H.Res. 1124

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, pursuant to House Resolution 1124, I call up the bill (H.R. 7790) making emergency supplemental appropriations to address the shortage of infant formula in the United States for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2022, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, this funding legislation will work in tandem with President Biden's launch of Operation Fly Formula and the invocation of the Defense Production Act to help quickly and safely address the infant formula shortage in this country and help prevent this from happening again.

I am shocked by the infant formula crisis. The shortage we are seeing today is in large part caused by some who chose not to prioritize the health and the safety of our babies.

In September 2021, Food and Drug Administration, FDA inspectors conducted a routine inspection of the Abbott Nutrition facility in Sturgis, Michigan, where suspicions of wrongdoing were already present, as noted in a Bloomberg article published on May 12 from a reporter who obtained the FDA report through a Freedom of Information Act request.

On October 20, 2021, a whistleblower who worked at that Abbott facility submitted a report to the FDA unveiling a damning list of allegations of wrongdoing at the hands of Abbott. Recalls happen, but if the allegations are true, this company has lied, cut corners, falsified records to cover up their misdoings at the sake of infant health. This is plain wrong.

But this was in October. The FDA knew about what Abbott was doing in October and, yes, they dragged their feet. It was not until late December that the FDA interviewed the whistleblower. And then not until a month after that, in late January, was the plant inspected in person. Abbott then issued a recall in February, 4 months later.

In March, I requested an HHS Office of Inspector General report to look into this tragedy, so that we can hold the bad actors accountable. And then I got ahold of and submitted for the record a whistleblower report with truly awful allegations against Abbott.

Their wrongdoings included the falsification of records, testing seals on empty cans, releasing untested infant formula, just to name a few. In essence, they put a product on the market, a contaminated product, which they knew was contaminated. We have lost--at least two infants died. Several were hospitalized.

Let's look back for a moment. Now, we are learning that in 2014, Abbott deliberately and successfully tried to weaken bacteria testing safety standards. At that time, the FDA issued a proposed rule that would have increased the regular safety inspections of infant formula manufacturing facilities to prevent the contamination of infant formula; the very crisis that we have today.

The Federal Government has an important role to play in addressing this painful issue. As I said, at least two babies died, and four more were hospitalized that we know of because of corporate greed, consolidation, and a disgraceful lack of proper oversight by the FDA.

This is infant formula we are talking about. Parents trust that this formula will be safe and healthy for their newborn babies. It should be the most regulated and protected of any product,

and here, we see Abbott putting production and profits before people.

I introduced this bill this week because 43 percent of infant formula is out of stock nationwide. There is an immediate need to bring infant formula to the babies and families facing such a dire necessity. In the wealthiest Nation in the world, babies should not be at risk of going hungry. Parents should not have to play a guessing game and wonder if the food that they are giving their babies is safe.

Earlier this evening, President Biden announced that he would invoke the Defense Production Act to increase domestic production of infant formula, launching Operation Fly Formula to use Federal planes to fly formula in from abroad.

I have been calling for the swift importation of safe infant formula from FDA-approved facilities overseas since the beginning of this crisis. These steps will achieve this goal, and I applaud the Biden administration for rising to this urgent challenge.

Now that we are ramping up production, preparing to purchase formula from abroad, we must ensure that it is safe. And I would repeat, this product needs to come from FDA-approved facilities so we make no mistake that they are adhering to a standard. The FDA needs the resources to do that.

The FDA plays a critical role in ensuring formula provides the full nutritional needs of infants and that it is manufactured in the safest way possible. We must ensure that a lack of funding is not a barrier to getting safe formula to parents and babies.

The bill before us does just that. It addresses this pressing need by providing $28 million in new funding for the FDA. These funds will be used to prevent fraudulent products from entering the marketplace, to acquire better data of the situation in the marketplace, and to fund the balance of FDA activities. To prevent shortages from happening again, funds will strengthen the workforce focused on formula issues and increase the FDA's inspection staff.

