Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2022

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler) my distinguished friend from the Rules Committee, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1124, providing for consideration of three measures:

First, H.R. 350, the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act, under a closed rule. The rule self-executes a manager's management from Chairman Nadler, provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and provides one motion to recommit.

Second, H.R. 7688, the Consumer Fuel Price Gouging Prevention Act, under a structured rule. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Pallone, provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, makes in order two amendments, and provides one motion to recommit.

Third, H.R. 7790, the Infant Formula Supplemental Appropriations Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, and provides one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule provides the majority leader or his designee the ability to en bloc requested roll call votes on certain suspension bills. This authority lasts through May 19, 2022.

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of several critical measures, and I would like to begin by saying a few words about H.R. 350, the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act.

Just this past weekend, the entire Nation watched in horror as a white supremacist with a history of violent threats brutally slaughtered 10 people, almost all of whom were Black, in the city of Buffalo, New York. My heart breaks for the community still reeling from this senseless tragedy only 75 miles down the road from my home in Rochester.

The FBI is investigating the shooting as a hate crime, and the gunman wrote a racist and anti-Semitic 180-page document outlining his motivation for the attack. The gunman intentionally targeted a predominantly Black neighborhood and had plans to attack multiple locations afterward, including in Rochester, as has been widely reported in the media.

Mr. Speaker, there has been an undeniable surge in domestic terrorism and other forms of extremism across our Nation. An analysis performed by the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies found that domestic terrorism in 2020 was at the highest level of any year since 1994, which is the earliest year the organization analyzed data.

Domestic terrorism is the most significant threat to our Nation in generations. Events like the horrific slaughter of Black community members in Buffalo have become common in our country, and it is time for the Federal Government to step up and to save lives.

Before us today, we have legislation that helps to provide the tools and resources law enforcement and our communities need to coordinate and combat these threats.

The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act prioritizes the investigation and prosecution of domestic terrorism at the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and the FBI, creating a new office in all three

agencies dedicated to this issue, promoting information sharing among public safety officials to better ensure an effective and organized joint effort, and requiring Federal agencies to provide training and resources to assist State and local law enforcement in detecting and investigating acts of domestic terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, these are simple, commonsense actions that will help protect our communities. They should be noncontroversial. In fact, nearly identical legislation passed by voice vote last Congress. But so far this year, it appears something has changed. Despite the rising incidence of hate crimes and the urgent need to provide law enforcement with what they need to combat vicious acts of domestic terrorism, every Republican on the House Judiciary Committee voted against the bill in a markup last month. While only three Republicans have cosponsored the bill this year, I hope more of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will again support this bill when it comes to the floor for a vote.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 7688, the Consumer Fuel Price Gouging Prevention Act, which will directly address the pain that American families are feeling at the pump.

During a time of decreased oil production related to the pandemic and global uncertainty around the global gas market due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, oil and gas companies are reporting historic profits.

In the first 3 months of 2022 alone, ExxonMobil made $5.5 billion in profits; Chevron made $6.3 billion; and Shell made a record-breaking $9.1 billion.

Everyday Americans continue to see high gas prices, but Big Oil has clearly decided to keep production low so their own profits can stay high. Crude oil prices have declined around 20 percent from their peak in early March, but retail prices have gone down by only 4 percent during that same time. Oil companies are raking in record profits at the expense of hardworking American families, who are struggling to keep up with sky-high prices at the pump. Simply put, this is un- American.

In an effort to help working families, President Biden called on Big Oil to ramp up supply instead of simply reaping profits without making any additional investment in supply shortages. How did these companies respond? They announced their intentions to use their record-high profits for stock buybacks. ExxonMobil announced it would triple its purchase of its own stock by spending up to $30 billion on stock buybacks, and Chevron will purchase $10 billion of stock before the end of this year.

The Biden administration has already taken steps to lower prices, including by releasing 80 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, with another 1 million barrels daily for the next 6 months.

Today, the House is taking further action by granting enhanced authority to the FTC and State attorneys general to police excessive or exploitative price increases of gasoline and home energy fuel during a declared energy crisis. The penalties collected from these companies will be deposited in a consumer relief trust fund administered by the U.S. Treasury Department.

While some of my colleagues continue to merely talk about rising gas prices, we are actually presenting a solution to the problem today. House Democrats are taking action on behalf of working families to put more money in their pockets instead of supporting stock buybacks and exploitative price gouging by the oil and gas industry.

Lastly, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 7790, the Infant Formula Supplemental Appropriations Act. Working families living paycheck to paycheck are struggling, and they need safe, affordable baby formula to keep their children healthy.

Baby formula supplies are out of stock at stores across the country, threatening the health of infants and creating panic among their parents and caretakers. Ongoing supply chain issues and the Abbott formula recall have led to the shortages.

On Monday, the FDA reached a deal with Abbott to reopen the processing plant that had been closed due to the recall, and the Biden administration also announced the FDA would issue new guidance to ease import restrictions with the goal of bringing the most formula into the country as possible.

But with 75 percent of families at least partially dependent on formula to feed their young children, it is imperative that Congress take additional action as well.

This legislation provides emergency funding to both address the formula shortage and help prevent it from ever happening again. The supplemental bill provides $28 million for additional staff at the FDA to better address infant formula safety and supply issues, IT system improvements to expand health fraud tools, and stronger supply chain monitoring and assessments.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation taking critical action to bolster American families and protect our communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will respond to my friend and colleague from the Rules Committee.

When we talk about the need to have bipartisanship and to work together, I would again note that the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act passed by a voice vote in the previous Congress just 2 years ago, yet not only will it not pass by a voice vote, it won't pass under our efforts to suspend the rules. It required going to the Rules Committee; it will require a vote on the floor; and I daresay, based on the Judiciary Committee and the Rules Committee, that we will have to pass it with little Republican support, something I regret. We would not only welcome their support, but this was a bipartisan bill.

I don't think that says anything about where we have gone. I think it says a great deal, though, about where my colleagues have gone and how far they have moved away from what is commonsense, thoughtful legislation that reins in a growing threat in America that has been recognized by society and recognized by our military, and that is the growth of extremism in America.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee and my very good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I do want to be clear because the distinguished gentlewoman mentioned hardworking Oklahomans, and we certainly appreciate their hard work.

This isn't about the hardworking men and women in Oklahoma who work for oil and gas companies. This is about the leadership of those companies that make decisions about where their dollars are going to be invested.

Just to reiterate what I said earlier, ExxonMobil made $5.5 billion in profits just in the first three months of 2022; Chevron, $6.3 billion in profits; Shell made a record-breaking $9.1 billion. On top of it, they are going to do their own buybacks of stocks.

ExxonMobil announced it would triple purchasing its own stock by spending up to $30 billion on stock buybacks. Chevron will spend $10 billion on buying stock before the end of this year; they have announced that.

Madam Speaker, this isn't about the hardworking men and women who we respect. This is about corporate executives who decide to put their interest before the interest of the American people, particularly at a time when we are struggling to get them to increase production and we are facing a global crisis in oil and gas because of activities around the world by Vladimir Putin, and his unwanted aggression against the people of Ukraine, which has disrupted the energy market worldwide.

Madam Speaker, just to be clear, I appreciate the gentlewoman's sentiments, but we are not talking about hardworking men and women. We are talking about CEOs who decided to put their profits ahead of American interests. That is what we are talking about.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider), my great friend and colleague.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I do want to just respond briefly to my colleague, Mr. Reschenthaler. I don't believe domestic terrorism in any form, by any side--right, left, center--is acceptable in America. And so without regard to that, I would say this bill would look at all domestic terrorism.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a May 17, 2022, New York Times article entitled, ``The Right's Violence Problem.''

