[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 70 (Thursday, April 22, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H2093-H2097]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ISSUES OF THE DAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2021, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, it is my honor to yield to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).


                  Farmers to Families Food Box Program

  Mrs. CAMMACK. Madam Speaker, last week the press--not the Department 
of Agriculture--reported that the Trump administration's Farmers to 
Families Food Box Program would come to an end.
  In subsequent reporting and an unapologetic email from the USDA, it 
was made clear that the only reason for its termination was because of 
the man who created it.
  The Farmers to Families Food Box Program had open eligibility, making 
certain anyone and everyone in need, regardless of status, income, or 
household size, had supplementary access to fresh meats, dairy, and 
produce. Since May 2020, this program has provided more than 156 
million boxes to households across the United States.
  Farmers to Families provided an alternative market for food intended 
for restaurants and food service, creating outlets for supply chains. 
Due to COVID this food could not easily be realigned to retail markets 
quickly enough to prevent spoilage. Even today, Farmers to Families 
provides fresh products in greater quantities than traditional 
emergency feeding programs--items such as dairy, meat, and fresh 
produce, which have always presented unique logistical challenges for 
distribution.
  The program reemployed workers in the commercial food distribution 
sector whose work was halted by the closure of restaurants, hotels, and 
other food service industries during COVID.

                              {time}  1300

  In my own district, L&M Farms, a participant in the program, managed 
to supply more than 600,000 boxes of fresh produce to those in need.
  Regardless of the various hiccups heard during USDA's listening 
sessions in previous hearings and from Members of this very House, the 
program worked exactly as intended, as a lifeline for consumers and 
producers alike during a challenging time.
  Nine hours after the press broke the story, USDA relayed, via email, 
that commodity purchases will ``continue to occur and be directed to 
existing, reliable channels of distribution.''
  This leads me to believe that locally focused producers and 
distributors who benefited greatly from Farmers to Families are being 
traded in for billion-dollar organizations that have already received 
billions in government aid to perpetuate dependence instead of 
eradicating it.
  Madam Speaker, I hope this body comes together to voice their strong 
opposition to the termination of this small piece of salvation that had 
a positive impact on all of our local communities, particularly those 
in rural areas.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida, who truly 
is my friend, for her comments.
  At this time, it is my privilege to yield to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Baird), my friend, a Baird man.


                   Plight of Lakes Shafer and Freeman

  Mr. BAIRD. Madam Speaker, I appreciate my good friend from Texas 
allowing me to share with this body the program that I have for today.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the overwhelming 
challenges plaguing a community in my district. It is located in White 
and Carroll Counties of west central Indiana. The communities 
surrounding Lakes Shafer and Freeman are a recreation destination for 
Hoosiers from all across the State and from Americans across the 
country.
  The Twin Lakes, as they are known, straddle the small community of 
Monticello. In the nearly 100 years since the two reservoirs were 
created by damming up the Tippecanoe River, their far-reaching 
attraction has created a flourishing local economy built on tourism, 
replete with the trappings of a family vacation, including its own 
amusement park, cruise boat, resort, marina, and much more.
  Despite all the buildup of amenities of this Hoosier destination, the 
lakes remained the focal point of the community and the driving force 
of the regional economy. Unfortunately, lake conditions can also have a 
negative impact on the local area.
  At the hands of Mother Nature and outside forces, these crown jewels 
of the region have been tarnished. On multiple occasions, Lake Freeman, 
because of drought conditions, has been drained to the riverbed that 
flows at the bottom.
  Unfortunately, these episodes of diminishing lake levels have come at 
an increasingly frequent rate in recent years and in times of even 
moderate drought conditions. These droughts caused the lake to become 
almost completely drained and resulted in devastation to the natural 
ecology and the local economy.
  Businesses, homes, property--both real and personal--tax revenue, and 
the loss of family time are all impacted. The past 7 months have been 
one of those times as drought conditions last summer once again caused 
Lake Freeman's water level to plummet by more than 13 feet, completely 
draining the vast majority of this 1500-acre reservoir.
  One victim of this devastation is the disruption of local ecological 
balance. During the worst parts of the episode, area residents walked 
the lake bed only to find dead turtles, fish, mussels, and more that 
had succumbed to the lack of water.
  Safety also became a tremendous challenge for locals and boaters as 
water levels sank, exposing stumps, sharp objects, and other items 
usually covered by the water.
  These impacts on the lake quality are especially disappointing to a 
community that has prided itself in its conservation stewardship of the 
lake. Members of the community have banded together to form Shafer & 
Freeman Lakes Environmental Conservation Corporation, also known as 
SFLECC.
  This volunteer group raises thousands of dollars every year to fund 
the Summer Lakes Clean Up project. Over the years, this group has 
volunteered over 17,000 hours in helping preserve the beauty and 
natural environment of the lakes.
  Residents are facing tremendous economic costs as well. Property 
values have plunged; local drinking water and drinking wells have dried 
up; retaining walls have buckled, threatening to collapse; and boats 
are stranded and unable to be winterized.
  The financial costs to solve these issues are too high for many 
residents.

