Supreme Court Police Parity Act of 2022

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1170 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.

Reschenthaler), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1170, for three measures.

First, it provides for consideration of H.R. 2543 under a structured rule. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment, provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services, makes in order 27 amendments, and provides one motion to recommit.

Second, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2773 under a structured rule. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment, provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources, makes in order eight amendments, and provides one motion to recommit.

Third, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 7606 under a structured rule. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment, provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture, makes in order two amendments, and provides one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule extends recess instructions, suspension authority, and same day authority through June 22, 2022.

First, I will say a few words about the Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act. Times are tough for working families across our country. Food prices are rising and gas prices are at an all-time high. At the same time, food companies and Big Oil are making record profits at the expense of these same hardworking Americans.

Costs are rising up and down the supply chain. The cost of fertilizer and pesticides has risen 50 percent over the past year, in part due to the ongoing war in Ukraine. Rising energy prices, increasing trucking costs, and the worst outbreak of avian flu in 7 years are all contributing to the higher prices consumers are paying at the grocery store.

Plus, combine oil companies' irresponsibility with Putin's war in Ukraine, and you have an unbearable situation for American consumers. The Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act will help us look out for working families, not just big corporations and their billionaire CEOs. This package of bipartisan legislation supports farmers and lowers prices for America's families at the grocery store and at the gas pump.

This rule also allows us to consider a package of legislation aimed at addressing racial and economic inequities that limit opportunities for Americans to buy homes, access loans, and earn fair wages.

Income and wealth inequality is higher in the United States than in any other developed country, and there are examples of it in almost all parts of our lives. The reforms in this package will help us better target and measure outcomes for underserved populations.

Finally, the Recovering America's Wildlife Act helps protect the more than one-third of all fish and wildlife species in the United States that are at risk of extinction.

This legislation funds conservation efforts for more than 12,000 species of wildlife and plants, and the recovery of 1,600 species already listed as threatened or endangered.

Taken together and taken separately, these bills will all lead to real important change for Americans.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I always, as we have these debates with my good friend from Pennsylvania, encourage that we do work together acknowledging that we have differences of opinion and reminding people who are maybe watching that we are in a global economy that has inflation globally and that what we are doing in this package is to try to provide some small instruments for oversight accountability so that we can have as much control as we can in a global economy that is impacting this inflation that is so hard for working Americans.

So with all due respect to my friend from Pennsylvania, I am always willing to work with him. But this package is intended to provide more accountability, not more bureaucracy.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I just want to remind folks that 50 percent of inflation is caused by the war in Ukraine and actions by Vladimir Putin. In terms of energy, we believe in supporting American energy, but we also accept the reality that we are transitioning to more choices in energy like we do in California.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a June 10, 2021, USA Today article titled: ``Fact check: Rising gas prices due to high demand and low supply, not Biden's policies.''

[From USA Today, June 10, 2021]

Fact Check: Rising Gas Prices Due to High Demand and Low Supply, Not

Biden's Policies

(By Miriam Fauzia)

The claim: Joe Biden is to blame for higher gas prices

The rising cost of gasoline is being felt across the U.S.,

as the national average price has gone up from $2 per gallon

last year to $3 per gallon as of June 9, according to data

from the American Automobile Association.

Many on social media claim President Joe Biden is to blame

for this change. A June 1 Instagram post put the title ``Joe

Biden's America'' atop a graphic showing the price jump from

January to May 2021.

``Man I haven't seen gas prices this high since the last

time (a) Democrat was in office!'' claims one meme shared to

Facebook on May 22.

``It's called the Biden effect,'' commented one Facebook

user under a similar May 18 Facebook post. Blaming Biden for

this uptick isn't a new phenomenon. These claims have been in

circulation since January and particularly allege Biden's

cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline significantly

impacted gasoline, ``ensur(ing) a huge increase in gas prices

for millions of us.'' USA TODAY has reached out to the

posters for comment.

While it's true gasoline prices have risen significantly

since Biden took office on Jan. 20 the upward trend predates

Biden's time in office and is related to COVID-19 and market

factors, not who occupies the White House.