[From The New York Times, May 17, 2022]

The Right's Violence Problem

(By David Leonhardt)

Over the past decade, the Anti-Defamation League has

counted about 450 U.S. murders committed by political

extremists.

Of these 450 killings, right-wing extremists committed

about 75 percent. Islamic extremists were responsible for

about 20 percent, and left-wing extremists were responsible

for 4 percent.

Nearly half of the murders were specifically tied to white

supremacists.

As this data shows, the American political right has a

violence problem that has no equivalent on the left. And the

10 victims in Buffalo this past weekend are now part of this

toll. ``Right-wing extremist violence is our biggest

threat,'' Jonathan Greenblatt, the head of the ADL, has

written. ``The numbers don't lie.''

The pattern extends to violence less severe than murder,

like the Jan. 6 attack on Congress. It also extends to the

language from some Republican politicians--including Donald

Trump--and conservative media figures that treats violence as

a legitimate form of political expression. A much larger

number of Republican officials do not use this language but

also do not denounce it or punish politicians who do use it;

Kevin McCarthy, the top House Republican, is a leading

example.

It's important to emphasize that not all extremist violence

comes from the right--and that the precise explanation for

any one attack can be murky, involving a mixture of ideology,

mental illness, gun access and more. In the immediate

aftermath of an attack, people are sometimes too quick to

claim a direct cause and effect. But it is also incorrect to

pretend that right-wing violence and left-wing violence are

equivalent problems.

Fears in Washington

If you talk to members of Congress and their aides these

days--especially off the record--you will often hear them

mention their fears of violence being committed against them.

Some Republican members of Congress have said that they

were reluctant to vote for Trump's impeachment or conviction

partly because of the threats against other members who had

already denounced him. House Republicans who voted for

President Biden's infrastructure bill also received threats.

Democrats say their offices receive a spike in phone calls

and online messages threatening violence after they are

criticized on conservative social media or cable television

shows.

People who oversee elections report similar problems. ``One

in six election officials have experienced threats because of

their job,'' the Brennan Center, a research group, reported

this year. ``Ranging from death threats that name officials'

young children to racist and gendered harassment, these

attacks have forced election officials across the country to

take steps like hiring personal security, fleeing their

homes, and putting their children into counseling.''

There is often overlap between these violent threats and

white supremacist beliefs. White supremacy tends to treat

people of color as un-American or even less than fully human,

views that can make violence seem justifiable. The suspect in

the Buffalo massacre evidently posted an online manifesto

that discussed replacement theory, a racial conspiracy theory

that Tucker Carlson promotes on his Fox News show.

``History has taught us that what begins with words ends in

far worse,'' Representative Liz Cheney, one of the few

Republicans who have repeatedly and consistently denounced

violence and talk of violence from the right, wrote on

Twitter yesterday.

A few other Republicans, like Senator Mitt Romney, have

taken a similar stance. But many other prominent Republicans

have taken a more neutral stance or even embraced talk of

violence. Some have spoken openly about violence as a

legitimate political tool--and not just Trump, who has done

so frequently.

At the rally that preceded the Jan. 6 attack,

Representative Mo Brooks suggested the crowd should ``start

taking down names and kicking ass.''

Rick Perry, a former Texas governor, once called the

Federal Reserve ``treasonous'' and talked about treating its

chairman ``pretty ugly.'' During Greg Gianforte's campaign

for Montana's House seat, he went so far as to assault a

reporter who asked him a question he didn't like; Gianforte

won and has since become Montana's governor.

These Republicans have received no meaningful sanction from

their party.

This Republican comfort with violence is new. Republican

leaders from past decades, like Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole,

Howard Baker and the Bushes, did not evoke violence.

``In a stable democracy,'' Steven Levitsky, a Harvard

political scientist, told me, ``politicians unambiguously

reject violence and unambiguously expel from their ranks

antidemocratic forces.'' https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/17/ briefing/right-wing-mass-shootings.htm.

Madam Speaker, sadly, the horrifying attack in Buffalo, New York, this weekend is just the tip of the iceberg.

According to a 2021 report by the Anti-Defamation League, there have been 450 murders committed by political extremists over the last 10 years, 75 percent attributed to rightwing groups, 55 percent of those were tied to white supremacists, four percent in the report were tied to leftwing supremacists--an amazing amount, 75 percent to 4 percent.

It is appalling to argue that some things are fine and there is no need to address root causes of violence. I am calling on all my colleagues to do something about white nationalism, calling on all my colleagues to do something about domestic terrorism before another domestic terror attack occurs fueled by hatred, as we witnessed in Buffalo, New York.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I must say, and I have the highest regard for my colleague, anyone who would equate the Black Lives Matter movement and the protests organized over the murder of George Floyd with white supremacists like the one who killed 10 people in Buffalo and targeted

Black Americans, equating that is irresponsible and reprehensible at best.

Talk about false equivalence. I am nearly speechless that we would even begin down that road. Maybe that says a lot about why the national Republican effort has changed so dramatically in just 2 years, when this Congress accepted by voice vote the Domestic Terrorism Act that we have before us.

I also include in the Record an October 15, 2021, Washington Post fact check article titled ``The false GOP claim that the Justice Department is spying on parents at school board meetings.''

[From the Washington Post, Oct. 15, 2021]

The False GOP Claim That the Justice Dept. Is Spying on Parents at

School Board Meetings

(By Salvador Rizzo)

``Attorney General Garland is weaponizing the DOJ by using

the FBI to pursue concerned parents and silence them through

intimidation. Florida will defend the free speech rights of

its citizens and will not allow federal agents to squelch

dissent.''

--Florida Gov. Ron Desantis (R), in a tweet, Oct. 5

``Now the FBI is trying to silence parents. That's wrong.''

--Glenn Youngkin, Republican nominee for Virginia governor,

in a campaign ad, Oct. 13

Because of a ``disturbing spike'' in threats directed at

public school officials, Attorney General Merrick Garland

issued a memorandum this month calling on the FBI and federal

prosecutors to meet with local law enforcement agencies and

set up ``dedicated lines of communication.''

Republicans are sounding the alarm over Garland's one-page

memo, claiming in interviews, congressional hearings,

campaign ads and social media that the Justice Department is

cracking down on parents simply for dissenting at their local

school board meetings.

These meetings, where the nation's almost 14,000 public

school districts debate and set their policies, can become

heated over questions such as how to teach race in the

classroom and whether coronavirus vaccinations and tests or

face masks should be required, among other issues. Some

school board members have grown concerned for their safety as

their forums have turned more vitriolic, and one recently

reported a death threat and resigned.

The bottom line is Republicans are reading much more into

Garland's memo than it says. The memo focuses strictly on

``violence, threats of violence, and other forms of

intimidation and harassment''--all of which are crimes--not

on parents raising questions or complaints.

The Facts

The Oct. 4 memo, addressed to FBI Director Christopher A.

Wray and federal prosecutors, reads in part:

In recent months, there has been a disturbing spike in

harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against

school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff who

participate in the vital work of running our nation's public

schools. While spirited debate about policy matters is

protected under our Constitution, that protection does not

extend to threats of violence or efforts to intimidate

individuals based on their views.

Threats against public servants are not only illegal, they

run counter to our nation's core values . . . . The

Department takes these incidents seriously and is committed

to using its authority and resources to discourage these

threats, identify them when they occur, and prosecute them

when appropriate . . . .

Coordination and partnership with local low enforcement is

critical to implementing these measures for the benefit of

our notion's nearly 14,000 public school districts. To this

end, I am directing the Federal Bureau of Investigation,

working with each United States Attorney, to convene meetings

with federal, state, local, Tribal, and territorial leaders

in each federal judicial district within 30 days of the

issuance of this memorandum. These meetings will facilitate

the discussion of strategies for addressing threats against

school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff,

and will open dedicated lines of communication for threat

reporting, assessment, and response . . . .

