knew it was false. In fact, it was such baloney, even The Washington Post has had to retract and change things from stories because they said, oh, yeah, yeah, there was a lot of false information in that dossier that they used to go spy on President Trump's campaign. And I think this is important to understand. The sponsor of this legislation wasn't just any Member of Congress, Mr. Speaker. He wasn't just any chairman of a committee in Congress. He was the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, the committee that gets additional information from anyone else in the country, making those claims that were not accurate. So maybe, instead of having another bill that attacks President Trump because Democrats are afraid he is going to run and he is going to win in 2024, so they want to do everything they can to attack him--maybe instead of another bill attacking President Trump, we should actually focus on things that the American people care about. You know, you can attack President Trump all you want. I know one thing: A year ago, the border was secure. It sure was. A year ago, cities were safe, safer than they are today. A year ago, we didn't have a 31-year high inflation. We actually had wages going up, real wages. A year ago, we didn't have a Department of Justice, attacking moms and dads, putting a label, a designation, a threat tag on parents who simply go to school board meetings and speak out against a racist, hate-America curriculum. No, we didn't have that a year ago. But you guys can keep attacking the President all you want; not addressing the issues that the American people care about. We are going to speak about the issues they care about. We are going to try to do everything we can to slow down your crazy agenda that is driving up the price of everything. And we are going to speak out against and do everything we can to make sure the Department of Justice quits attacking parents. God bless the whistleblower that came forward and gave us the information sent from the Counterterrorism Division of the FBI. We could be dealing with that issue today. We could be holding the Attorney General accountable, the Justice Department accountable for what they are doing. No, no, no. We are going to attack President Trump again. Democrats, that is the only thing they can do because they can't talk about anything else. I hope we defeat this bill.

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The chairman of the Rules Committee said Republicans want to blame Joe Biden for everything. I am not blaming Joe Biden for everything; the American people are. Right-track, wrong-track polling says 71 percent of our fellow citizens think our country is on the wrong track. I am not blaming Joe Biden; they are, the people we represent. Approval rating is 38 percent, and the Vice President's approval is 28 percent. In the history of polling for Vice President and President, I don't know if I have ever seen anything that low. It is the American people who are fed up with what they see. The gentleman who chairs the Rules Committee said: What are they for? I will tell you what we are for. I will tell you what Republicans are for. I will tell you what the American people are for. We are actually for a secure border. Imagine that. We are for lower prices. We actually would like to have real wages be going up like they were under President Trump. We would like to have a secure border like we had under President Trump. We would actually like less crime in our urban areas like we had under President Trump. We would like to be energy independent like we were just 10 months ago. We would kind of like not to have the spectacle of the President of the United States begging OPEC to increase production at the same time your policies in this bill would discourage American companies from increasing production. What do you guys want, $8 a gallon gasoline? I will tell you what we are for. We are for a Department of Justice that doesn't target parents, doesn't target moms and dads for standing up and saying we don't want this racist curriculum, anti-American curriculum, taught to our kids. I will tell you what we are for. We are actually for not raising taxes on American families. That is what we are for. That is what American families want. They like to keep the money they earn, be able to put gas in their car, buy Christmas presents for their family, afford the things that just 10 months ago they could. Ten months ago, it was so much different. That is what we are for.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, in 10 months we have gone from a secure border to complete chaos. We don't have a border anymore. We don't. We now have what Secretary Clinton said she wanted when she ran for President 5 years ago. We have a borderless hemisphere. You don't believe it? Just look at the numbers. March was the highest month on record for illegal crossings at our southern border, the highest month on record until April, and then April was the highest month on record until May, and then May was the highest month on record until June. June was the highest month on record until July, when there were 212,000 illegal encounters on our southern border. This past month it went all the way down to 164,000. 1.7 million this year alone. A record. And guess what? Thousands more in a caravan are on their way. And all the terrible things that happen in these caravans are there because of the policies of the Biden administration and the Democrats who control the Federal Government. But don't worry. Don't worry. Secretary Mayorkas said this, ``The border is closed. The border is secure.'' If the effects and what happens to kids and families on these treks wasn't so serious, if it wasn't so bad, you would almost have to laugh because there is no way anyone can describe the border as closed and the border as secure. In this big spending bill, this $2 trillion monstrosity, what is the Democrats' response to that chaotic situation on our border? Amnesty for over 6 million people who are in our country illegally. Think about that. That is their response. Oh, and don't forget--don't forget what the Justice Department is getting ready to do. When they are not spying on parents, when they are not treating parents as a domestic terrorist threat, our Justice Department is getting ready to pay people who illegally entered our country $450,000. I mean, you can't make this stuff up. It is why people all across this country are just throwing their hands up. What is going on? The cost of the immigration policies in this legislation are almost half a trillion dollars over the next 20 years. Half a trillion dollars. But, again, don't worry, Joe Biden says that half a trillion dollars in spending on immigration policies and all the other spending in this bill is going to help the inflation problem. There is not a rational, sane person on the planet who believes that. And why the President of the United States would make such a statement is beyond me. Record high inflation. The highest we have had in 31 years, and Joe Biden says spending half a trillion over 20 years on immigration policies in this legislation and all the other spending is going to lower inflation. Let's defeat the previous question. When it comes up, let's defeat the rule. And for goodness' sake, I hope we will vote down this bill, which is only going to exacerbate the already terrible situation we have seen. Every single policy that has come from the Biden administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress has been harmful to American families. We have gone, as I said, from a secure border to chaos. We have gone from energy independence to the spectacle of the President of the United States begging OPEC to increase production. We went from relatively safe cities to crime going up in every major urban area in this country, and we went from stable prices to a 31-year high in inflation. You want to buy a home? It is going to cost more. You want to rent an apartment? It is going to cost more. Put food on the table? It is going to cost more. Put gas in your car? It is going to cost more. Thanksgiving turkey is going to cost more. Christmas presents for your family are going to cost more in Joe Biden's America. This bill is so bad. Vote down the previous question, vote down the rule, vote down this bill for the good of the families of this great Nation.