Pandemic's effect on supply and demand

As with any commodity, the price of gasoline is determined

by the simple balance of supply and demand: a high supply and

low demand means low prices, while a low supply and high

demand mean prices rise.

The most important driver of this fluctuation is crude oil,

from which gasoline is derived. This fossil fuel typically

accounts for between 50 percent and 60 percent of the price

at the pump, said Jeanette McGee, a spokesperson for AAA.

In 2020, crude oil prices became extremely cheap, so much

so it was being traded at negative prices, McGee told USA

TODAY. Brent crude oil, for example, a blend supplying most

of Europe, was being sold at $9 a barrel, its lowest price in

decades, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

reported.

The primary reason for this drop in crude oil prices was

the pandemic, said McGee and Mark Finley, a fellow at Rice

University's Center for Energy Studies.

``The pandemic drove the world's oil market to become

massively oversupplied, inventory dramatically increased and

prices collapsed,'' Finley told USA TODAY.

In response to the low demand due to reduced travel and

lockdown restrictions, Finley said major oil-producing

countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia and member countries of

the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, or

OPEC, decided to cut down on their own oil production. But

the cut meant oil producers weren't ready to meet the demand

for crude oil once it renewed this year thanks to easing of

COVID-19-related restrictions.

``This year, demand has so far increased more quickly than

production rates, which means the United States had to draw

more on its gasoline storage inventories, which has

contributed to prices going up,'' EIA spokesperson Chris

Higginbotham said in an email to USA TODAY. ``We expect oil

producers in the United States and globally to increase their

production levels through 2022, which we expect to contribute

to lower crude oil prices, and lower gasoline prices.''

Gas price uptrend predates Biden

While presidential actions and policies can have some

impact on the crude oil market, they don't have as much

influence over gasoline prices as one might think.

``Some of (a president's) decisions can impact or

contribute to market changes, which can then impact (future)

crude oil, but they don't dictate gas prices,'' said McGee.

``If you go back and look at historical data, whether it was

Bush, Obama, Trump or Biden, (gas prices) go up and down no

matter who's in office.''

During former President Donald Trump's term, the national

average for gasoline had gone up to nearly $3 a gallon in May

2018 and hovered close to that price until fall 2018,

according to data maintained by AAA. The cost rose yet again

to nearly $3 a gallon in May 2019 before dropping slightly

below $2 per gallon when state and local governments mandated

lockdowns in March 2020.

Gas prices slowly crept from $2.20 per gallon in September

2020 to $2.40 by the time Biden took office in January 2021.

McGee said elections typically drive gasoline prices up.

This upward trend was expected to continue due to pandemic

recovery, reduced crude oil supply and the approach of

summer--historically considered a peak travel season--but

arrived sooner due to the ransomware attack on the Colonial

Pipeline, the East Coast's major fuel supplier.

``We have expected gas prices to hit $3 a gallon around

Memorial Day, but with the (Colonial) pipeline offline, it

actually jumped the national average to $3 and more prior to

Memorial Day,'' said McGee.

Keystone XL, other Biden policies don't affect today's gasoline costs

Many critics point to Biden's decision on the Keystone XL

pipeline as fueling the gas price spike, but experts say

there's no such connection.

The extension of the Keystone pipeline, first proposed in

2008 by TC Energy based in Calgary, Canada, was rejected by

former President Barack Obama in November 2015 but later

approved by Trump in March 2017. Biden then suspended the

project in January. And on June 9, TC Energy announced it was

terminating the project.

Even if construction wasn't halted, the Keystone XL

pipeline wasn't in operation and therefore wouldn't have an

impact on current gas prices, said Finley of Rice University.

``That was something that would impact down the road,'' he

said.

David Dismukes, economist and executive director of

Lousiana State University's Center for Energy Studies,

agreed, telling USA TODAY the pipeline would have had a

``longer-run impact in providing a diversity of supply for

refineries in the Gulf Coast.''

Similarly, other energy policies rolled out by President

Biden, such as postponing oil lease sales, have a long-term,

but not short-term, effect.

``If you look at some of the actions taken by the

administration with regard to offshore drilling, drilling on

federal lands, the outlook for fossil fuel energies in

general, those are impacting the price of crude and

expectations about crude oil,'' said

Diskmukes. ``(Biden's policies do) have an impact, but that's

not what you're seeing at the pump right now.''