Garland's memo added, ``In the coming days, the Department

will announce a series of measures designed to address the

rise in criminal conduct directed toward school personnel.''

In an accompanying news release, the Justice Department

said, ``Those efforts are expected to include the creation of

a task force, consisting of representatives from the

department's Criminal Division, National Security Division,

Civil Rights Division, the Executive Office for U.S.

Attorneys, the FBI, the Community Relations Service and the

Office of Justice Programs, to determine how federal

enforcement tools can be used to prosecute these crimes, and

ways to assist state, Tribal, territorial and local law

enforcement where threats of violence may not constitute

federal crimes.''

And: ``The Justice Department will also create specialized

training and guidance for local school boards and school

administrators. This training will help school board members

and other potential victims understand the type of behavior

that constitutes threats, how to report threatening conduct

to the appropriate law enforcement agencies, and how to

capture and preserve evidence of threatening conduct to aid

in the investigation and prosecution of these crimes.''

Put it all together, and Garland is calling for 1) strategy

meetings between federal and local law enforcement, 2) a task

force, 3) dedicated lines of communication for addressing

threats, and 4) training and guidance for school officials.

The news release says the Justice Department will study ``how

federal enforcement tools can be used to prosecute these

crimes, and ways to assist state, Tribal, territorial and

local law enforcement where threats of violence may not

constitute federal crimes.'' (Most violent crimes are

investigated and prosecuted by state and local law

enforcement agencies, not federal authorities.)

Some of the Republican officials we asked for comment

pointed to a letter from the National School Boards

Association (NSBA) that asked President Biden for federal

resources to help monitor emerging threats. The letter was

dated Sept. 29, days before the attorney general's memo was

released, and made various requests of federal agencies

including the Justice Department.

``While local and state law enforcement agencies are

working with public school officials in several communities

to prevent further disruptions to educational services and

school district operations, law enforcement officials in some

jurisdictions need assistance--including help with monitoring

the threat levels,'' NSBA officials wrote to Biden.

``School board meetings have been disrupted in California,

Florida, Georgia, and other states because of local

directives for mask coverings to protect students and

educators from COVID-19,'' the group's letter says. ``An

individual was arrested in Illinois for aggravated battery

and disorderly conduct during a school board meeting. During

two separate school board meetings in Michigan, an individual

yelled a Nazi salute in protest to masking requirements, and

another individual prompted the board to call a recess

because of opposition to critical race theory.''

As noted in the letter, a school board member in Ohio

received hate mail that said: ``We are coming after you and

all the members on the . . . BoE [Board of Education] . . . .

You are forcing them to wear mask--for no reason in this

world other than control. And for that you will pay dearly.''

That correspondence is being investigated by police.

Days after the NSBA letter was sent, a school board

chairman in North Carolina resigned and disclosed that his

life had been threatened, WCCB Charlotte reported.

The NSBA letter said some ``acts of malice, violence, and

threats against public school officials . . . could be the

equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.''

``Most disturbingly, on page 4, the NSBA letter references

Scott Smith--the Loudoun County, Virginia, parent who was

arrested for protesting at a school board meeting in June--

implying that his behavior was `extremist' and warranting

action from federal law enforcement,'' said Christina Pushaw,

a spokeswoman for DeSantis. ``Smith's supposed crime? He

attempted to protest a Loudoun school's coverup of his 14-

year-old daughter's sexual assault by a transgender classmate

in her school bathroom.''

According to the Loudoun County Sheriff's Department, in

July, more than a month after an alleged assault at Stone

Bridge High School on May 28, ``a 14-year-old male was

arrested in the case with two counts of forcible sodomy.''

The same teen reportedly was charged with sexually assaulting

another alleged female victim at a different high school last

week.

Smith, the father of the first alleged victim, was found

guilty of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest after an

altercation at his local school board meeting in June, which

Smith says he attended to protest how his daughter's case was

handled. ``Deputies dragged him to the ground, then outside,

where he continued struggling and arguing with them,

threatening to kick their teeth out,'' Loudoun Now reported.

``In citing Mr. Smith's case as an example of behavior that

justifies a federal crackdown, the NSBA letter asked the

Biden administration to deploy federal law enforcement to

silence and intimidate parents who have grave concerns that

deserve to be heard,'' Pushaw said. ``The Loudoun County

School Board is not the victim in this case.''

The NSBA, a nonprofit, has no relationship to the Justice

Department. Garland's memo makes no mention of the group, its

letter to Biden or the examples it included.

Asked about DeSantis's vow that ``Florida will defend the

free speech rights of its citizens and will not allow federal

agents to squelch dissent,'' Pushaw said: ``At this time, it

is too soon to speculate about legal actions, because the DOJ

has not yet taken any legal action to infringe upon

Floridians' rights following this memo. As you know, the DOJ

memo directs the FBI to work with U.S. attorneys and `convene

meeting' in each federal judicial district . . . . To be

clear, Governor DeSantis is committed to protecting

Floridians' rights and will take legal action if future

developments warrant that.''

A spokesman for Jordan, Russell Dye, said in an email that

the only way the Justice Department could use ``its authority

and resources to discourage these threats, identify

them when they occur, and prosecute them when appropriate,''

as the memo says, was by monitoring parents at school board

meetings, as the congressman said.

``The only reasonable explanation is to have the FBI/DOJ

watch what parents say at meetings and intimidate them into

silence,'' Dye said. ``Pretty easy to understand.'' (The FBI

simply could get tips from local officials, as Garland's memo

envisions.)

Mark Bednar, a spokesman for McCarthy, said existing laws

already establish criminal penalties for violence or threats

as outlined in the memo. Bednar said the Justice Department's

move was heavy-handed and could have a chilling effect on

parents who might otherwise speak up about their children's

education.

``Localized threats of violence are appropriately handled

by local law enforcement,'' Bednar said. ``As such, the real

question is why the Biden administration used the power of

the federal government to publicly threaten `a series of

measures' aimed at addressing local school board meetings . .

. . The unnecessary, ominous rhetoric from the DOJ's memo

could have a chilling effect on parents' First Amendment

engagement with their local schools.''

Garland spokesman Anthony Coley referred us to this line in

the Justice Department memo: ``While spirited debate about

policy matters is protected under our Constitution, that

protection does not extend to threats of violence or efforts

to intimidate individuals based on their views.''

Coley also pointed to recent Senate testimony by Deputy

Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco, the second-highest-ranking

official at the department, and Assistant Attorney General

Kristen M. Clarke, the head of the Civil Rights Division.

``Frankly, I don't think we've ever seen anything like it

in American history . . . . Are you aware of any time in

American history when an attorney general has directed the

FBI to begin to intervene in school board meetings--local

school board meetings?'' Hawley asked Monaco at a Senate

Judiciary Committee hearing Oct. 5.

``The memorandum is quite clear. It's one page,'' Monaco

said. ``And it asks the U.S. attorney community and the FBI

special agents-in-charge to convene state and local law

enforcement partners to ensure that there's an open line of

communication to address threats, to address violence--and

that's the appropriate role of the Department of Justice, to

make sure that we are addressing criminal conduct and

violence.'' (A spokesman for Hawley did not respond to our

questions on the record.)

When the same Senate committee met the next day for a

different hearing, Clarke said in response to questions from

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) that parents ``have the right to

express their view, to challenge the school board, to ask for

reforms.''

``The attorney general's memo deals with threats against

public servants and says the threats against public servants

are not only illegal, they run counter to our nation's core

values,'' Clarke said.

Youngkin, the Republican running for Virginia governor,

received a ``Pants on Fire'' rating from PolitiFact this week

for claiming his Democratic opponent, Terry McAuliffe,

``calls in his friend Joe Biden to actually put the DOJ on

Virginia parents.'' No evidence indicates that Biden or

McAuliffe were involved in Garland's decision-making, and

both the White House and McAuliffe have denied the

allegation.