[[Page H2094]]

Even if they wanted to move, the values of their homes have dropped 
considerably. One resident who moved to Lake Freeman after she retired 
said: ``We built a retirement home 10 years ago. It is probably not 
worth half of what we have in it. It is very depressing.''
  Another resident told our office about the difficulties they have 
faced after their water well dried up. In order to use any water, they 
have to drive miles away to purchase their water from a grocery store.
  Small businesses are facing the same tough financial decisions. The 
Madam Carroll, a cruise boat and entertainment venue, struggled 
significantly to keep their business above water, literally. Because of 
the dried-up lake, the owners of the vessel had to dock their boat that 
usually sails year-round. ``It is almost as bad as it can get,'' Chris 
Peters, co-owner of the Madam Carroll, told me.
  Tall Timbers, a marina that helps prepare and store boats for the 
winter, saw a dramatic drop in their business. In an average year, they 
process and winterize around 500 boats but were only able to house 
around 200 boats this year due to them being unable to access the 
customers' boats.
  Susan Wagner, who owns the convenience store and gas station on the 
shores of the lake, described the situation as bleak. She had to let 
her employees go earlier than usual because of the lack of business.
  I am proud of the resiliency that the Hoosiers of this magnificent 
community have shown. They have exhausted many options to find a 
solution to this constant problem.
  While I am disappointed and saddened for these Hoosiers because of 
the difficulty that these conditions have created, I am happy to report 
that conditions have finally been restored to normal just recently 
because of the rains after more than 7 long months of this kind of 
condition.
  I want the Hoosiers in my district and all those impacted by Lake 
Freeman's challenges to know that I hear their concerns, that I am here 
on their behalf, and that I will do everything I can to remedy this 
problem.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. 
It is obviously an important issue. We have been taking up such issues, 
but it is not necessarily the best way to proceed.
  For one thing, the bill that was passed today to make the District of 
Columbia a State flies in the face of the brilliance of the Founders 
when it came to setting up our Federal Government.
  Before we had the Constitution ratified in 1789, our first President 
was sworn in under the new Constitution in 1789, George Washington, and 
the first Vice President, John Adams. They were all sworn in in Federal 
Hall there in New York City, so that was technically the first Capital 
under the new Constitution. Before that, under the Articles of 
Confederation, they used Philadelphia and, obviously, New York.
  But in the Constitution itself, there was a provision for a Federal 
district 10 miles by 10 miles square. It included land that was ceded 
from Maryland that was on the east side of the Potomac River, as well 
as a little bit less land from the west side of the Potomac from 
Virginia.
  The reason the Founders felt it was so important to have a separate 
Federal entity that was not wholly contained within a State, not 
contained within a city, but a Federal enclave as the Capital, was so 
that--the big reason--no State, no city government could try to extort 
or hold the Capital hostage.
  For example, if the Capital got its water from or through a State or 
city, then they would be subject to having their water turned off. Of 
course, that was a rather big issue back in the day.
  We know that New York City had a problem with disease and lack of 
water to put out fires. A guy named Aaron Burr, who ended up being Vice 
President and hoped to be President, he and some partners made a 
proposal for legislation that would create the Manhattan Water Company 
that would provide all the water that was needed, and it would be 
clean. That would help stop the disease.
  They would provide water free to put out fires, and so that seemed 
very attractive. The thing is, though, they said they needed a monopoly 
so that they could afford to pay for all they were going to do.
  They had Alexander Hamilton review it. They got him to sign on that 
it was a worthy, honorable project. Somewhere after Alexander Hamilton 
reviewed the language for that, other words were inserted not only to 
provide for the Manhattan Water Company, or water business, but also 
such other economic practices or businesses they felt appropriate.
  Well, that was the scheme the whole time, to create a bank that was 
not created under other Federal law. So, the Manhattan Bank was 
created. Aaron Burr and his partners let Manhattan suffer without the 
water. So, even back then, in the late 1700s, early 1800s, water was a 
big deal.
  Electricity was, obviously, not a big deal yet, but the same thing. 
If you have to get things you need to subsist through another State or 
city, then there is always a possibility that you could be extorted.
  We saw the brilliance of the Founders back last summer when we had a 
Democrat Mayor that did not like the President of the United States. 
Some of us were wondering whether she was going to authorize 
Washington, D.C., police to protect the White House itself.
  Obviously, she didn't provide much help to stop fires from being lit 
at the historic church right there, catty-corner to the White House. 
But some of us observed what was going on and a Mayor who didn't seem 
to care too much about the President.
  Wow, what if you saw that play out? It is exactly what the Founders 
wanted to avoid, the U.S. Capital, the U.S. Government, being held 
hostage. You could see how it could very easily have played into that 
situation.
  So, it was brilliant. The Federal enclave, the Federal district that 
was provided for in our Constitution, would not be part of any State, 
would not be part of a city. It would be the District of Columbia. It 
was brilliant.
  Now, as the majority leader pointed out, purely for politics--this 
was all about politics. The majority decided they wanted to make the 
District of Columbia a State unto itself. If that were to become a part 
of our system here, then this government would be totally subject to 
the whims of the State of Columbia.