Our rating: False

Based on our research, we rate FALSE the claim President

Joe Biden is to blame for the current higher gas prices. The

upward trend in gas costs we see now began months before

Biden took office. Because of reduced demand amid the COVID-

19 pandemic, oil companies had to cut back on the amount of

crude oil produced. Now with restrictions being lifted and

more travel happening, the demand has increased, which,

coupled with lagging supply, has led to increased gasoline

prices. Canceling the Keystone XL pipeline and other energy

policies enacted by Biden have a long-term effect on crude

oil supply but no present impact on gasoline prices.

Madam Speaker, President Biden nor his administration have direct control of setting gas prices. The real issue is Big Oil's desire to pad their profits.

The CEO of Occidental Petroleum said it herself, ``I feel now that we do need to return cash to the shareholders in the form of dividends or buybacks, especially during the better cycles.''

They are thinking in their shareholders' best interest, not the interest of the American people.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I thank my friend from Pennsylvania and the Rules Committee for his remarks.

I remind folks that the economy under Joe Biden has created over 8 million jobs since he took office. The unemployment rate has dropped from 6.4 percent to 3.6 percent under President Biden. And his first year was the greatest year of job creation in American history.

The Federal Reserve has found that household financial well-being reached an all-time high last year. GDP grew in the President's first year by 5.2 percent, the fastest rate since 1984.

The U.S. was the first advanced economy that reached prepandemic rates of growth, and we are seeing wages increase for workers.

There is no doubt that inflation and the high cost of gasoline are a challenge. That is the purpose of some of our actions today. It is to hold the private sector accountable, to be responsible to their consumers and the American people. That is why these bills are on the floor, to do something about inflation and the high cost of energy.

At the same time, we are preparing for an energy transition. Michigan, California, we are aware of the realities of the current energy economy, but we are getting ready for the new one.

In the area I represent, Madam Speaker--you have been out to visit me--I have five refineries. I have represented them in local, State, and Federal Government. Two of them are closed because of the pandemic. They are about to reopen using biofuels that will help everybody, and they are a better business model, according to the oil industry. So all of these things have combined for a challenge.

I would agree with my colleague. This is too important, although we have our differences about the approach, that we should engage in problem-solving for Americans.

I thank all of my colleagues for these bills and their ideas to deal with inflation and the challenges to American workers. Each of these bills in this rule are worthwhile and impactful, and I look forward to voting for them all soon.

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

The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler is as follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 1170

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 12. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 6858) to strengthen United States energy security,

encourage domestic production of crude oil, petroleum

products, and natural gas, and for other purposes. 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

Energy and Commerce; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 13. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 6858.

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

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

Madam Speaker, the rule before us provides for consideration of three pieces of legislation that are, once again, missed opportunities to provide real relief to the American people.

Rather than working with Republicans to address the serious issues facing our Nation, Democrats again prioritize the interests of far-left special interest groups and their radical progressive base over the needs of American workers and American families.

Look no further than H.R. 2543, a compilation of 13 Committee on Financial Services' bills that prioritize woke policies and unnecessary reporting over actually fixing Biden's economic crisis.

As my friends across the aisle will remember, under President Trump, U.S. employment reached a 50-year low of 3.5 percent. Additionally, under President Trump, minority unemployment dropped to the lowest levels on record.

Compare that with the economy under the Democrats' one-party rule. Inflation is now at a 40-year high. Gas prices are now over $5 a gallon. Americans can expect to pay an extra $5,200 this year compared to last year for the same goods and services.

Once again, rather than just working with Republicans to provide real economic relief, the Democrats continue to double down on reckless spending, far-left policies, and have prioritized their Big Government socialism over free market principles. What has this led to?

It has led to economic instability. It threatens the stability of our Federal Reserve. It piles regulatory costs on small businesses. It emboldens unelected and unaccountable career bureaucrats.

Ultimately, H.R. 2543 will make it more difficult for low-income and minority borrowers to start a business, to buy a home, and to build credit. It actually does the opposite of the intended effect.