Nevertheless, Youngkin repeated the claim at an Oct. 13

rally in Culpeper, Va., after he had been fact-checked: ``He

calls his friend Joe Biden. Joe Biden calls the attorney

general. And the attorney general calls the FBI in to silence

parents.'' An abbreviated version of all this has made it

into a new Youngkin campaign ad.

Asked about the claim, Youngkin spokesman Matt Wolking said

in an email that McAuliffe had refused to take a position on

Garland's memo and therefore ``admitted he won't stand up for

Virginia parents being targeted and intimidated by his

party's DOJ.''

The Pinocchio Test

These Republicans are turning a one-page memo on public

safety into a dystopian plot in which Big Brother erases

well-meaning parents for thinking freely.

The reality is school officials are reporting more concerns

for their safety--some attendees at their meetings have been

arrested for physical violence--and the Justice Department is

calling for strategy sessions between federal and local law

enforcement, a task force and dedicated lines of

communication to address the threats, and training for school

board members and others who might be targeted.

Dissenting parents would not be ``silenced'' by the feds

under the attorney general's memo, as DeSantis, and Youngkin

have said. Garland wrote, ``While spirited debate about

policy matters is protected under our Constitution, that

protection does not extend to threats of violence or efforts

to intimidate individuals based on their views.''

These claims earn Four Pinocchios.

Madam Speaker, we have heard this argument time and time again. It is blatantly incorrect. Attorney General Garland's October 4 one-page memo they keep referencing says: ``In the coming days, the Department will announce a series of measures designed to address the rise in criminal conduct directed toward school personnel.'' Let me repeat it, ``criminal conduct directed toward school personnel.'' Criminal, not parents voicing opinions at a school board meeting.

We are talking about violent, credible threats being made to some of our country's most important public servants and their families.

The reality is, school officials are reporting more concerns for their safety, as some attendees at their meetings have been arrested for physical violence. The Justice Department is calling for strategy sessions between Federal and local law enforcement, a task force and dedicated lines of communication to address the threats, and training for school board members and others who might be targeted. No intervention, no targeting free speech.

My wife retired after 30 years as a schoolteacher. I can't imagine threats being directed toward schoolteachers and school personnel for simply doing their jobs and carrying out the best interests of children in this country.

They are being targeted in violent ways. It is as simple as that.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.

I would say this: This is beyond absurd. Parents can speak out at school board meetings. Free speech in the United States is not only protected, we would be the first to protect it, on this side of the aisle.

What is not acceptable at school board meetings or any other place are direct threats made by people directed at school personnel, school officials, teachers, or anyone else in our citizenry, our democracy, and our community.

Madam Speaker, I think the bill which the gentleman references was just introduced. We haven't had a markup or discussion, but I do note he should read his own bill. It says ``up to $5,000,'' which can be anywhere from $1,000 to $5,000, so I think he misunderstood the bill that he has introduced.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I suggest to the gentlewoman that she support this bill, which provides training and resources to assist State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies in understanding, detecting, deterring, and investigating acts of domestic terrorism, as we saw demonstrated just this past weekend in our State, a State that she and I both live in, in Buffalo, New York, where members of the Buffalo Police Department faced great danger.

These are the kind of resources we want to give, the kind of resources embodied in this bill, the kind of resources that the bill envisioned 2 years ago when Members of this House by voice vote approved this bill.

We want and welcome their support for this bill. Let's get at it, and let's make sure that we are really helping law enforcement at the local level, at the State level, and at the Federal level deal with the emerging threats of domestic violence and domestic terrorism.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I don't want to belabor what I have said repeatedly. What we saw last week and what we continue to see around the country as it relates to domestic terrorism deserves and demands our attention, and the seriousness with which the American people have trusted us, the responsibility of finding solutions to these problems.

I appreciate my colleagues may not support that. They may not want to stand with us as we try to fight domestic terrorism and the rise of white supremacy. They may not want to address members of the Black community in Buffalo being targeted, and members of the Black community in Rochester being targeted, and people around the country being targeted.

But to continue to avoid the question and create misdirection, I think people

tuning in would have a hard time understanding what it is we are doing. Let's be clear. We are trying to address, in the most serious way we possibly can, the rise of domestic terrorism. We are asking for support for our Federal agencies to get them better coordinated. We are asking for more resources for State and local law enforcement agencies to confront these challenges.

If you don't want to stand with us; that is okay. If you want to go back and tell people back home why you don't think domestic terrorism-- which rises--demands the attention of the Congress; that is okay. But continuing to come and try to create misdirection, and to continue to try to confuse people about what is going on is a disservice to the millions of Americans who give us the awesome responsibility of watching out for their communities and their families.

Let's just be clear about what we are doing today and what the choices are and what the vote is and what the bill is before the House.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I find it incredibly insulting that anyone would suggest that I would smirk about the rape of a 10-year-old girl. I find it disgusting. I find the gentleman should offer an apology.

This is a serious matter. That is why we are here. We have solemn obligations. We should take them seriously. No ranting is necessary. No accusations. And certainly not insults being thrown about on the floor of the House of Representatives. I am incredibly dismayed that the gentleman would say anything even remotely like that.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues for their words in support of the rule before us today. As I mentioned earlier, we have before us relatively simple measures that take action to both support working families and protect our communities from domestic terrorism and violent extremism.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle can attempt to misdirect and confuse and make accusations and hurl insults all they want, but the reality is we are presenting concrete proposals to address issues facing our Nation that should be noncontroversial.

The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act will allow law enforcement to better deter acts of domestic terrorism.

The Consumer Fuel Price Gouging Prevention Act will ensure that Big Oil cannot record historic profits at the expense of everyday Americans.

The Infant Formula Supplemental Appropriations Act will help provide much needed relief for parents struggling to find formula for their children.

I look forward to supporting all three bills on the floor. I appreciate my colleagues.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

Amendment to House Resolution 1124

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 7809) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe

Streets Act of 1968 to provide for law enforcement officer

bonuses. All points of order against consideration of the

bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All

points of order against provisions in the bill are waived.

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the

bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally

divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority

member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion

to recommit.

Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 7809.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 350, the ``Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2022.'' I am proudly supporting this critical measure and encourage my colleagues to do so, as well.

On this past Saturday, 13 people were shot and 10 were killed going about their daily lives at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York.

of those lost souls were Black.

We know from the racist, xenophobic screeds posted online by the perpetrator of this attack that this particular supermarket was targeted because it was located in a predominantly Black residential neighborhood.

Then, on Sunday, one person was killed and four people were critically injured at a church in Laguna Woods, California. It appears this attack was motivated by political hatred directed at the Taiwanese community.

We must respond to these brazen attacks because this country--our country--cannot continue down this hateful pathway.

H.R. 350, the bipartisan Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act, of which I am a cosponsor, will strengthen the federal government's efforts to respond to domestic terrorism, focusing primarily on the threat of white supremacy.

It is a necessary response to the elevated threat of violence posed by domestic violent extremists, as declared by the FBI--which we must not allow to continue.

Each component of this bill has been carefully tailored to address the inadequacies of our current approach to fighting domestic terrorism and white supremacy.

First, it would authorize the creation of dedicated offices within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the FBI to analyze, investigate, monitor, and prosecute domestic terrorism jointly; promote information sharing among federal law enforcement agencies; and take preventative measures, focusing federal resources on the most significant threats based on the data collected.

Second, DOJ, FBI, and DHS would be required to provide critical training and resources to help state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies focus on understanding, detecting, preventing, and preempting domestic terrorism.

Third, the bill would also require establishment of an interagency task force to address the chronic infiltration of Federal law enforcement agencies and the military by white supremacists and neo- Nazis and biannual reporting on the state of domestic terrorism threats.

