Jim Jordan

Mr. JORDAN

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

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Steube), a member of the Oversight Committee and the Judiciary Committee.

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. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from the State of Arizona (Mr. Biggs), chairman of the Freedom Caucus, and my good friend and great Member.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to control the balance of our time.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before yielding, I just point out, I can't believe the chairman of the Judiciary Committee would utter such a statement on the House floor, but he said, ``Imaginary things like antifa.'' They are not imaginary; they are real. And if you don't believe me, go talk to Andy Ngo, the journalist in Portland who was attacked by antifa, who the President of the United States designated as a terrorist organization. And to have the chair of the Judiciary Committee on the House floor say these words: ``Imaginary things like antifa''? They are far from imaginary. And there are people in every major city in this country who know that, and yet the chair of the Judiciary Committee just made that statement. That is scary. So when we say we weren't consulted and they talk about--when you have that kind of attitude, we had good, thoughtful amendments in that committee. No, no, no, we can't deal with it, because their attitude is antifa is imaginary. It is far from that. Go ask that journalist in Portland, who just a year ago was beaten up by these individuals. That is ridiculous. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, what happened to George Floyd last month in Minneapolis was tragic, horrific, and as wrong as wrong could be. His family deserved justice, and I hope they get that swiftly. Bad police officers must be held accountable for their misconduct, and justice must be carried out. While we focus on rooting out the bad apples, we need to remember that the overwhelming majority of law enforcement officers are good people who put themselves in harm's way to keep the rest of us safe. We need meaningful legislation that increases training, ensures transparency, holds everyone accountable, and guarantees that tragedies similar to what happened in Minneapolis don't happen again. This moment in our great Nation's history demands that we work together across the aisle to fashion legislation that works, legislation that actually makes a real and lasting difference. Unfortunately, Democrats haven't done that, and they show no sign of wanting to do that. They didn't consult us when they put together this legislation. In committee just last week, Republicans offered 12 thoughtful and good amendments, every single one voted down--every single one. In the Senate just yesterday, Democrats voted to not even debate a commonsense proposal put forward by Senator Scott. Now, it is interesting. There was some bipartisan support for moving to debate. Two Democrats and one Independent voted with the Republicans, yet Democrats chose partisanship over real reform. We need reform, but House Democrats have delivered a bill that is designed to keep cops in the car; and when you do that, it makes our communities less safe by preventing good law enforcement officers from being able to do their job. That is what this bill is going to do. Now is not the time to cripple the men and women who so selflessly serve our communities. This bill has serious due process concerns for law enforcement officers. Bad officers must be held accountable for their crimes. No one disputes that. But this bill would punish unadjudicated allegations against officers, including officers who may be innocent of those allegations. This bill will make our law enforcement officers less safe by prohibiting them from obtaining surplus equipment from our Federal Government. We had an amendment in the committee that says: What about just allowing folks on the border dealing with the cartels, dealing with the terrorists they deal with down there, what about letting those law enforcement agencies have access to surplus military equipment? Democrats said no. That was one of the 12 amendments they said no to. This equipment allows officers to protect themselves and the communities they serve. For example, armored vehicles in Texas were used to rescue people from rising floodwaters during Hurricane Harvey, and helmets saved the lives of officers who were shot at while responding to the terrorist attack at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando in 2016. And this bill does nothing to address the calls for defunding and dismantling police departments. Frankly, I have never heard such a crazy idea. This concept, the most insane public policy proposal I have ever heard--and I have been in politics a few years--will certainly make our communities less safe. It is a real failure of leadership that the Speaker and the chairman chose not to even seek any Republican consensus, any Republican input on the legislation. Rather than working with us in the House to put forward meaningful bipartisan solutions, Democrats have rushed this bill to the floor and have put forward extreme measures, knowing these measures will not pass the Senate and will not get to the President's desk. Just last week, we held a markup for