This will also provide for consideration of H.R. 7606, a bill that claims to lower food costs by appointing a ``special investigator,'' and this special investigator will investigate American meat packers and live poultry dealers.

Let's be clear, this legislation is a weak attempt to lay the blame for President Biden's economic crisis on American job creators. In reality, this is just another unfunded mandate that empowers Washington bureaucrats and places new burdens on American food producers.

Alarmingly, these compliance costs may actually raise the price of food even higher, making life in Joe Biden's America even harder on average American families.

Finally, this bill provides for consideration of H.R. 2773, the Recovering America's Wildlife Act of 2022. While I support conservation efforts, I am incredibly disappointed once again by the majority walking away from talks with Republicans to find offsets and to try to resolve spending concerns for the $1.34 billion in new annual mandatory spending authorized by this bill.

In fact, according to the CBO, this legislation spends $12.7 billion just in the first 10 years alone.

Madam Speaker, 80 percent of Americans say inflation is the most important issue facing this country. You wouldn't know it by looking at the bills Democrats are prioritizing for floor action this week.

Perhaps it is time that my Big Government, Democratic colleagues actually listen to the American people and work with Republicans on real economic solutions rather than doubling down on the out-of-control spending and reckless far-left policies that created Biden's economic crisis in the first place.

Madam Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to oppose this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I hear about this being a global issue. It is a global issue, but the reason it is a global issue--quick economics lesson--we are still the reserve currency. We also are the largest GDP. We are exporting the inflation to other countries.

Let's be clear. The inflation is caused by Joe Biden's reckless, Big Government, socialist agenda and, unfortunately, the American people as well as the world have to deal with this recklessness.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), who is my good friend on the Rules Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, Americans are now paying an average of over $5 for a gallon of gas. This is the first time in history this has happened. Let me repeat that: over $5 for a gallon of gas.

The pain at the pump is a direct result of President Biden's and congressional Democrats' radical Green New Deal agenda and a war on American energy producers.

Let's just be blunt about something: the base of the Democratic Party--the bunch of woke yuppies sitting at home on Zooms all day-- don't care about gas prices. But if you are someone who has to swing a hammer for a living and drive to a jobsite, if you are a waitress at a diner and you have to drive to your shift, that affects you.

Republicans care about working families and working men and women. That is why we believe Americans deserve affordable, American-made energy. That is why if we defeat the previous question, I will personally offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider H.R. 6858, the American Energy Independence from Russia Act.

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

Madam Speaker, here to explain this amendment is my good friend and a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Congressman Jeff Duncan from South Carolina.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from South Carolina an additional 30 seconds.

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

Madam Speaker, Democrats and their allies on the left can blame Putin all they want, and it is partially true that Putin's war in Ukraine is partially to blame. But gas prices have risen every month of this administration. Every month they were up a dollar a gallon before Putin even invaded Ukraine.

The real issue here is supply.

Why do we have the supply issue?

It is because Joe Biden on day number one canceled the Keystone XL pipeline. That dried up all capital investment into hydrocarbon infrastructure. Maybe it is a problem because we cannot get the oil and gas to refineries to make sure that we have a supply.

So what does Joe Biden do instead?

He blames everybody else. He goes to Venezuela and elsewhere, and begs them to produce more oil when just one administration before under President Trump, we were actually a net exporter of energy. Biden and House Democrats have created this mess, and the American people know that.

Are you ready for this fact, Madam Speaker?

The American people will also spend $5,000 this year on gas--$5,000 for the average American. That is a 78 percent increase from a year ago. In other words, Americans are spending over $2,000 extra a year on gas under Joe Biden.

Blame who you want, Madam Speaker, but every time an American looks up and sees $100-plus on that gas tank that he or she just filled up, they know who to blame--Joe Biden and Democrats.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the great State of Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).

Madam Speaker, just some quick facts. As Mr. Duncan stated, House Democrats have blocked consideration of legislation to unleash America's energy independence six times. Six times we have been down this road, and House Democrats have blocked it.

Gas prices have gone up 49 cents since the last time Republicans asked Democrats to bring this bill to the floor. Here we are again.

To talk more about this issue, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), my friend and a former police officer.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to my good friend to close.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I still find it somewhat amusing that my friends across the aisle continue to blame all this on foreign nations and their actions.