Fourth, this bill does not create new criminal offenses, new lists of designated domestic terrorist groups, or new investigative powers for law enforcement.

And because the fight against terrorism should not encroach upon Constitutional protections, the bill makes clear that no provisions shall be construed to infringe upon rights protected by the First Amendment and requires that each report must include a certification that all civil rights and civil liberties laws and regulations were followed when conducting assessments and investigations.

We must better equip law enforcement in all communities, on the local and federal level, to collaborate effectively to identify domestic terror threats and thwart these cowardly attacks before they happen.

In the last decade, every ethnic group in the United States has been touched by the increase in domestic terrorism.

These tragedies and their circumstances are all too familiar--the shooting spree at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas which left twenty-two dead and twenty-four injured; the rampage at Pittsburgh's Tree of Life synagogue where eleven people were killed; the racist attack on the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin which left six people dead; the brutal murder of nine worshippers at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina; three Muslim college students executed in Chapel Hill, North Carolina supposedly over parking but tinged with hostility for the young people's ``look''; the spa shooter in Atlanta who killed eight people, including six women of Asian descent; and bomb threats repeatedly called into historically black colleges, universities, and places of worship during Black History Month this year.

This bill addresses a real problem that we can no longer ignore. Thoughts and prayers are not enough. It is time we do more to help root out domestic terrorism and white supremacy.

I would like to thank Representative Brad Schneider for his dedication to crafting this bill in a thoughtful, responsive manner.

I urge all members on both sides of the aisle to support this important legislation just as they did last Congress.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 350--Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2022, a bill that will counter domestic terrorism.

I am a cosponsor of H.R. 350, and I thank Chairman Thompson for his leadership of the Committee on Homeland Security and his efforts to prioritize the issue of domestic terrorism.

H.R. 350 would authorize a dedicated domestic terrorism office within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) responsible for identifying and analyzing domestic terrorism activity in keeping with existing authorities and would codify in statute the establishment of dedicated offices within the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to investigate and prosecute domestic terrorism.

Domestic terrorism has posed a growing threat over the past decade. FBI Director Wray, when testifying before the House Committees on Homeland Security and Judiciary warned about this escalating threat, including in congressional testimony.

In 2017, Director Wray characterized domestic terrorism as a ``very serious'' issue and noted that the FBI had approximately 1,000 open domestic terrorism investigations, approximately the same as the number of FBI's investigations into U.S.-based individuals inspired by foreign terrorist organizations.

In 2018, Director Wray warned that ``law enforcement, racial minorities, and the U.S. Government will continue to be significant targets for many domestic extremist movements.''

In 2021, Director Wray stated that the domestic terrorism threat is ``metastasizing across the country.''

In response to the Biden Administration's direction to produce a comprehensive assessment of domestic terrorism threats, the Intelligence Community and law enforcement concluded in March 2021 that domestic violent extremists ``pose an elevated threat to the Homeland.''

No matter what other challenges might emerge we must never forget that one of our nation's greatest threats comes from our struggle against violent extremism that began on September 11, 2001 and has extended to violent extremist living among us who use political affiliation as a justification for acts of terror.

September 11, 2001 remains a tragedy that defines our nation's history, but the final chapter will be written by those who are charged with keeping our nation and its people safe while preserving the way of life that terrorists sought to change.

I was at the September 11, 2021 commemoration held in New York last year and reflected on the twenty years since that day of the attacks.

Since September 11, 2001, it has been a priority of this nation to prevent terrorists, or those who would do American's harm, from boarding flights whether they are domestic or international.

Over the nearly twenty years since enactment of the Homeland Security Act, the mission of the Department of Homeland Security has expanded to include cyber defense of civilian agency and private sector networks; protecting critical infrastructure in the form of the nation's electric grid, water delivery systems, transportation networks and federal election systems; and most recently managing the question of essential workers during this pandemic.

Annually the Committee on Homeland Security has held a hearing on the topic of Worldwide Threats to Homeland Security, which have covered a range of topics from terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and ISIS, to home grown involving Lone Wolves and White Supremacists.

The mission of the Committee on Homeland Security has been and will continue to be on the nearly 3,000 people who died on September 11, 2001, and whom we owe a debt to do all that we can to prevent another attack on United States soil.

The escalation in violent domestic attacks since the January 6 attack has particularly been felt by our nation's law enforcement officers, but others as well in the rise in murder and assaults across the nation.

Today, we find ourselves in a nation where the terrorism landscape is more complex and it is imperative that we recognize the unorthodox nature of the terrorism threat we face today.

The current terrorism threat landscape has three major drivers of heightened threat:

(1) the convergence of extremist ideologies;

(2) the speed at which individuals who ascribe to extremist ideologies escalate to violence;

(3) and the enormous growth of misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information.

The fringe ideologies that have adherents that move from group to group complicates the work of counterterrorism investigations, operations, and policy making because the focus would be on means and methods, understanding the hagiarchy of an organization, then moving to nullify threats before they manifest into acts of physical violence.

Research shows that ``over the past roughly 15 years, the average time span of radicalization in the U.S. has shrunk from 18 months to 7 months.''

As Director Wray said in a hearing before the Committee in September 2020, domestic violent extremists ``can go from radicalization to mobilization in weeks, if not days.''

The speed and ease of the proliferation of misinformation, disinformation mal-information is unprecedented joined with the mass invitation to willing minds to commit acts of violence based on information is unprecedented.

Misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information proliferate on the internet and build bridges between conspiracy theory and violent extremism.

According to research by the Soufan Group, ``algorithms employed by social media companies to generate continued engagement with platforms are partly responsible for radicalizing individuals to support QAnon,'' with anti-Semitism serving as a bridge between QAnon and white supremacy extremism.

The non-profit research group Tech Against Terrorism issued a report finding that ``terrorist

and violent extremist operated websites from across the ideological spectrum . . . pose one of the most significant threats to global efforts in tackling terrorist use of the internet by governments, the tech sector, law enforcement and NGOs.

While mis-, dis-, or mal-information may not in and of itself constitute terrorist content, conspiracy theories in such information may propel terrorists and violent extremists to action.

Misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information undermine homeland security and law enforcement efforts to combat violent extremism.

Misinformation and false narratives in political discourse, news media, and online have increased support for political violence.

The availability of extremist content online means that today, ``everyone is just a few clicks away from an ever-expanding series of rabbit holes that offer up whole worlds of disinformation and hate.''

In January 2021, President Biden initiated a 100-day comprehensive review of Federal efforts to address domestic terrorism.

The review found that racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists who advocate for the superiority of the white race and anti- government or anti-authority violent extremists are the two most lethal elements of today's terrorism threat, and as a result of that review, in June 2021 the Biden Administration released the first-ever National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism.

It is a comprehensive strategy for addressing the threat posed by domestic violent extremists and recognizes that online narratives promoting attacks on U.S. citizens, institutions, and critical infrastructure are a key factor driving radicalization and mobilization to violence.

Under the Strategy, DHS is responsible for preventing terrorism and I targeted violence, including through threat assessments, grants, and community-based prevention programs; enhancing public awareness; assessing, evaluating, and mitigating the 'risk of violence inspired by violent extremist narratives, including those narratives shared via online platforms; and establishing partnerships with nongovernmental organizations.

In May 2021, DHS announced the establishment of the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships (CP3), which would help the Department combat terrorism and targeted violence.

The City of Houston's Mayor's Office of Public Safety and Homeland Security (MOPSHS) is a recipient of $603,855.00 and has used the funds to reengage the cities community partners to form a coalition that will share information, assess threats, and be a resource to the community.

The city will work with the Texas Educational Service Center to develop a curriculum to educate students about radicalization to violence, media literacy, and bias.

According to CSIS, White supremacists, extremist militia members, and other violent far-right extremists were responsible for 66 percent of domestic terrorist attacks and plots in 2020.