                              {time}  1315

  We could be prevented from going into session. We could be prevented 
from leaving. It creates a situation down the road for when things 
could truly get out of hand.
  And even though the mainstream media and our friends across the aisle 
referred to the at least $2 billion of damage, the deaths, shooting, 
looting, government buildings being burned as peaceful demonstrations, 
they certainly weren't in the areas where things were being burned, 
stores were being looted, and destruction was the lot.
  That could come back again, and you could have people who would be 
that active. It certainly appears that BLM is more concerned about 
making this a socialist country, an Orwellian, a totalitarian country 
than they are about any race. Antifa is just all about creating chaos, 
because they figure, out of chaos, will come a totalitarian, Orwellian 
government.
  So this time we are going through right now will be looked at 
historically in other countries and whatever this country becomes, and 
this will be pointed to as a very, very important time.
  Now, we were accused of playing politics with this issue on the 
Republican side. I can't speak for everyone, but I can speak for all 
the Republicans I have talked to. This is still an important concept 
that we not have a Capital subject to being held hostage. And if D.C. 
becomes a State, that scenario is then set up, and it is not good for 
the country.
  In wrestling with these issues after I got here--you know, I saw the 
license plate, and I mentioned this before in years past--that, at 
first, when I saw ``taxation without representation,'' you know, I 
didn't get it. It didn't seem appropriate. But then you find out that 
actually every territory that does not have a full voting Member of the 
House of Representatives that is a territory of the U.S.--whether it is 
Puerto Rico,

[[Page H2095]]