Let me give a quick history lesson on how President Joe Biden and Democrats actually caused this crisis.

Number one, day number one, Joe Biden canceled the Keystone XL pipeline.

Number two, he emboldened Putin with Nord Stream 2. I would actually argue he emboldened Putin to invade Ukraine when he recklessly pulled us out of Afghanistan, which served zero military purpose. But I digress.

Additionally, Joe Biden suspended oil and gas leasing on Federal lands. He delayed permits for energy and infrastructure pipelines. He drained the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. He revoked permits for critical mineral projects. He canceled oil leases in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.

What has this done to gas prices? Well, in California, gas prices are now $9 a gallon.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time, and I am prepared to close.

I yield myself the balance of my time and remind everybody that, in Joe Biden's America, gas prices are averaging more than $5 a gallon; inflation is at a 40-year high; and real wages have decreased 10 out of the last 12 months.

Yet, with today's rule, House Democrats are doubling down on far- left, radical policies, really failed policies, that created Joe Biden's economic crisis in the first place.

It is well past time that the Biden administration and congressional Democrats admit that they are to blame for the economic pain families are facing and workers are facing, and work with Republicans on solutions to immediately help the American people.

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.

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

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

Madam Speaker, why did it take so long? Why did it take so long to bring this legislation to the floor? It has been over a month since the leak of the draft opinion, over a month of threats on Supreme Court Justices and their families, over a month of protests at their homes. Why did it take so long? I mean, the protests at their homes are a direct violation of the law, 18 U.S.C. section 1507. Over a month.

It has been over a week, or actually a week, since an assassination attempt on a Supreme Court Justice, on Justice

Kavanaugh. Think about that for a second. An assassination attempt on a sitting United States Supreme Court Justice.

And what did the Speaker of the House say last week? No one is in danger. No rush on this legislation. No concern here.

The Senate passed this bill a month ago. Why hasn't the House? Why did it take so long? I think the answer is obvious. Because they have always wanted to intimidate the Court. That has been their goal since the get-go. Their goal was to intimidate the Court. That has been their objective all along.

Think about the history first. We had the Kavanaugh confirmation mess where the left has made up things about Justice Kavanaugh and his family. Then we had the leader of the Senate, the Democrat leader of the Senate on the Supreme Court steps say to two Justices, Mr. Kavanaugh and Mr. Gorsuch: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.

Last April, the Democrat chair of the Judiciary Committee introduced legislation to do what? To pack the Court, to add four Associate Justices to the United States Supreme Court. Why four? Why not one? Why not two? Why not three? Why four? Because four would give them a majority on the Court.

Then there was the sustained attack on Justice Thomas and his wife over the last several weeks. The Democrats on the Judiciary Committee even had hearings about Justice Thomas.

Then, of course, there was the leak of the draft opinion itself, something that has never happened. And then there were the protests at Supreme Court Justices' homes, again in direct violation of the statute.

And then, finally, there was the hearing the Democrats had in the Judiciary Committee about the abortion issue while the Dobbs decision is pending in front of the Court. You remember that hearing. That was the one where the Democrat witness said men could get pregnant. That is the history here.

And then, of course, last week, we had an assassination attempt on Justice Kavanaugh. Intimidation is their goal. It is the same reason the Department of Homeland Security stood up the Disinformation Governance Board. It is the same reason the Department of Justice is targeting parents who have the nerve to show up at a school board meeting and speak up for their kids. It is all about intimidation. That is how the left operates, and we have seen it play out now against the Supreme Court.

But the good news is, finally, this bill is going to pass and give the Justices of the highest Court in our land the protection they and their families deserve. I say better late than never. We support this legislation. It should have passed a darn long time ago.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, that is why Republicans have condemned violence every single time it happened. We condemned it when it happened on January 6. But guess what? We also condemned it when it happened in the summer of 2020.

It hasn't been a few weeks since the leak of the draft opinion. It has been 6 weeks. The Senate passed this legislation unanimously, and they wouldn't bring it up. They wouldn't bring it up. In fact, the Speaker of the House, as I said before, the Speaker of the House said last week there was no need to bring it up, but now we are going to. Thank goodness for that.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), my friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Hice).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

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

Let me say this. Reading from a headline here, this group, Ruth Sent Us, ``. . . hinted at targeting Supreme Court Justice Barrett's children, church.'' Let me read the headline here. ``Group gave details on Barrett's routine, her children's school, and family's spiritual life.''