On June 7, Harry H. Rogers--a self-proclaimed leader of the Ku Klux Klan--intentionally drove his pick-up truck into a crowd of Black Lives Matter demonstrators in Henrico, Virginia. One protester was injured, and Rogers received a six-year prison sentence.

In another case a Nevada man used an armored truck to block traffic on the Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge and held up signs--then he fled to Arizona where he was arrested.

At the time of his arrest he referenced QAnon conspiracy theories and discussed related conspiratorial beliefs.

No matter what other challenges might emerge, we must never forget that one of our nation's greatest threats comes from our struggle against violent extremism that began on September 11, 2001 and has extended to violent extremists living among us who use political affiliation as a justification for acts of terror.

I ask fellow members of the House to join me in voting in favor of

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today provides for consideration of three pieces of legislation, including H.R. 350, which my colleagues claim will prevent incidents of domestic terrorism. But let's make no mistake, Republicans are committed to fighting hatred and violence in all forms.

Unfortunately, H.R. 350 does absolutely nothing to actually make our communities safer. Rather, this legislation expands the Federal bureaucracy. It ignores new and evolving domestic terrorist threats, and it makes it more difficult for law enforcement to recruit and retain qualified candidates.

Alarmingly, it empowers Biden's DOJ to continue labeling American parents and other political opponents as threats to stifle their First Amendment rights.

The rule before us today also provides for consideration of H.R. 7688, the Democrats' attempt to distract and shift blame for President Biden's self-inflicted energy crisis. Since his first day in office, President Biden has waged an unrelenting war on American energy producers. From canceling the Keystone XL pipeline to suspending oil and gas leasing on Federal lands, President Biden's radical Green New Deal policies have discouraged and denied development of American energy resources and the American energy sector.

Yet, at the same time that Joe Biden has done all this, he absolutely refuses to take any accountability for the soaring gas prices and the economic pain he continues to inflict on hardworking American families.

First, the President tried to blame Putin, despite the fact that gas prices had risen more than 50 percent during his first year in office. A quick history lesson: That is 1 year before Russia ever invaded Ukraine. In fact, gas prices have increased every single month of this Presidency.

Now, the President is blaming hardworking oil and gas producers in places like Pennsylvania and across the country, accusing them of price gouging, even though multiple FTC investigations have repeatedly concluded supply and demand is the ultimate driver of these rising prices and, by the way, an artificial decrease in supply thanks to these radical policies.

H.R. 7688 will impose a socialist price-fixing scheme on oil and gas, leading to even less production, which will hit small businesses and American families the hardest.

Now, I wasn't alive in the 1970s, but I know there are a lot of Members in this Chamber who were, and I am sure they can remember waiting in line to fuel up their cars. If H.R. 7688 is signed into law, that travesty will once again be a reality.

Finally, the rule before us makes in order H.R. 7790, the Infant Formula Supplemental Appropriations Act. Under President Biden's leadership, our Nation is facing an infant formula supply crisis, with reports that more than 40 percent of formula is out of stock. Instead of working with Republicans to redirect excess stocks of formula at Federal agencies and force the FDA to develop a plan to address this shortage, House Democrats simply want to throw money at the problem with absolutely no plan, no guardrails to ensure that funding is spent to actually put baby formula back on grocery store shelves.

Let me be clear. We are giving $28 million to the very same unelected career bureaucrats who failed to address this crisis when it came to their attention a year ago. It is absolute madness.

H.R. 7790 will do nothing, absolutely nothing, to alleviate Biden's baby formula crisis, and it is American babies and American families who will be forced to suffer the consequences.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I failed to mention that today's rule also does not make in order a single Republican amendment, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Republicans have attempted to work with our Democratic colleagues to make our communities safer, to address inflation and lower gas prices, and to help parents feed their babies. But it is absolutely clear from today's rule and from their actions over the last 3 years that House Democrats would rather continue their partisan political theater than put forth real solutions to help real Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice), my good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I would be more than happy to answer the question that my friend from Illinois posed.

The difference from 2 years ago and now is that the DOJ has started going after concerned parents that are showing up at school board meetings labeling them domestic terrorists.

The difference is that the Department of Homeland Security thinks it is fitting to have a truth and disinformation board, like something from an Orwellian novel. This is a different time.

Also, in the last 2 years, we had $2 billion of damage that was caused by antifa. Yet, my colleagues across the aisle refuse to label antifa a domestic terrorist organization.

Those are just a few of the things that have changed between now and the last time we had this bill.

Now, my good friend from New York was talking about the oil and gas industry. Let me just remind everybody that in 2020, the oil and gas industry lost $76 billion.

There was talk about buybacks. Maybe we should consider why these buybacks are occurring. Maybe it is because of investor shareholder activism and this notion of ESGs that has something to do with it. And by the way, that activism also dries up investment and capital into the oil and gas industry.

But don't take my word for it, Dr. Jason Furman of Harvard University--clearly no bastion of conservative thought--he actually was an adviser to President Obama. Listen to what he said: ``When more people want to buy things than companies are capable of making, prices go up. That's just the law of supply and demand. Companies always want to maximize their profits. I don't think they're doing it any more this year than any other year.''

Again, that was Jason Furman, not exactly a conservative.

But while we are talking about all these issues, we are also failing to talk about police week. It is National Police Week. Across our Nation, police departments are struggling to recruit new officers, to fill open positions. Some cities are facing shortages as high as 17 percent. At the same time, our Nation is in the midst of a crime crisis with homicide rates up 48 percent compared with just 2 years ago.

The crime crisis is a direct result of President Biden and the Democrats' efforts to demonize the police, to defund the police, and also pushing for soft-on-crime policies.

House Republicans will always stand with our police. We will always invest in our Nation's law enforcement, and we will always fight to make our communities safer.

That is why, if we defeat this previous question, I will personally offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider the Communities Deserve Cops Act.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford), a former sheriff, good friend, and the author of this legislation, here to explain the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I just have to push back a little bit on my good friend from New York because the facts just don't line up with his argument, respectfully.

I will give you a great example. During the committee markup, Representative Steube of Florida offered an amendment to strike references to white supremacists and neo-Nazis, and insert neo-Nazis, white supremacists, antifa, Black Lives Matter, and radicalized social justice organizations.

So when the Democrats had the chance to actually include a whole slew of domestic terror organizations, when they had the chance, that amendment that Representative Steube offered, it failed on a party-line vote with only one Republican joining the Democrats in voting ``no.''

While Democrats refused to put antifa, Black Lives Matter, and radicalized social justice organizations into the definition of ``domestic terrorism,'' they simultaneously believed that concerned parents at school board meetings are the domestic terrorists. That is the problem, and that is what has changed between 2 years and now.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Rice) to talk more about the police. Again, it is Police Week, and we are doing very little talking about the police.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I have a lot of respect for my good friend from New York, but, again, facts don't care about friendships. If you look at the facts, and just a quick history lesson, on September 29, 2021, the National School Boards Association sent a letter to the Biden White House asking the administration to treat parents as terrorists. Madam Speaker, 5 days after that letter, which, again, asks Biden's DOJ to treat parents as domestic terrorists, 5 days later, Attorney General Garland sent a memo to the Director of the FBI, directing the FBI to work with each U.S. attorney to convene meetings with Federal, local, and territorial leaders within 30 days of the issuance of the memo and to open dedicated lines of communication for threats reported at school board meetings. Just a few weeks after that, they created a threat tag to be used on parents.

Fast forward, during a markup in the Judiciary Committee, Judiciary Republicans expressed concerns that H.R. 350 will codify what took place last fall, treating parents as domestic terrorists.

To date, that memo has not been rescinded.