Guam, Samoa, U.S. Virgin Islands, a number of places--if they don't 
elect a full voting representative, they do not pay Federal income tax.
  And in going back to the Revolution--and I put this in what is H.R. 
1295, in this Congress, but I filed it back several Congresses ago, and 
I filed it, I think, in most every Congress since because I believe it 
is the right thing to do. To me, it is not a matter of politics; it is 
a matter of being consistent with an ideal.
  As Ben Franklin said, if we don't elect one Member of the British 
Parliament, they have no right to tax us.
  That was a righteous concept, and it still is. As a matter of 
principle, I have to agree with that. The people of D.C. are right, 
they shouldn't have to pay a Federal income tax.
  But as I put in my bill and have in all these different Congress 
sessions we have been through, as I filed it each time, the phrase ``no 
taxation without representation'' was a rallying cry of many American 
colonists during the period of British rule in the 1760s and early 
1770s. The slogan gained widespread notoriety after the passage of the 
Sugar Act on April 5, 1764. American colonists increasingly resented 
having taxes levied upon them without having any legislators they 
elected who were voting in Parliament in London.
  The idea that there should be no taxation without representation 
dated back even further. This issue became even more defined in 1765, 
with the passage of the Stamp Act, which was the first true attempt to 
levy a direct tax on the American colonies. Ultimately, that tax was 
repealed, but the idea of no taxation without representation persisted.
  Article I, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution 
says: ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members 
chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.''
  That is why, unless someone was from a State, then under the 
Constitution, they didn't get a full voting Member of the House.
  By the same token, if we are going to be consistent with the founding 
principles, the residents of the District of Columbia should not be 
paying Federal income tax, just as those in Puerto Rico and other 
territories don't pay Federal income tax.
  So the bill goes on, and it points out that Puerto Rico, the U.S. 
Virgin Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 
American Samoa, all of these, don't pay Federal income tax.
  So the rest of this bill, H.R. 1295, in this Congress, just has, in 
effect, the residents of D.C. shouldn't have to and don't pay Federal 
income tax.
  Now, since I have been here, this issue has been coming up, just as 
it has over the centuries, about the District of Columbia 
representation. It came up back in 1847. The Federal Government was not 
really utilizing the land west of the Potomac, and the people there 
were saying, Look, we want to elect two Senators, Representatives as 
our population allows; and you are not using our land; let us go back 
to being part of Virginia.
  So, in 1847, Congress, the House and Senate, signed by the President, 
ceded land back to Virginia, the State from which it came, because to 
do otherwise would have been to cheat Virginia, because Virginia gave 
that land for the purpose of being used as part of the Federal enclave, 
the Federal Capital.
  So if the U.S. Government had done anything besides use it as a 
Federal enclave for part of the U.S. Capital, without Virginia's 
permission, that basically the Federal Government would have stolen 
that from Virginia. The right thing, the proper, honorable thing to do, 
if it wasn't going to use the land, was to give it back to Virginia.
  Now, some of us can see why it might have been nice if they had said, 
No, we are going to use it, so we are not going to cede it back, but 
you don't have--when Federal income tax came along, you don't have to 
pay that.
  But that is not what happened. It was ceded back to Virginia. That is 