In plain English, this group was saying where Justice Coney Barrett goes each day, where her kids go to school, and where her family goes to church. They gave those details.

Last week, the Democrats said no one is in danger. After an assassination attempt on Justice Barrett's colleague, Justice Kavanaugh, they said not to worry. Everything is fine. We don't need to pass this legislation after the Senate had done it unanimously. That is the position of the Democrats in this body.

That is why we are saying: Why did it take so long? Six weeks ago was when the draft leak happened, and the protests started at Justices' homes almost immediately after the leak of that draft, that unprecedented leak of that draft opinion. They have been doing it now for weeks and weeks and weeks.

Here is the email from this organization, this Ruth Sent Us organization. Here is one of the messages: ``If you are in the D.C. metro area, join us. Our protests at Barrett's home moved the needle to this coverage. Falls Church is a People of Praise stronghold. She sends her seven kids to a People of Praise school that she sat on the board of directors for. She attends church daily,'' as if that is bad to go to church daily. I think that is a good thing. But this is what they are saying, this group, giving the details of where her kids go to school, where they go to church, and her daily routine.

And the Democrats said: Nothing to worry about.

That is our concern. So thank goodness this bill is here.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

We condemned what took place on January 6. It would have been nice if Democrats would have done the same thing in the summer of 2020 or passed this legislation 6 weeks ago or a month ago when the Senate passed it.

Let me just recite a few things here that have been said by our colleagues on the other side.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder said in 2018, at a campaign event in Georgia, to kick Republicans. ``No. No. When they go low, we kick them.'' That is what this new Democratic Party is about.

It sure is. It is all about intimidation: intimidating the court, intimidating parents who have the nerve to show up at school board meetings, setting up a Disinformation Governance Board to intimidate free speech rights of all Americans. That is what the new Democratic Party is about.

We have seen it time and time again. In the summer of 2018, we saw one of our colleagues from California, a Democrat Member, say: Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from the Trump Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, out in a crowd, you create a crowd and push back on them, and you tell them--think about this. This is a Member of Congress saying this to a Cabinet member--you tell them they are

not welcome anymore, anywhere. A Cabinet member of the administration not welcome in their own darn country? That is what a Member of Congress said on the Democrat side.

We had another Member of Congress on the Democrat side say this: There needs to be ``unrest on the streets,'' calling for unrest on the streets while there was unrest on the streets in the summer of 2020.

That is why this legislation is so darn important and why we cannot figure out--the gentleman just said something that wasn't accurate. The Speaker of the House last week said no one is in danger. I just read you what they are posting about Justice Coney Barrett and her family and where they go to church and where her seven kids go to school. Of course, this is in the context of everything they have done to intimidate the Court and an assassination attempt on another Justice, Justice Kavanaugh.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).

Madam Speaker, the employees of the Supreme Court are already protected. This is about protecting the Justices' families, and we know that is needed based on the headline I read and the email that Mr. Bishop just talked about.

The gentleman said that Democrats condemn violence. No, they don't. No, they don't. They called rioters and looters the entire summer of 2020, they called them ``peaceful protestors.'' And that same summer, then-Senator now-Vice President Harris raised money to bail those rioters and looters and people who went after the police out of jail. So you have got to stick with the facts here, and that is just not accurate what was stated earlier.

For all the reasons we have highlighted, Madam Speaker, we are glad this bill is finally going to pass. We just wish it would have happened when it should have, weeks and weeks ago when this threat was first present for Supreme Court Justices.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, a talking point? The left is telling people where Justice Barrett's kids go to school. That is not a talking point, that is a fact. That is one of the craziest things I have heard said on this floor.

A talking point? Every single Senator voted for this package. That includes Democrats. Every single one.

A talking point? You have got to be kidding me.

They are reporting where a Supreme Court Justice's kids go to school, where her family goes to church, her daily routine, and the left calls it a talking point?