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle) to see if he supports the actions of the Attorney General, if he supports the letter, and if he has anything to say in response.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, the question was simple. It is on the issue of the memoranda, whether or not my colleague agreed that the FBI should treat parents as domestic terrorists.

The letter has not been rescinded. It is still in place, and the actions of the Attorney General and the DOJ are irrefutable. Again, I point to the fact that that letter has still not been rescinded.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Guest) to elaborate more on this matter.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis), my good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler), my good friend and fellow appropriator.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my good friend.

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, for over 3 years, House Democrats have pushed for a radical, far left agenda that does absolutely nothing to address the serious issues facing American families. The legislation made in order under today's rule is no exception to that.

H.R. 350 adds bureaucracy and adds red tape to existing law enforcement resources, while completely ignoring new and evolving terrorist threats.

H.R. 7688, this is the Democrats' socialist energy price-fixing scheme that will actually lead to less energy production and further exacerbate American families' pain at the pump.

Finally, H.R. 7790, does nothing--I repeat, nothing--to put more formula on store shelves or hold Biden's FDA accountable for ignoring this crisis despite knowing about it for the last year.

Madam Speaker, the American people deserve more than empty promises and meaningless legislation, they deserve action.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam President, today, the Senate will have a chance to act on a pernicious issue that has recently become an increasingly prevalent component in America's gun violence epidemic: the evil spread of White supremacy and domestic terrorism.

In the past 2 weeks, the United States has endured two of the most traumatic mass shootings that we have seen in recent history. In my home State of New York, in the beloved city of Buffalo, 10 Black Americans were gunned down in broad daylight by a White supremacist armed with an AR-15 and whose mind was poisoned by online conspiracies--White supremacist conspiracies.

And 2 days ago, 19 children--19 children: 8-year-olds, 9-year-olds, 10-year-olds, kids on the verge of beginning summer, kids with their entire lives ahead of them; we saw them holding up their trophies and proudly in their T-

shirts, and a few hours later they were gone--slaughtered in the predominantly Latino town of Uvalde, TX. Two teachers, including a mother of four, were killed alongside them. Many more were injured and remain in critical condition.

It was the worst school shooting in America since Sandy Hook. Last night, I looked at the pictures of each of those kids online, and I wept--taken from us, taken from their families through senseless gun violence. I can't stop thinking about the parents, too, who lost their kids. I can't stop imagining the paralyzing horror of being one of the parents showing up to the school after the shooting, wondering where their kid was--the anxiety that will live with these parents forever-- forced to wait hours before a DNA test--a DNA test--confirmed that their son or daughter was gone. I cannot imagine a hell--a hell--worse than that.

And these families, my colleagues, don't want thoughts and prayers. They want their elected leaders to respond to their suffering. They don't want to be lifted up. They don't want good intentions. They want something to change. They want results.

Yet the MAGA Republicans don't want to get results. They are ossified in their opposition to any action on gun safety. No matter the cause of violence and no matter the cost on families, nothing seems to move them.

Yesterday, after Beto O'Rourke confronted Texas Governor Abbott's press conference, the MAGA Governor gave some empty platitudes about healing and hope. He asked people to put their agendas aside and think about someone other than themselves.

My God, how dare he. What an absolute fraud the Governor of Texas is. And this is the same Governor Abbott who tomorrow--tomorrow--will go speak at the NRA convention in Houston.

Governor Abbott, will you ask your MAGA buddies and your NRA pals to put aside their agendas and think of someone other than themselves like you asked the families to do? Will you ask the gun manufacturing reps who swarm over the NRA convention to put aside their agendas and think about someone other than themselves? Of course not.

The Governor--Governor Abbott--is more likely to outline some new plans to further loosen gun restrictions. No amount of bloodshed seems to be enough for MAGA Republicans.

This Nation is enraged as well as being exhausted. It has been through this over and over and over again over the last two decades. People are sick of mourning again and again while listening to the same string of hollow words from the MAGA Republicans that never lead to action.

So in a few moments, the Senate will have a chance to vote on one important cause of gun violence. The legislation before the Senate today is the Domestic Terrorism Protection Act, which I scheduled for a vote earlier this week before what happened in Uvalde occurred. It was done to respond to the massacre in the supermarket in Buffalo.

The bill is so important because the mass shooting in Buffalo was an act of domestic terrorism. We need to call it what it is: domestic terrorism. It was terrorism that fed off the poison of conspiracy theories like ``White replacement theory''; terrorism that left 10 people dead, a community forever torn asunder. This bill will give the government the tools to monitor, find, and arrest these evil actors before they have a chance to inflict violence on their communities. I thank my colleague Senator Durbin for championing this bill.

I have been going to bed every night thinking about the families I met in Buffalo in the aftermath of the shooting. I think about this little 3-year-old boy. He lost his dad who went to that Tops grocery store to buy him a birthday cake--a birthday cake for his son. That little boy is going to live with that the rest of his life--the rest of his life. I think about all the families impacted by other racially motivated shootings over the year. Buffalo, certainly, unfortunately, wasn't the first--Charleston, El Paso, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, and so many others; the shooting of Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, gay Americans, Jewish Americans, as well as Black Americans all because of this horrible ``White replacement theory.''

So today is the day we can begin to debate on how to make these shootings less likely. And there is an additional benefit to moving forward today. It is a chance to have a larger debate in considering amendments for gun safety legislation in general, not just for those motivated by racism, as vital as it is to do that.

I know that many Members on the other side hold views that are different than the views on this side of the aisle. So let us move on this bill. Let us proceed and then they can bring them to the floor.

Senator Johnson brought a bill to the floor yesterday about school security practices. I didn't agree with the bill, and I don't think it is the answer to mass shootings. We don't need more guns in the schools. There were security guards at the supermarket in Buffalo, police and security at the school in Uvalde, but we can debate it. The same with Senator Cruz's plan to limit schools to only one door. Fire marshals and tactical experts totally and vehemently disagree. Let's debate it.

And there are other Senators with other proposals--proposals that come from our side of the aisle--background checks, red flag laws, the Charleston loophole, assault weapons, and other ideas.

Look, I know the chances of getting 10 votes on this bill are small, unfortunately, given the influence of MAGA Republicans. Many Republicans have made their opposition clear. Again, there are a lot of MAGA Republicans for whom no amount of gun violence--whether it is domestic terrorism, a school shooting, a neighborhood shooting, or something else--will ever--ever--convince them to take any action.

If Republicans obstruct debate today, we are prepared to have an honest and realistic discussion, conversation, negotiation for a little more time to see what they can come to the table with.

We are under no illusions that this will be easy. We have been burned in the past when Republicans promised to debate only for them to break their promise. But even with long odds, the issue is so important, so raw to the American people, so personal to countless families who are missing children, that we must pursue that opportunity. We also know that the American people--as many as 80 percent or 90 percent--support gun safety legislation.

We have an obligation to pursue every path and explore every realistic option to break the cycle of suffering and inaction. Not trying everything is not acceptable to the families who have lost their loved ones to our Nation's gun epidemic. To those beautiful children we see pictures of in the newspaper and their families, we have to try everything. We must not leave a single stone unturned.

Senator Murphy, who has been such a strong and valiant leader within our caucus on gun safety legislation and who has seen the suffering firsthand of the families at Sandy Hook whom he has become very close to, has asked for space to see what progress can be done with Senate Republicans.

Neither he nor I is under an illusion that this will be easy; it will not. But his view, my view, and the overwhelming view of our caucus is that we need to give it a short amount of time to try. There are others, too, in this caucus reaching out to our Republican colleagues as we speak--Senator Blumenthal, Senator Coons, Senator Heinrich, Senator Manchin, and others. We have also been in talks with our allies across gun advocacy groups, and we all have a strong and burning desire to see something real, something tangible come across, come together here in the Senate.

Again, none of us are under any illusions that it will be easy. None of us want to let this drag out. We know all too well the vice grip that the NRA and MAGA wing hold over the GOP, and we have been burned in the past. America has been burned in the past.