why, when anyone sees a map of the District of Columbia, it is not a 
perfect square. On the west, it follows the Potomac River.
  So I have that bill. I have had it for many Congresses now. I wish 
that when Republicans were in the majority, I could have gotten our 
leadership to bring it to the floor, because it should have been 
brought to the floor and it should have passed. But I really thought 
that at some point--and I had even offered to redo the bill and put any 
Democrats, including Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, have it as her 
bill. She has not chosen to ever be part of this bill. And then we hear 
today, well, it is all because of politics.
  Well, I have not ever proposed this for politics. I am proposing it 
because I know our history and I know this is the right thing to do. 
They should not have to pay Federal income tax.
  What I have offered in prior years is, Look, you are trying to have 
D.C. have a full voting representative with just legislation. That will 
be unconstitutional at some point. Why don't you at least go ahead and 
get this bill passed, especially while Democrats are in the majority, 
so that until such time as D.C. has a full voting representative, you 
at least don't have to pay taxes without full representation?
  But I have never gotten Democrats to agree to do that. So it was not 
brought to the floor by Republican leaders over the years. That may 
well have been for political reasons. But it is being pushed by me, and 
has all these years, as a matter of principle, and it still is.
  Why wouldn't Democrats agree to go ahead and do this bill until such 
time, when and if, it becomes unnecessary? Why would Democrats continue 
to allow taxation without representation to go unchanged?
  I have been trying to do this for 13 years or so. Apparently, it is a 
problem on both sides of the aisle. I wish people would quit playing 
politics and just be fair to the people of Washington, D.C.
  Back when I first proposed a bill to eliminate the Federal income 
tax--as Puerto Rico knows, there is no Federal income tax, but they 
have a very, very substantial local tax, which is what happens when you 
have approaching 30 percent of the workers working for the government. 
You are going to have a lot of taxes to pay.
  But on the other hand, in 1847, since land was ceded west of the 
Potomac back to Virginia, if you are bent on giving people two Senators 
to vote for, as well as at least one Representative, then the proper 
thing to do would be to cede the land back to the State from which it 
came; don't cheat that State. The Federal Government should not be in 
the business of cheating people or cheating States.
  This bill--it has had another number before, but in this Congress it 
is 2651, and it is cited as the ``District of Columbia-Maryland Reunion 
Act.'' It goes through and gives some history. I am kind of big on 
that. It is important to know where we came from so we know where we 
should go. It cites some of the things I have already mentioned, but 
then it gets into actually drawing a descriptive line around the 
Federal buildings, to include the Capitol and the White House and the 
important Federal buildings--so that would still be Federal property--
and then ceding the rest of the land back to Maryland.
  Now, I would prefer just to keep the District of Columbia and the 
residents not pay Federal income tax, rather than trying to do what is 
unconstitutional--it seemed pretty clear to me--to cheat Maryland out 
of the land they gave. I mean, it is a bait and switch. Yeah, you gave 
it for the Federal enclave, but we are going to take it and make it a 
separate State. And, yes, each time you create a new State, it weakens 
the power of those States already in existence, because their two 
Senators' votes are not quite as important as they once were. But this 
would be a constitutional and appropriate solution if the majority 
chose to go that way.