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 4160) to amend title 40, United States Code, to grant the Supreme Court of the United States security-related authorities equivalent to the legislative and executive branches.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 4160.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 4160, the Supreme Court Police Parity Act of 2022.

While the Supreme Court police force is currently authorized to provide protection to the Justices of the Supreme Court, this bill would unequivocally extend their authority to provide protection to family members of Justices if there is reason to believe they are at risk.

It is imperative that the Justices are free from fear of violence or physical intimidation to make decisions based on the Constitution and law as applied to the facts of the cases before them. This is essential to the rule of law. Assailants like the man arrested recently for allegedly plotting against the life of one of our Justices are a threat to our democracy, but with the right security, they can also be stopped before they inflict harm.

I thank Senators Coons and Cornyn for their work on this issue in the Senate, and Representatives Stanton, Correa, and Issa for their work in the House, likewise introducing bills that would extend protection to the families of Justices. I also thank Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee as well.

I further note that Mr. Stanton's bill would have also extended protection to the families of Court employees. We understand that there was Republican opposition to that aspect of the bill, and in the interest of protecting the Justices' families, we could no longer delay in passing the only version of the bill they would apparently agree to. But I hope we will swiftly move another bill to extend protection to families of employees as well.

I hope my colleagues will join me in passing this straightforward measure to ensure that the families of Supreme Court Justices have the necessary protection from any threats they may face.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, let me tell you why it took us a few weeks rather than just 1 week to pass this legislation. It is because Republicans refused to protect the families of Supreme Court employees who are at risk. Shame on you for not doing that.

And, by the way, there are threats to Justices across the board. I support this legislation. I just note that recently there was an article on CNN titled ``Justice Sonia Sotomayor was targeted by gunman, Federal judge tells `60 Minutes,' '' dated February 19, 2021. Intimidation goes on both sides.

Madam Speaker, I support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The Republicans are misleading you. Supreme Court Justices already have protection. Let me say that again. Supreme Court Justices already have protection.

This is about families of Supreme Court Justices, which I support them having protection, and Democrats are fighting for families of law clerks and employees of the Supreme Court. They should have protection, too.

Let me tell you the threats to employees of the Supreme Court. Soon after the draft decision leaked, a rightwing activist posted the personal details of a law clerk who he baselessly claimed had leaked Justice Alito's draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. This rightwing activist even posted the clerk's wedding announcement and singled out the clerk's spouse. Republicans don't want to protect that person or their family.

After another Republican strategist claimed a different law clerk had leaked the opinion, an extremist anti-abortion rights group issued a press release targeting that clerk and the Justice the clerk worked for. The author of the press release had served years in prison for conspiring to blow up an abortion clinic. Referring to the people in the Justice's office, the group's leader said that he could smell their fear.

Republicans don't want to protect the families of Supreme Court employees. Shame on them.

Recently, a news outlet obtained a DHS intelligence report identifying threats to murder Justices and their clerks. Why don't Republicans want to protect the families of Supreme Court employees?

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I am going to respond to that because what he just said is a lie. The fact that he is saying Democrats think there is nothing wrong, there is no danger to Supreme Court Justices, is a lie. Why? Because we are the majority party, and we just put this bill up, and we are about to vote on it. We clearly care about Supreme Court Justices.

But we also care about the families and employees of the Supreme Court, and that is what we are talking about today. Again, I just want to remind you, Republicans are misleading you. Supreme Court Justices right now have law enforcement protection details. They are protected by law enforcement. This bill has to do with the families of Supreme Court Justices. I support protecting them. I also support protecting the employees and their families of the Supreme Court.

That is the dispute. The Democrats want to also protect the employees and families who are getting threats from rightwing activists, intimidation from the far right.

Do you want to talk about intimidation? I will tell you what intimidation is. It is Trump supporters assaulting the Capitol on January 6, brutalizing 140 police officers. That is intimidation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I condemn violence whether it is from rightwing groups or leftwing groups or white supremacist groups or any other group. Democrats say this all the time.

I will tell you why Republicans don't hear it. Because they are in their bubble watching just Fox News, who won't even show the January 6 hearings. That is why they don't hear any of this stuff because it is never played to them or their base. Democrats condemn violence all the time.