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, as we speak, the FBI is treating parents as terrorists. The Department of Justice is getting ready to pay people $450,000 who illegally entered our country. And Democrats in Congress later this week plan to spend $2 trillion more, which we all know will only exacerbate the already 30-year-high inflation. What are they doing today? Censuring a Member for a cartoon. You have got to be kidding me. You have got to be kidding me. What scares me most about all of this is the attack that we have seen on the First Amendment over the last year from the left, from the Democratic Party. They are attacking moms for standing up and speaking at a school board meeting. There are still places in this country where a full congregation cannot meet on a Sunday morning, stopping Americans from exercising their First Amendment freedom of religion rights. The Speaker of the House stopped Americans from petitioning their Member of Congress to redress their grievances and wouldn't even let them in their own Capitol. Now, here we go again, censuring speech. The most fundamental liberty we have is our right to speak, our right to talk, our right to communicate, and they are going after that today because they don't like freedom. You can see it. They don't like it. This is wrong. We know it is wrong, what they are doing to our colleague, Mr. Gosar. I hope they will have second thoughts and that we will vote this down.

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I am proud to recognize David Taylor for his outstanding wrestling performance at the Tokyo Olympic Games. At the age of 8, David wrote down three goals: Win four high school state titles, win four college national championships, and win Olympic gold. Even at this young age, he had his mind set on objectives that would take countless hours of practice and dedication to accomplish. David wasted no time on his mission, amassing an impressive 180-2 high school record, including four state championships, and graduated with a 4.0 grade point average from my alma mater, Graham High School in St. Paris, Ohio. He would then go on to become one of the most decorated wrestlers in Penn State University's history: Four Big Ten championships, a four-time finalist and two-time NCAA National Champion, and twice the winner of the Dan Hodge Trophy, given to the undisputed best college wrestler in the nation. He then fixed his eyes on his final objective: Winning Olympic gold. With 17 seconds remaining in the gold medal match in Tokyo, Taylor scored a two-point takedown to give him his 52nd straight victory in international matches. David said afterward: ``You've got to want it. You've got to want to be here.'' David married the love of his life, Kendra, five years ago. Last month, on September 16, they welcomed baby Ivy into the world. David's parents, Dave and Kathy, currently reside in Chattanooga. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the people of Ohio's Fourth Congressional District, I am honored to celebrate David's accomplishments, his dedication to the sport of wrestling, his integrity and work ethic, and his outstanding contributions to the Olympic tradition. We wish him all the best in the future.