                              {time}  1330

  I still think, regardless, even as the majority persists in trying to 
create a State, which I think should ultimately be struck down, why not 
go ahead and give the residents of the District of Columbia the relief 
they deserve and say, In the meantime, Congress has full authority to 
say who is taxed and who isn't, and the residents of the District of 
Columbia do not elect a full voting Representative yet, so they don't 
pay any income tax.
  And, again, I will extend that offer. I was told by State senator 
Bill Ratliff--

[[Page H2096]]

and I can't remember who he quoted--but ``It is amazing what you can 
get done if you don't care who gets the credit.'' I have often been 
willing to say, put whoever's name will help this bill get through.
  In fact, sometimes I have made my own leadership mad enough that, you 
know, if I had a good idea, I would provide it to somebody on the 
committee of jurisdiction and say, ``This is a good bill, why don't you 
lead on it?
  ``Well, why don't you do it?
  ``Because you are on the committee of jurisdiction, and I have made 
Republican leaders mad, and so it has got a better chance if you do 
it.'' And it has been nice to see people make good use of their 
authority in that way.
  Of course, there has been plenty of things written about this issue. 
There is one from a blog of the National Archives, ``Unratified 
Amendments: D.C. Voting Rights,'' interesting article there.
  National Review has an article from March of this year, ``D.C. 
Statehood is an Idea Whose Time Should Never Come.''
  Another from David Harsanyi, ``Concerning D.C. Statehood, the 
Founders Have Already Spoken.'' That is from March of this year also.
  Something called the Wayback Machine has an article on 
``Constitutional Amendments Not Ratified,'' and of course, D.C. 
statehood is one such, as is the idea of giving full representation, 
though the Constitution says it will come from the several States. That 
was something we had voted on in a prior Congress since I have been 
here.
  There is a great letter from the Attorney General of South Carolina, 
Alan Wilson, on this issue, and he makes a great argument just stating 
how Article IV, Section 3 provides that new States may be admitted by 
Congress in the Union, but goes on to explain why the only lawful way 
to provide statehood to the District of Columbia is to amend the 
Constitution. The District of Columbia's creation traces to Article I, 
Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, and he goes on and makes a 
very compelling case.
  So I don't know what the Senate is going to do. I hope that at least 
some of the Democrat Senators will understand that this is no time to 
be violating our Constitution when things have been going out of 
control. You have got even some people right in our own House of 
Representatives that are calling for and have called for confrontation, 
getting in people's faces, making them miserable, intimidating, 
threatening, making sure they aren't feeling welcome.
  This is a tragic time. The Founders would normally quote Voltaire--
some say the attribution lies elsewhere--but the statement was, ``I 
disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to 
say it.'' And nowadays it seems like the majority in power in Congress 
and the White House more takes a position: I disagree with what you 
say, and I am truly woke, so I want you fired. I want you never to be 
able to get work again. I want your children harassed. We are going to 
threaten to rape, kill, destroy, do all kinds of damage to your family, 
and we hope that, you know, your family is destroyed and no longer 
exists very soon.
  I mean, that is a long way from where we came. We have come so far, 
and in each century we made major steps forward so that the 
Constitution would mean exactly what it says. And now we are arriving 
at a time where, instead of reaching what Dr. King dreamed of, people 
being judged by the content of their character and not the color of 
their skin or anything else, we are going back to being a more racist 
society. We do want segregation.
  I mean, there was a time when segregation was considered evil. You 
shouldn't segregate people by their skin color. Yes, Franklin Roosevelt 
believed in it, Democrat that he was. Democrat Woodrow Wilson believed 
in segregation and did so and used segregation inappropriately.
  And now we are coming back to a time where people on the left are 
advocating for segregation, advocating for judging people by their skin 
color. It is still wrong. It has always been wrong. It still is.
  One of the beauties of a country founded on Judeo-Christian 
principles was, regardless that slavery existed, if this country was 
going to continue under the principles on which it was founded, there 
was going to have to be a day of reckoning when people who were leaders 
in this country said, Look, we were endowed by our God, our Creator 
with certain inalienable rights, and it doesn't matter what your skin 
color is.
  Those things don't matter. God loves every human being. There are 
some things we are told in the Bible God hates. Lying lips is one that 
God detests, and that is easy to understand. But God doesn't want for 
any of us to stumble, and he doesn't want people causing others to 
stumble. We seem to have been approaching that more closely than ever 
in our history.
  It took a Civil War, it took a Christian minister named King 
preaching nonviolence, peaceful demonstration, not getting in people's 
faces and intimidating them or using violence. We were making so much 
progress. We had come further than any country in the history of the 
world.
  I heard somebody this week say we are really probably the most 
racially diverse country, and we don't penalize people for their race. 
That has been a problem throughout history for the world, and yet we 
have made so much progress, and now we have people on the left 
advocating for segregation and advocating for judging people by 
characteristics instead of by the content of their character.