By the way, last year--I am just going to tell you the headline of this article again: ``Justice Sonia Sotomayor was targeted by gunmen . . .'' Did Republicans jump up in outrage? No, no, they didn't.

So let's just be clear here what we are talking about today, once again: Supreme Court Justices get law enforcement protection right now, as we speak.

This is actually a dispute about employees. So I am going to ask Republicans a question, and I bet you they will not answer it: Why do they not want to protect the employees and their families of the Supreme Court?

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar).

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

Madam Speaker, S. 4160 is a straightforward bill that will protect the families of the Justices. Democrats also fought to try to protect the families of Supreme Court employees. Republicans objected and won't do that, so this is the best we can get.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the third time I come to the floor to protect our Supreme Court Justices and their families. Speaker Pelosi said this bill would come to the floor this week, but it is not listed on our schedule.

The Speaker also said last week in her press conference that ``no one is in danger. . . .''

Think about that, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker of the House of Representatives, last week, in a press conference, said no one is in danger. This is just after a day or 2 when a man came clear across the country from California to kill Justice Kavanaugh. He was on the street, had a weapon. He had zip ties. He had a plan.

At the same time, the Speaker says no one is in danger. But at the same time, the Senate already unanimously passed a bill with agreement from all 100 Senators. That wasn't passed last week; that was last month.

For 1 month, the majority of this House, Mr. Speaker, has held that bill,

a bill that every single Senator, Republican and Democrat and Independent, passed in the Senate. It simply states that we will protect the Supreme Court.

Mr. Speaker, you have probably noticed, as you came on to this Capitol, the intensity of force you see out in front of the Capitol. Is that because something is happening here today? No. It is in anticipation of a decision by the Supreme Court.

Everybody in the country knows that there could be a decision--not knowing which way it would go--but the anticipation is that people need protection in the Capitol.

At the same time that is happening, that you are protecting the Capitol, you are holding a bill to deny protection to those Justices.

It makes me wonder why. Why? Why, if 100 Senators approve it, would it hold here for an entire month?

Why, even after holding it for a month, somebody travels all the way across the country with one thing in mind, to kill a Supreme Court Justice, gets arrested, and still the Speaker of the House will not move that bill that the majority actually holds?

Just so the country can understand, no one on this side of the aisle, the Republican side of the aisle, objects to this bill. We agreed that we would agree to a unanimous consent.

All somebody had to do was make the motion and that could be on the President's desk; it could be signed; and they could be protected.

But for some reason, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats on the other side of the aisle, even though 100 Senators had agreed with us, everyone in your party on the Senate side said ``yes,'' you still say ``no.''

I do not understand that. I do not understand why we would risk that. I do not understand why you will make sure the Capitol is protected right now, knowing that something could happen in the Supreme Court this week, but you won't protect those Justices.

Now, the Speaker came to the floor at a press conference last week and said nobody, no one, is in danger. How can you make that statement in the same week someone is arrested in your neighborhood trying to kill you? It makes no sense.

Mr. Speaker, if for some reason that we continue to come to the floor, that you feel some pressure on that bill, but you change it, the country will know why because if you change the bill and move it back to the Senate, you are trying to kill it. You are trying to delay it. That is exactly what you are doing.

You can take a bill that every single Senator voted for and send it to the President to be signed. If you think something else needs to be added, run it by itself.

But if you want to ping-pong it and delay the process, I think that is wrong. I think you are jeopardizing people's lives. I think you are jeopardizing the safety of the Supreme Court. I think you are playing more games than anybody in this country can understand, and we do not understand why because there has been no clear answer.

Why would you hold the bill for more than a month?

Why would you hold the bill after somebody is arrested who traveled across the country to kill a Justice? Why would you continue to hold the bill now?

If you change it, you are showing the country what you really believe. You don't want the bill to pass. You want to delay it longer.

There is no excuse. There is no reason to delay this bill. This should be law, and the Justices should be protected.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table S. 4160, the Supreme Court Police Parity Act, and ask for immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, later in this day, it could. There is no excuse why this bill continues to be held, and there will be no excuse if you try to change it to delay it. That is just a tactic, Mr. Speaker, and I believe you thought it would be wrong as well.