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Look, we have seen the worst 10 months of any administration in history. We went from a secure border to chaos. We went from safe streets to violent crime. We have seen stable prices turn into inflation and empty shelves. The respect around the world we had has now turned into the debacle that was the exit from Afghanistan. And we went from peace in the Middle East with the Abraham Accords to thousands of rockets being fired on our friend and ally, Israel; not to mention, energy independence to now the spectacle of the President of the United States begging OPEC to increase production. But what scares me most is what this administration and Democrats are doing to freedom. Every right we enjoy under the First Amendment has been assaulted over the last year. Your right to practice faith. There are still places today in the country where a full congregation can't meet on Sunday morning. Your right to petition your government, your right to assemble, freedom of the press, freedom of speech--every single one has been attacked. We just learned in the Judiciary Committee from the Attorney General that the National School Boards Association last month, September 29, sends a letter to the President of the United States asking the FBI to get involved in local school board matters. Five days later, the Attorney General issues a memo to do just that. The first sentence of the Attorney General's memo says this: In recent months, there has been a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats at school board meetings. We asked him a simple question: What is the evidence for a spike in threats? What is the data? What did you review? Guess what his answer was. His only evidence, the only thing he reviewed, was the letter from the school boards association, from a political organization. Now, they are going to target parents at school board meetings. And we have the January 6 committee issuing subpoena after subpoena. Eleven of the people they have issued subpoenas to were names on an application asking the government for permission to hold a rally. Individuals exercising their First Amendment right to assemble, asked the government for permission, the government granted them permission, and now these 20- and 30-year-olds, whose names are on that application, they are going to be deposed by these guys for simply exercising their First Amendment right. Here is what they are asking them, we want to know who the speakers were and how were they selected. We want to know any communications these people--who put their names on a permit, got permission from the government--we want to know any Member of Congress you talked to. Wow. Your right to petition your government, that is why they are subpoenaing these people? This is scary, where they want to go. These questions--coordination of speakers, discussions of contents-- this sounds like what the IRS did to people 10 years ago when they were asking 501(c) groups applying for tax-exempt status, do you pray at the start of your meeting? First, it is school boards, then it is people applying for a permit. We saw what the IRS did to people just a few years ago; not to mention what else the committee is doing; preservation letters to all of the carriers, all of the companies; preserve every call, every email, every text. Think about that. Every call someone made to--hundreds and hundreds, supposedly, according to news reports. They have done this for texts to your spouse, calls to your mom. Preserve it all. And this is just what we know about. This is just what has been reported. And now Steve Bannon. Now Steve Bannon. Mr. Bannon is a target of the investigation, for the investigation, because--and this is the select committee's own report--``His efforts to plan political activity.'' That is the standard. If you are involved in political activity, they are going to investigate you. We know what this is really about. This is about getting at President Trump. They tried to stop President Trump before he was even elected with the Russia investigation; tried to remove President Trump from office twice while he was in office. And now they are trying to get him after the fact, after he has left, all because this guy cut taxes, reduced regulation, gave us the greatest economy in 50 years, lowest unemployment, all because he built the wall, got us out of the Iran deal, put the embassy in Jerusalem. When President Trump was President, Americans got their Christmas presents on time. But they are coming after him. The Reuters story said this: The FBI has found no evidence that President Trump, or people directly around him, were involved in organizing the violence. They don't care. They don't care that the FBI has no evidence. The Senate report said no evidence of a coordinated plan. They don't care. They are going to drag these 11 people in for depositions with subpoenas, because they are so determined to get their political enemies.

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, the Central Ohio Area Agency on Aging will host its 45th annual Central Ohio Senior Citizens Hall of Fame induction ceremony on October 6 in Columbus. I am honored to commend to the House one of this year's inductees: William McCarthy of Marysville. Bill is a mainstay of the Marysville community. He started working at Wolgamot's Drug Store in 1949, the same year he graduated from Marysville High School. He then earned his pharmacy degree from Ohio Northern University, after which he purchased a share in Wolgamot's. In 1971, after buying out the last of his partners, he renamed it McCarthy Pharmacy. McCarthy Pharmacy was a downtown Marysville landmark for many years, famous for its five-cent coffee. Bill met his wife, Ruth, in 1949 while working at the pharmacy. They shared 63 years of marriage until her passing in 2016. They were long- time members of Trinity Lutheran Church and committed delivery drivers for Meals on Wheels programs in Marysville and Plain City. Bill continues to serve Marysville in many ways, including as a member of the G.L. Kingsmore Scholarship Committee. He is proud to be a 33rd degree Mason. Madam Speaker, selection for the Central Ohio Senior Citizens Hall of Fame is a high honor accorded to seniors who have devoted their lives to serving others. I am pleased to join in the accolades for Bill McCarthy on his induction and thank the Central Ohio Area Agency on Aging for recognizing his many sacrifices--and those of all of this year's inductees.

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Hospital Corpsman Maxton William ``Max'' Soviak of the United States Navy, who made the ultimate sacrifice while securing safe passage for his fellow Americans in Afghanistan on August 26. Max grew up in Berlin Heights, part of the Fourth District of Ohio. He attended Edison High School, where he played for the football team and was a member of the State championship wrestling team. His proudest decision, according to his family, was to enlist as a Devil Doc in the Navy after high school. A Devil Doc's mission is to perform lifesaving work even as unknown dangers advance. Amid the deteriorating security conditions at Hamid Karzai Airport in Kabul, with the likelihood of an attack increasing, Max stood at the gates to help evacuate American citizens and our Afghan allies. Throughout his career, and especially during his service in Afghanistan, Max embodied the words of the Corpsman's Pledge: ``I shall do all within my power to show in myself an example of all that is honorable and good.'' Mr. Speaker, Maxton Soviak is an American hero who will never be forgotten. He served his Nation bravely and honorably. We will never be able to repay his sacrifice, but we must always remember it.

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, who has the right to close?

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, we already have laws that prohibit the United States military from carrying out domestic policy on United States soil. This amendment would prohibit evidence obtained by the military in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act from being used in a court or other legal proceedings. While I am actually sympathetic and believe this issue is one that is worthy of our consideration in its current form, I urge opposition. The issue is simply too complex to rush through here without careful consideration and deliberation in regular order. The implications of this amendment are also unclear. We have a crisis on our southern border, a crisis that continues to be ignored by Democrats and is continually getting worse. What happens, for example, if the continued failures of the Biden policies cause the situation at our southern border to become so dire that our military is called to secure our border and the military obtains evidence of trafficking or smuggling or some other crime? We simply do not know enough about changing this longstanding legal document here today to jam it into a National Defense Authorization Act. This is an issue that needs to go through a more robust process where the committees of jurisdiction can hold hearings and fully explore all possible consequences. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion, and I reserve the balance of my time.