  It was also shocking this week in debate in the Judiciary Committee 
to hear somebody across the aisle saying that no Democrats have ever 
advocated for defunding the police, and I am sure it was intended as an 
honest statement. The trouble is it is simply not true. And you don't 
have to do much of an online search. Even with Google and Facebook and 
Twitter covering for the Democratic Party, you still don't have to work 
too hard to find so many Democrat-controlled cities that are defunding 
the police. They are cutting funds to the police. It is easy to find. 
And there are more even in this body itself that are advocating to just 
completely do away with the policing like we have.
  Having dealt with the justice system for most of my adult life, I 
know the police are not immune to having bad apples, but it always 
struck me that there were a whole lot fewer bad apples, percentage 
wise, in law enforcement than there were in most any other area of 
life, of any other profession. And they are owed our respect. That is 
why it becomes very unpleasant when anyone in control ends up using law 
enforcement as a political battering ram against those who are not in 
the majority.
  We have known for many weeks now that there was and is, according to 
the chief of Capitol Police and Sergeant at Arms, no intelligence from 
any source that any Member of Congress is a threat to any other Member 
of Congress, which means the metal detectors that the Speaker has had 
installed around the west, east, and north entrance were totally 
unnecessary.
  And then, of course, after I pointed out that I was being fined 
$5,000 for going to the restroom right out that door, where there was 
no metal detector there or at the other end of the Speaker's lobby, and 
I didn't avoid the metal detectors. I went through the metal detector 
on the west and did so satisfactorily, and for days when I was in here 
for a long period of time, I could go right there to the restroom, the 
guards right there at the entrance of the Speaker's lobby could see you 
go in, see you come out. They checked out the restroom, you know. There 
is not even a tank where you could do like was done in ``The 
Godfather'' where a gun was put in the tank of the toilet. Not even a 
tank to do that in there. I had never been told you need to be wanded 
or checked or anything. That was totally new. But since I raised that, 
now metal detectors have been put there so that Democrats can go after 
Republicans. And I say that because we now have examples of even the 
Speaker and others who have gone through metal detectors, set off the 
metal detector, and refused to be wanded and have not been fined.
  Now, I understand the majority whip may have done that today. I am 
very sorry for Mr. Clyburn, they may have to make an example of him 
just to keep the pressure, to keep me from getting out of my fine, but 
it doesn't change the fact that to this time the use of the metal 
detectors has been

[[Page H2097]]

very arbitrary and capricious, and the enforcement of the metal 
detectors has been very arbitrary and capricious.
  Hopefully, those being utilized to harass Members of Congress--
especially since a couple of our folks have missed votes. If they 
hadn't had to go through the metal detector, they would have gotten in 
here in time to vote.