this bill. As I said, every single one of the Republican amendments were rejected by my Democrat colleagues, all 12 of them. Fortunately, President Trump has led the way and signed an executive order last week that will invest more energy and resources in police training, recruiting, and community engagement. We have consulted with many of the law enforcement folks on our side, like the sponsor of our legislation, Mr. Stauber, 20 years as a commander in the Duluth Police Department. That community engagement is essential. That is what is also in the President's executive order, this in addition to his many achievements over the past 3\1/2\ years, including record low unemployment, a booming economy, the 2017 tax cuts, the USMCA, the FIRST STEP Act, and the list goes on and on. Senator Scott's bill, which as I said Mr. Stauber introduced in the House, also gets to the heart of the issue without hamstringing the men and women who faithfully serve our communities. It focuses on training, accountability, and transparency. It provides additional training for our law enforcement officers in de-escalation tactics and the duty to intervene when an officer is observing excessive use of force. It provides more funding for body cameras and for the storage of the footage. It prevents bad officers from going from department to department and creates an enhanced penalty for the falsifying of police reports. It is a bill that has the right answers and a bill that should pass the Senate and get signed into law by the President. Now is the time for us to come together as Americans and continue to make this country the greatest nation ever. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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. 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 thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding. I, too, want to urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can address Mr. Steube's resolution and hopefully pass Mr. Steube's resolution, a resolution which is very basic, has four basic components to it: Justice for George Floyd's family. What happened in Minneapolis we all know was a tragedy and never should have happened, wrong as wrong could be, and George Floyd's family deserves justice, and our resolution calls for that. It also calls for justice for police officers and others who have suffered violence, police officers like Patrick Underwood, who, along with George Floyd's brother, Patrick Underwood's sister came and testified just 2 weeks ago in front of the Judiciary Committee, serving his community as a law enforcement officer, attacked and killed. The resolution that would happen if we vote ``no'' on the previous question also condemns all violence and the creation of autonomous zones. There is a big difference between peaceful protest, exercising our First Amendment liberties guaranteed to us under our great Constitution, the greatest constitution ever, there is a big difference between peaceful protest and rioting. There is a big difference between peaceful protest and violence. There is a big difference between peaceful protest and attacking police officers. And there is certainly a big difference between peaceful protest and forming CHAZ or CHOP or any type of autonomous zones separating from our great country. This resolution condemns that kind of practice, as well. And, finally, our resolution strongly opposes what I think is one of the craziest public policy proposals I have ever seen, this idea that we are going to defund the police. You know, it is funny because I hear some Democrats say defund the police doesn't mean defund the police. Well, change the sentence. It is three words. That is exactly what it means. Our biggest cities, the mayor of New York, de Blasio, has already said he is going to defund the police a billion dollars. He got rid of the plainclothes unit in their department. Garcetti, the mayor of our second largest city, said he is going to defund the police $150 million. Baltimore, Hartford, Minneapolis, they went a step further. Minneapolis, the supermajority of their city council--it is interesting to point out, 13 people on the city council, guess how many of them are Republicans? Twelve Democrats--well, excuse me, 12 on the city council, I think. No, 13, that is right. Twelve Democrats, and one Green Party. They have already decided they are going to abolish the police department. This is crazy. Let's vote ``no'' on this previous question. Let's bring up a resolution that I think is consistent, where American values are consistent with the problems we face, consistent with the serious situation we are in. Let's vote ``no'' on the previous question. I will finish with this, Madam Speaker. We had a witness the last couple weeks in two different hearings, a Judiciary hearing and then an Oversight hearing. Dan Bongino, former NYPD, Secret Service, protected Presidents Clinton, Bush, Obama, worked in the NYPD, worked in the neighborhood in Brooklyn, he talked about if you do this, if we allow this concept, this defund the police concept to happen, to take root and to actually take place, it will not only be tough for police officers--we all know that--but the communities they serve. What will happen there is frightening. So I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. Let's take up the Steube resolution.