The FDA needs resources to be able to get this work done quickly, and safely, and that includes building their workforce. Right now, they have only nine people on staff inspecting and reviewing the submissions that could increase the number of FDA-approved facilities developing infant formula. It is not enough.

Being able to have more staff who are doing this job will ensure FDA can increase the quality of submissions being reviewed without risking the quality of the review process. We also have their funds that will buttress their inspection teams so that we can get more FDA-approved facilities online.

I am proud that this bill meets this urgent need. People are looking for some relief, and I am proud that we are on the floor tonight to ensure that families get this help as soon as possible.

But we should not, and we will not be made to choose between the health and the safety of our babies and the supply that keeps them fed. I reject this dangerous and false dichotomy.

Let me be clear: The funding in this bill seeks to address the shortage now, but we must simultaneously find solutions that prevent this contamination and the shortage from happening again. Our work here is not done. We will introduce legislation in the next several days to address the root cause of the issue so that it does not happen again.

Madam Speaker, we all are heartbroken, both at the stories of the babies who died and their mourning families, and the millions of moms and dads today who are frantic and scrambling to find formula, and who, within their hearts, are scared that the product they may be giving their infant can potentially cause them grave harm.

That is not who we are. That is not who we are. Our babies are our most vulnerable, and we must work quickly and decisively to make safe formula available for every single baby in this country who needs it.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this absolutely critical piece of legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I might just add, just a quick moment, to indicate to my colleague, who is my friend, that, in fact, we did check with other departments and agencies, and particularly with FEMA, to find out what they might have in stock. FEMA currently has on hand formula for 550 infants for one week. So, in fact, we don't have other Federal agencies that do have a stock of infant formula. What we have said in the legislation is that the FDA must report to House and Senate Appropriations Committees on a weekly basis of where the money is being used, how it is being used, so that we have accountability.

I am really honored to yield to my colleague who chairs the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. This is coming through his subcommittee. He has been a tireless fighter on this issue, making sure that our kids are safe. To that end, he will be talking with the director of the Food and Drug Administration tomorrow morning. So he has been really at the center of this effort.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).

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

Madam Speaker, I just say to my colleague that, in fact, one would suspect from listening to our colleague that Abbott Nutrition was ready to really move forward and to deal with reopening. The fact of the matter is, I have said that the Food and Drug Administration dragged their feet by not looking at what they were doing in October, et cetera.

But the FDA had to go to court to get an agreement with Abbott about how to open. This wasn't a company that was taking on their culpability in knowingly selling a contaminated product that puts our babies at risk. Going to court, that is just a part of the delay with moving, is having to have to go to court to do this.

Congressman Pallone has spent so much of his professional career focused on food safety issues and, in fact, as the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies is doing hearings, the Energy and Commerce Committee will be doing hearings on this issue as well.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will say to my colleague who just spoke that, in fact, I just talked about what FEMA has in terms of stocks, which would take care of infants for about 1 week, but I would call her attention to the article that appeared on May 10, ``Military stores scrambling to get baby formula: What new parents need to know.''

Military families are dealing with the same shortage of baby formula. Now, they would have a supply. I take it from what my colleague said that we should take the product from military families, who are serving in the service of this country, take their formula and move it around.

We know where the product is, and we know we do not have enough. We know that we need to move. As to what we are doing and suggesting that we move to import from FDA facilities that are overseas, there are seven of them where we can get product on the shelves as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the chairwoman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform. Oversight and reform is Congresswoman Maloney's stock-in-trade, and she is all over this issue as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, we all share the view that the infant formula shortage is a crisis. The stories that we have all heard-- mothers and fathers struggling to find formula, the images of empty store shelves--are heartbreaking. We have all heard from constituents all over this country that parents are scared. They can't find the product, and they are scared that they are going to have a product that may put their child in danger.

Mr. Speaker, we need to address two areas. We need to address the immediate crisis to get product on the shelves as soon as we can, which is what this bill does tonight, along with other measures that the administration is taking.