After the shootings in El Paso and Dayton 3 years ago, the Republican leader promised red flag laws and background checks would be front and center in the Senate debate. He didn't put them on the floor, and Republicans did nothing. But that is not an excuse for Democrats not to try. Too many families have suffered, too many kids have been lost, too many communities have

been destroyed. This is too important not to explore every option.

I want to be clear. This is not an invite to negotiating indefinitely. Make no mistake about it, if these negotiations do not bear fruit in a short period of time, the Senate will vote on gun safety legislation. Let me repeat. If these negotiations do not bear any fruit, the Senate will vote on gun safety legislation when we return. But our hope, even amidst our deep skepticism, is, during this week, Democrats and Republicans, at long last, will come to agree on something meaningful that will reduce gun violence in a real way in America. Senator Murphy and some of our colleagues believe that it is worth a chance, and we will give it that chance.

Unfortunately, though, Republicans haven't come forward in too long a time. There hasn't been this debate in too long a time. But even though it hasn't happened in too long a time, we feel an obligation to give it a chance.

I yield the floor.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

Mr. President, now let me explain. I entered my ``no'' vote so we can bring this up again and gain more support. So I enter a motion to reconsider the failed cloture vote.

Today, we will have a bill before us ostensibly titled and ostensibly about the subject of domestic terrorism.

But this bill would be more accurately called the Democrat plan to brand and insult our police and soldiers as White supremacists and neo- Nazis. How insulting.

I have met our Nation's policemen. I have visited with policemen across Kentucky, through our big cities and small, and I have not met one policeman motivated or consumed with any kind of sort of racial rage. What I have met are proud policemen and women who care about the people that they protect in our society, but also who care about their fellow officers.

I have not met one policeman who would not defend their partner: Black, White, Jewish, Christian, Muslim. I don't see the kind of sort of insulting rage that the Democrats have for our police.

I have met our country's young soldiers and marines. I don't meet racists. I don't meet White supremacists. I don't meet neo-Nazis. I meet young men and women who are courageous enough to defend our country. And what an insult it is to put a bill before this House that says: Oh, somehow our marines are consumed with White supremacy and neo-Nazism. How insulting.

In fact, I don't think you could look at a group of young men and women who are more adapted to the times, who are more accepting of their fellow man. And I have never--I have never--heard of a marine saying: Oh, I am not going to carry my fallen colleague out because he is African American. I have never heard of an African-American marine saying: I am not going to carry out my fellow marine because they are White.

If there is any kind of grouping in our country more accustomed to treating people because they are your fellow soldier and your friend, it is the military. To insinuate that the military is consumed with White supremacy is an insult. To insinuate that our soldiers are somehow these terrible people, these neo-Nazis and White supremacists, that we are going to get a new government Agency to police the marines--the marines are a proud part of our military. Our soldiers are a proud part of our country. These are the people who do not see color, who do not see race, who do not see religion. These are the people who don't leave their fallen.

Do you think the marines go around saying ``Oh, we are going to leave our fallen if they have a certain race or religion''? You don't see that. The marines, the soldiers in our country, the people who defend our country, the people who defend and love our country, are the least consumed with any kind of notion of race. How insulting.

This bill states as if it were a fact in the beginning of section 5 that this bill will create ``an interagency task force to analyze and combat White supremacist and neo-Nazi infiltration of the uniformed services and federal law enforcement.'' This is not just an insult to your local police or to the Marines or to the Army and to the Navy; this is an insult to the FBI; it is an insult to the Capitol Police. This bill says that they have been infiltrated. This says that our police are consumed with some kind of race rage.

It is untrue, and it is slander, and it is scandalous, but it is predictable. This is the party that wants to defund the police. But this party not only wants to defund the police, they think the police are full of hatred and racism. It is not true.

Every policeman in our country, every soldier in our country should look at this bill and say: Who are these people? White supremacy and neo-Nazism infiltration of the Marines? That is not true. It is an insult to every marine in our country. It is an insult to every soldier in our country. It is an insult to every policeman in our country. It is an insult to the Capitol Police.

I don't see this in our country. I actually see our armed services as probably one of the areas where people intermix regardless of race and religion better than any segment. These are our young men and women who live in close quarters in barracks. These are our young men and women who go overseas. These are our young men and women who have given arms and legs, and I don't hear examples--I don't know of an example of some guy who says: Oh, yeah, we were blown up by an IED, but we decided to leave that guy because he is of a different race. How insulting.

So you are going to have a task force to investigate our soldiers. This is a Federal task force that is going to go in and investigate our soldiers for White supremacy--I guess read their emails, read what websites they go to--because the implication is they are guilty until they can prove themselves innocent. That is what this will set up. It will set up more government Agencies that presume your guilt. But it is an insult to our armed services, to our police, and to anybody who works in law enforcement.

One might well ask if Democrats now believe that the U.S. military and Federal, State, and local police departments are all corrupted. Are there White supremacists and neo-Nazis running around our country?

Look, when I visit even the larger cities in Kentucky, when I visit the Louisville Police Department, guess what. I see African Americans and Whites working together and Brown, Hispanic--whatever you want to call people--all working together. I see high-ranking people in our department who are African American. I don't see that everybody is running around hating each other. I see Black officers and White officers who work together as partners, who care about each other and would defend to the last breath their partner if they were shot in the line of duty. I have seen the officers who have been shot, Black and White. I don't see any of them saying: Oh, yeah, well, we are not going to do anything because that person is of a certain race.

This bill is an insult to every police officer in this country. This bill is an insult to everyone in our armed services. This bill says that the armed services have been infiltrated by White supremacy.

So if you are a soldier in our country, if you are a policeman in our country, you need to let your Congressman or Senator know that you are not a White supremacist and that it is an insult for the Democrats to call you a White supremacist. It is an insult for the Democrats to say our police force is full of White supremacy, that our armed services is full of this.

Everybody in this country who works in law enforcement should be outraged by this bill and should respond and say: No, that is not me, and that is not any of my colleagues. That is not what the Kentucky police force is about. That is not what the National Guard is about. That is not what the Marines are about. What an insult. What an insult.

So what do they do? They set up a new Department in Homeland Security. Isn't Homeland Security Federal too? Have they not been infiltrated as well?

See, the implication of this bill is that all people are bad, that there is this great and worrisome thing that is infecting America--when the opposite is true.

I was born in the 1960s. Every decade has gotten better. People get along better. We have more intermarriage between races. We have more integration within churches. I see less and less of this that everybody is saying is now infecting us.

But they don't realize that they are insulting everyone. They are insulting the police. They are insulting our marines. They are insulting our armed services.

The bill creates two other Departments. These essentially are Departments that are going to be the thought police of the military.

We just took down the ``Ministry of Truth,'' which was in the Department

of Homeland Security. It took a couple of weeks for them to finally be ashamed that they were going to try to censor speech, and the Biden administration has canceled it or at least put it on pause. But this bill will create two other Agencies, two other thought police offices at the Department of Justice and the FBI--seems like a self-defeating choice since elsewhere in the bill, we are told that Federal law enforcement is completely infiltrated by White supremacists and neo- Nazis.

But, again, none of the bill makes sense. It doesn't make sense because it was a bill that was never intended to become law and won't. It is a dumb Washington talking points memo masquerading as legislation, but it is also a grave insult to anyone involved in law enforcement, anyone involved in the military. But congressional Democrats have gotten so radical, so extreme, so out of touch with the American people, that when they read it, they think this is something worthwhile to do. It is a messaging bill for today.

This bill will fail today, though, because the Democrats' message-- hate the police; defund the police; the police are terrible people; the military are terrible people--to slander the military and the police as racist and White supremacist has been roundly rejected by the American people and will continue to be.