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.…
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.