There are some very serious underlying issues that we face. The question arises, how did we get here? How did this happen?

One of the biggest issues and concerns is the whole issue of the consolidation of the industry. There are only four manufacturers of infant formula in the United States, and when one of the four has produced a contaminated product, knowingly putting our babies at risk, yes, and they fought the FDA on really calling for a recall. The FDA, again, had to go to district court to be able to move to a consent decree to talk about cleaning up the mess in Sturgis, Michigan.

When that product came off the shelf, 43 percent of the product was gone because that is the piece that Abbott has. They have cornered the market. We need to address that root problem of sole-source contracting. This is prevalent in the meatpacking industry as well.

We cannot just rely on four producers of infant formula. We have to take a look at that, and that will be investigated.

There is an inspector general investigation going on that will take a look at the issues of the contamination and that underlying cause. We will investigate why it took so long for the FDA--4 months--to look at addressing this issue when they had knowledge that this company was selling a contaminated product, with some very courageous whistleblower coming forward to tell the story.

Those pieces are going to be investigated. In my view, we will follow the investigation to where the difficulties are, and we will hold people accountable for that.

In the meantime, we have a responsibility. That responsibility is to make sure that there is infant formula on the shelves that parents can get access to, and that is what this bill is about. That is what our efforts are all about, giving the Food and Drug Administration resources to deal with the supply chain, to be able to go to the seven producers overseas. There are seven countries that are FDA approved: France, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Denmark, and Ireland are FDA approved.

Again, I will state my view. We only need to go to FDA-approved facilities, not open the door to facilities where we cannot deal with what their standards are in short order.

That is what the resources here can help the FDA do. It would increase their inspection force. It would increase their ability to look at infant formula submissions so they can move quickly to approve facilities and give that approval and, in the meantime, move to get the product back here.

As the President announced today, we will be able to use our airplanes. We can get product here rapidly.

Again, it should come from FDA-approved facilities. That is what we are about tonight. That is what it is. It is not about politics. We are going to investigate what happened here.

Let's come together. Let's move together to address a nationwide challenge and a problem that we face. Let's not continue to put mothers and fathers and babies at risk. We have the responsibility to do something tonight, to make it happen, and I urge my colleagues, we cannot let any baby be at risk of going to sleep hungry in this country. We must act quickly. There is no room for error.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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 Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Speaker, there are a lot of issues with this amendment, not the least of which is that my colleague is the subcommittee chairman on the committee of jurisdiction for this amendment, yet we are not taking it up in that committee because I suppose we don't want the debate.

While we are talking about national security in the National Defense Authorization Act, this amendment adds to the already excessive bureaucracy at the State Department, not at the Pentagon.

It has nothing to do with national security. This is about political ideology and using the National Defense Authorization Act for more bureaucracy, a climate change officer at embassies, consulates, diplomatic missions, et cetera.

It is alleged to provide expertise on climate change in the State Department, and it stipulates that this must be done in an equitable, inclusive, and just manner.

Do you know what is not equitable or just? Sending State Department officials around the globe to tell other countries trying to emerge in their world, in their economies, by adopting ineffective, destabilizing green energy just so that John Kerry can fly around in his private jet and rub elbows with billionaires in Davos.

It is certainly not equitable or just to tell other countries they must transition to electrical systems built on the horrific, forced slave labor and child labor facilitated by the Communist Party of China. That doesn't seem equitable, doesn't seem just, doesn't seem fair.

This amendment also contains the sense of Congress that would affirm climate change as one of the core tenets of foreign policy priorities.

Madam Speaker, we are talking about the National Defense Authorization Act. This is not the State and Foreign Ops reauthorization. This doesn't belong here. This has nothing to do with this.

Everybody here knows, or should know, that we face enormous challenges around the globe for a national security policy. But if we want to talk about State and Foreign Ops, we can talk about Sri Lanka.

