Jim Jordan

Members of the committee, the real test of liberty is what happens when we disagree, and laws that protect views on marriage promote tolerance.

Are we really willing to censor and even force individuals, organizations, and churches to close simply because they adhere to the long-held belief that lies at the very core of each of the Abrahamic faiths?

The First Amendment Defense Act preserves the core of the American experiment and safeguards the values that we all hold dear: diversity, human dignity, equality, and freedom for all people.

The First Amendment Defense Act is a reasonable, rational, and important step forward in the protection of religious beliefs and moral convictions regarding marriage.

This right is in its nature an unalienable right.

Freedom of religion is not only the right to worship in private, but it is also the right to publicly exercise our religion without fear of government interference.

The need for religious liberty hits close to home for me.

I say to all detractors of this very measured piece of legislation just read it, please.

The First Amendment Defense Act does not allow Federal workers or contractors to deny services or benefits to same-sex couples.

This bill does not take anything away from any individual or any group because it does not modify any of our existing civil rights protections.

The First Amendment Defense Act is absolutely critical to the many charitable and service organizations in this country whose convictions about marriage are fundamental to their work.

What an individual or an organization believes about marriage is not and never should be any of the government's business.

They deleted all emails that they did not return to the State Department, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

A lot of Americans are thinking just what the chairman talked about in his opening statement, that there are two standards, one for we the people and one for the politically connected.

No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.

Any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position should have known that an unclassified system was no place for these conversations.

My real fear is this--it's what the chairman touched upon--this double track justice system that is, rightly or wrongly, perceived in this country.

My fear is there still isn't. There's nothing to keep a future Secretary of State or President from this exact same email scheme or their staff.

You have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails.

Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information.

Government continues to grow at just phenomenal rates because we have not been able to do the very thing that we are sent here to do, which is to control our spending.

This will get out of control. And my dad used to tell my sisters and me that if we ever found ourself in a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging.

This defies logic and the law.

This is not true. The FBI found thousands of work-related emails that were not returned.

This is not true. The FBI found that some of these emails were marked 'classified.'