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to correct a couple of things that the majority leader said. You guys are the ones that let the FISA law lapse. There was a 75-day extension sent over here. You guys got the majority. You let it lapse. We want to fix it. We want to correct it. We want to make sure it is not abused like it has obviously been abused. We didn't let it lapse, you guys did. And frankly, if you guys got the votes for this bill, you got the majority, you could pass it today. You don't have the votes because we need more work to be done on this to correct it. The leader also said something that was not accurate. He said the President had no basis for the tweet he issued yesterday. Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me? They spied on two American citizens associated with his campaign, and he has got no basis for the tweet he did yesterday? They used a dossier to go to the secret court to get a warrant to spy on one of those individuals; a dossier that they knew was false; a dossier they knew was paid for by the Clinton campaign; a dossier that Jim Comey said--not me--Jim Comey said was salacious and unverified; a dossier where the author had already told the Justice Department that he was desperate to stop Trump from getting elected, and they used it to go spy on the Trump campaign. And the President has no basis for the tweet he issued yesterday? Are you kidding me? You guys let it lapse. We are trying to fix it because we know how bad it is. Finally, I would just reiterate 29 cases where American citizens were surveilled by the FBI, and every single one of those was a major problem when they went to the FISA court. As I said before, four of those cases, they couldn't even find the Woods File. We want to fix this, and we are willing to take as long as it takes. I agree with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. There are good things in the legislation. I said that yesterday at the Rules Committee. But what I also said at the Rules Committee is: Let's get it right. If the President is saying that we are not going to do this until we figure out everything that went wrong, I agree with him 100 percent. More importantly, the American people agree with that. They want this fixed. They don't want anything done on this until we get to the bottom of everything that took place in the Comey FBI.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, everything has changed. The main change is it is worse than we thought. Since March 10, when this body last dealt with the FISA legislation, all kinds of things have changed. We have learned from the declassified transcripts how bad the situation was in the prior administration when they went after the Trump campaign. We have learned about the concerted effort to frame General Flynn, a three-star general, 30 years serving our country, and everything they did. We learned about January 4, when the FBI agents said: We should no longer pursue going after General Flynn. But what happened? Jim Comey told Peter Strzok: No, no, no. Go tell those agents we are going to continue to go after this guy. We learned the very next day, January 5, Jim Comey met with the President, President Obama, and talked about General Flynn. We learned on January 6 what happened that day. We learned that then- FBI Director Comey goes to Trump Tower and meets with then-President- elect Trump and talks to him about the dossier that they already know is false, that they know is Russian disinformation, they know is paid for by the Clinton campaign. Then what did we learn just 2 weeks later? January 20, 2017, what did they do? They sneak two agents into the White House, two FBI agents, to set up General Flynn. What else have we learned since we dealt with this issue on March 10? We have learned about the unmasking of Michael Flynn, 39 people unmasking General Flynn's name, six people in Treasury. What are six Treasury officials doing unmasking the guy who is going to be the National Security Director in the incoming administration? Finally, and probably most importantly, we have the report from Inspector General Horowitz; not the report he did on the Carter Page FISA--we already got that; we know how scathing that was. We know all the wrongdoings that took place there--but the investigation he is just starting on FISA in general. He has looked at 29 cases involving American citizens--29 cases--and found in every single one of those cases multiple problems when they were surveilled; again, American citizens. In 4 of those 29 cases they couldn't even find the Woods file. They couldn't even find the file that you have to keep that has the basic evidence that you are then going to take to the FISA court. They couldn't even find it. So he does something that you hardly ever see. He does what is called a management alert, basically pulling the fire alarm saying this is so bad, I am going to tell you what is going on now; and I have just gotten started on looking at the overall FISA. So that is what has changed since March 10 when this body dealt with this issue. And when the President of the United States, a pretty important person in this debate, when he says, you know what? I think we should hit the pause button. We should wait here a little bit until we get to the bottom of everything that took place; what Mr. Horowitz is looking at; what Mr. Barr is looking at; what U.S. Attorney John Durham is looking at. Maybe we should just kind of hit the pause button and figure all this out. That is all he said, and that is all we have advocated. That is why we took the position we did at the conference yesterday, and I appreciate the fact that Leader McCarthy and our conference took that position. So let's wait and get all the facts. Let's wait until we actually hold people accountable before we renew this program which, as the President said yesterday, does allow some warrantless searches of American citizens. So let's make sure we get it right. That is our position as Republicans. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert). The judge is my good friend and fellow Judiciary Committee member.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, let me first point out, I already said that I supported the legislation. I said that, but I also said we could make it better. And the President, in light of what we have learned in the last 2 months--we need to make it better. I think we can do that. We should never forget the President of the United States plays a pretty important role. In fact, he has to sign the bills, last time I checked, so his position does have real impact. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Ohio (Mr. Davidson).

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