They have an ESG score of like 99 or something like that. They just overthrew their government because they

can't eat because of these policies, these policies imposed on them by the United States of America in the accolades of this Green New Deal garbage.

Ghana is the same thing, moving up in the world, electrifying their country so everybody could afford electricity in a Third World country. Now it is dark at night in their homes because there is no electricity because of this kind of stuff.

This doesn't belong here, Madam Speaker. Actually, it doesn't belong anywhere, but it certainly doesn't belong as an amendment to this bill. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I would just offer this to my colleague, my friend. I have served in uniform, and I know what the existential threats are.

Madam Speaker, I know, having served long in both the enlisted ranks and the officer ranks, the troubles that national security pose to this Nation.

While you might find woke officers and enlisted members infiltrate the Pentagon to destroy the military with this tripe, I am not one of them. I am not going to fall for it. Neither should anybody here.

We need to focus. Our military, our national defense, needs to focus on real enemies, enemies like China, Iran, terrorism, and potentially Russia, but not in a proxy war in Ukraine. These are real enemies.

Climate change can be handled by other agencies and should be handled by other agencies. DOD and men and women in uniform need to focus on defending our country from our enemies, not this, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this amendment, as has been stated, establishes an office of climate resilience in the White House and a climate resilience equity advisory board, including outside stakeholders, to develop a national climate resilience action plan.

What does ``outside stakeholders'' mean? I mean, to me, what I hear is people who do what a lot of people do in Washington. They grift. They are making money. They are making policy that makes their friends money. That is what that means. The stakeholders should be the American people, outside stakeholders developing a national climate resilience action plan.

Now, quite honestly, this is, again, the National Defense Authorization Act. How this amendment made it to the floor under this bill is, quite honestly, beyond comprehension. It is just another level of Federal bureaucracy in the name of climate that does nothing to improve the readiness of our military or support the warfighter.

That is what we should be discussing this evening. That is what the underlying bill is about, the National Defense Authorization Act. This has nothing to do, again, with supporting the warfighter, nothing to do with increasing readiness.

I remember filling out officer evaluation reports with all kinds of requirements. I had a paragraph I had to fill out on every officer, all kinds of requirements that I had to put a statement in about this or that. It left me about one sentence to talk about their warfighting capability, each officer, about one sentence left in all the space of the requirements that I had to complete that had absolutely nothing to do with the servicemember's ability to do their job in combat. So, here we are going to add some more because we don't have enough of that.

The folks responsible for developing a nationwide resiliency plan would be those with emergency management experience if they were going to do it, but that is not required. Again, we have outside stakeholders.

I mean, it doesn't even belong in this bill, but even if it did, it doesn't get anything right here because we are not going to protect anybody. This is just another bureaucracy for activists on the left to impose these things on United States citizens.

I mean, we have real problems. It would be great if we had a task force in the White House, since apparently the President can't handle it, to deal with the record inflation that we have.

It would be great if we had somebody in the White House, maybe a task force, to deal with fuel prices. I mean, we have our national leaders traveling all around the globe, thousands of miles away, to try to get other countries to pump more oil, refine more oil. We won't do it in the United States of America.

It would be great to have that task force. Maybe that would help national security so we wouldn't have to go fight these foreign wars. But I guess we are going to do this social justice climate fearmongering.

It just creates another activist entity within the Federal Government and fails to protect folks from disasters or actually protect the taxpayers. It will actually undermine resiliency efforts by focusing on socialist ideas that are failing. They are failing in this country right now.

What we are seeing happening in our economy is the result of these types of things. We don't let the market work. We don't want the market. We are going to impose our will on the American people and say, ``You are not going to drive that kind of car, you are not going to use that kind of fuel, you are not going to buy that kind of electricity. We know better than you do. We are Washington, D.C.''

Most of us have no experience in these industries that we are forcing on the American people. It undermines America's prosperity and promotes technologies that enrich our enemies, like China, rather than supporting the military, which is what this bill is supposed to be about.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).