                              {time}  1345

  It is time to open things up. Then we get word: Well, we are going 
start opening up, but you have to go through us, tell us anybody you 
are proposing to meet with and what the purpose is, this kind of stuff. 
We are not letting a good crisis go to waste. We are going to be very 
Orwellian here, and we are going to use this as an excuse to control 
who Members of Congress can see, who they can talk to, and really have 
an iron grip on what people can do.
  It has gotten really sad around this place.
  Here is an article from Stephanie Pagones, ``Cities such as Austin, 
L.A., Minneapolis, New York City, and Portland have shifted funds from 
police departments.'' Obviously, this lady, Stephanie, knows that when 
Democrats have said they are not defunding the police, that is not 
true. Democrats around the country are pushing for and actually getting 
budgets slashed for police departments.
  ``Cities in parts of the U.S.,'' she said, ``that slashed their 
police department funding last year, in part as a result of police-
involved shootings, have seen an uptick in certain crimes over the past 
year, according to data analyzed by FOX News. Cities such as Los 
Angeles, Minneapolis, New York City, Portland, Oregon, and Austin, 
Texas, have shifted funds from police departments to social services 
programs. Such cuts have led some departments to lay off officers, 
cancel recruiting classes, or retreat from hiring goals.
  ``As police departments were left to make do with shrunken budgets 
and less support, some big cities have seen sometimes drastic upticks 
in murders and other violent crimes. . . . The `defund the police' 
movement is not necessarily about gutting police department budgets, 
though some groups have tried. And budget cuts were already expected as 
a result of alternative needs for funding because of the coronavirus 
pandemic.''
  Then, the article goes on and looks at the cuts that some of these 
cities have had.
  Here is an article: ``Democrat Representative Maxine Waters Demanded 
Special Police Motorcade and Escort Before Calling for Violence at 
Anti-Police Event,'' by Jordan Davidson at The Federalist.
  Daily Caller's Henry Rodgers reports: `` `The Squad' Pushes to 
`Defund the Police' While Spending Thousands on Private Security to 
Protect Themselves.''
  You have to have some protection from somewhere. Otherwise, you are 
not going to be able to maintain a position of authority in government. 
There are always going to be evil people, in this world at least, who 
are going to attempt to bring down people in authority.
  This article is from Matt Palumbo, December 30, 2020: ``2020 Homicide 
Surge Sets Record Amid `Defund the Police' Hysteria.'' It has facts and 
figures on that.
  One other thing I want to touch on. Since we have some people who 
believe climate change is the most pressing issue of our time, I was 
surprised to hear the former leader of NASA say that they had found 
that our Moon, the Earth's Moon, is slightly changing its orbit because 
I had not read that or seen that anywhere, and that even Earth's orbit 
around the Sun is slightly changing.
  Of course, I had seen previously that the ice caps were melting, and 
some people say it is because of the cars, pollution. But it still 
doesn't explain to me why the ice caps on the planet Mars have melted 
or have been melting for cow flatulence or different things here on 
Earth. How is that causing the ice caps on Mars to melt?
  Here is an article from NASA, from February 27, 2020. It says: ``Our 
lives literally revolve around cycles: series of events that are 
repeated regularly in the same order. There are hundreds of different 
types of cycles in our world and in the universe. Some are natural, 
such as the change of the seasons,'' that is one form of climate 
change, ``annual animal migrations, or the circadian rhythms that 
govern our sleep patterns. Others are human-produced, like growing and 
harvesting crops, musical rhythms, or economic cycles.''
  It goes on to point out something called the Milankovitch cycles, and 
they include: ``The shape of Earth's orbit, known as eccentricity; the 
angle Earth's axis is tilted with respect to Earth's orbital plane, 
known as obliquity; and the direction Earth's axis of rotation is 
pointed, known as precession.'' It goes on to discuss this.
  Apparently, there is another article from Forbes from April of last 
year, ``Earth Is Spiraling Away From the Sun for Now, But Eventually 
Will Crash Into It.'' I had not heard or read that before, about our 
Moon's orbit changing at all or the Earth's orbit around the Sun 
changing at all. I don't know what, if anything, could be done about 
that, but there is no question that the Moon's orbit changing or 
Earth's orbit changing around the Sun can't help but have significant 
effects on our climate.
  This article, the headline says that Earth will eventually crash into 
the Sun. Well, it is amazing. I remember in the 1970s reading that we 
were at the beginning of a new ice age. It was very early in the new 
ice age, but eventually, Earth would be covered by ice. It would mean 
the end of life as we knew it.
  As a Christian, I was thinking that is not how the Earth is going to 
end, and I didn't really believe that. Lo and behold, it wasn't too 
many years later we find out, or we are told: Well, the Earth is 
warming, and the Earth's warming is going to destroy the planet. It is 
global warming.
  Then, of course, global warming, we found out some places it was 
cooling. As one witness said some years back, actually, the Northern 
Hemisphere is not nearly as warm as it was back when the Norse were 
coming over and having these big farms in what we now call Greenland.
  There are cycles, and there is something that could come into play in 
the great design of our Creator that would keep Earth from crashing 
into the Sun. But in the meantime, it is important that we not run 
around like Chicken Little and destroy the rich blessings we have out 
of fear that we may miss out on other blessings. Let's use the wisdom 
and common sense that most of our constituents have.
  In the meantime, I think we really need to find out more about the 
changing orbit of Earth around the Sun and the changing orbit, if any, 
of the Moon around the Earth. It is a lot to learn.
  If we are going to help contribute to the downfall of the greatest 
experiment in self-government in the history of the world, then making 
our Nation's Capital where it could be subject to being extorted, held 
hostage, then these other things may not matter anyway.
  In the meantime, we have a responsibility to the Nation, our oath, 
and the Constitution to ensure that we keep this experiment in self-
government going.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________