[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 191 (Monday, November 1, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7530-S7531]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          Local School Boards

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, communities across our great Nation are 
dealing with a startling spike in violent crime. Last year, the murder 
rate soared by nearly 30 percent, the largest single-year jump on 
record.
  The American people are paying close attention, and they are 
concerned. A poll this summer found that nearly 60 percent of Americans 
are worried about crime. The percentage of those who say they are 
extremely concerned is at the highest point in more than two decades, 
and folks largely think not enough is being done to address this spike.
  A separate poll found that 65 percent of Americans are dissatisfied 
with policies to reduce or control crime. That is up more than 16 
percent from 2020. Perhaps this is an offshoot of the ``defund the 
police'' movement that we have seen in radical circles over the last 
year or so.
  With such a dramatic and shocking jump in homicides and violent crime 
and the clear belief that more should be done to address it, you would 
expect that the U.S. Department of Justice would be in an all-hands-on-
deck posture. After all, this is the highest law enforcement agency in 
the country. You would think it would take a leading role in finding 
ways to keep our country and our communities safe.
  Unfortunately, leaders at the Department of Justice in the Biden 
administration believe that they have bigger fish to fry. Forget 
stopping murderers and violent criminals. The most forceful language we 
have seen recently from the Attorney General hasn't been about stopping 
dangerous criminals; it is about going after concerned parents at 
school board meetings. That is right--communities across the country 
are worried about violent crime, and the Biden Justice Department is 
worried about parents who are concerned about what their kids are 
learning in school.
  This all started with a deeply misguided letter from the National 
School Boards Association about heated school board meetings across the 
country.
  Parents who are concerned about things like critical race theory and 
other controversial topics, who are simply worried that their kids 
aren't learning about American history and civics and the foundations 
upon which this great country was built, they have taken their concerns 
to school board meetings--something they have every right; indeed, a 
constitutional right--to do.
  I want to be clear: there is no place for violence or threats of 
violence in our public discourse. It doesn't matter who you are or what 
you are fighting for; violence is not the answer.
  But rather than allow State and local law enforcement authorities to 
intervene in those rare circumstances when things go off track, the 
school board leaders at the National School Boards Association went 
nuclear. They encouraged the Biden administration to treat these 
parents like something akin to domestic terrorists. They advocated for 
unleashing the full arsenal and might of the Department of Justice and 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation on concerned parents--concerned 
parents. And the Attorney General was, apparently, happy to oblige 
their outrageous demands.
  The National School Boards Association letter argued that a parent 
who disagrees with the curriculum in their children's school could be 
investigated under the PATRIOT Act.
  You will remember the PATRIOT Act was passed after 9/11/2001 to 
address radical extremists who had just killed 3,000 Americans in 
attacks at the Pentagon and in New York.
  Unsurprisingly, this letter from the National School Boards 
Association was met with fierce and immediate blowback. I don't know 
how they didn't see it coming. Concerned parents and terrorists don't 
share anything in common.
  Well, after the negative press, the National School Boards 
Association eventually retracted their letter and apologized. They 
admitted that there was ``no justification for some of the language 
included in the letter,'' but the damage had already been done.
  A few days later, after the letter was sent, Attorney General Garland 
decided to get into the game, and he published a memo directing Federal 
law enforcement to inject itself into local school board elections.
  Well, we had a chance to question Attorney General Garland last week, 
when he appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he conceded 
that his decision to send out a memo to the Federal law enforcement was 
based almost entirely on the letter from the National School Boards 
Association and ``news reports.''
  Of course, the Attorney General could not cite any specific examples 
that he relied upon before unleashing the awesome power of the Federal 
Government on parents, nor could he provide any data or evidence that 
local enforcement was incapable of handling any incidents that might 
occur.
  In his memo, the Attorney General also encouraged the Federal 
authorities to take action far beyond any

[[Page S7531]]

threats of violence and references to intimidation of school officials.
  But you have to ask: What counts as intimidation to the Attorney 
General? Is an angry, frustrated parent raising their voice at a school 
board meeting intimidation?
  I think not.
  What if one of the parents tells a school board member they plan to 
run against them in the next election or donate to their opponent in 
the next election; is that intimidation?
  Well, to his credit, the Attorney General did finally concede that 
parents' right to speak their minds at school board meetings are 
protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It 
is their constitutional right.
  But I ask you, put yourself in the shoes of a parent who reads about 
this Department of Justice memo--from the Attorney General, no less--at 
the kitchen table.
  Is it going to have an impact on their decision to attend the next 
school board meeting? Will it cause them to shy away from advocating 
for their children's education and speaking up about misguided policies 
that they think have no place in their child's school?
  I ask you to consider the chilling effect that this had, and will 
continue to have, on parents who just want to have a say in their 
children's education.
  Instead of raising their voices in opposition to things like critical 
race theory or other radical educational policies, parents are more 
likely to be intimidated and to stay at home for fear of being labeled 
domestic terrorists by the highest law enforcement officer in the land.
  They certainly can't afford to hire a lawyer to defend themselves 
against these sorts of charges by the Federal Government, were the 
Federal Government to come after them for exercising what Attorney 
General Garland said were their First Amendment rights under the 
Constitution.
  In response to the Attorney General's memo, the U.S. attorney from 
Montana sent out a list of Federal statutes that could serve as a basis 
for prosecution. He took the Attorney General at his word. Among the 
Federal statutes that he thought could serve as a basis for prosecution 
included repeated telephone calls.
  Well, last week, I asked the Attorney General if he considered the 
chilling effect that his memo might have on parents exercising their 
constitutional rights. He evaded the question. So I asked him again. 
His answers became more evasive. So I asked him again.
  Ultimately, the Attorney General--although he was sworn in under 
oath, testifying in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee--refused to 
answer the question. He wouldn't tell me, wouldn't tell the Judiciary 
Committee, wouldn't tell the country, whether he had put any thought at 
all into how his actions would impact concerned, law-abiding parents.
  Even though the National School Boards Association retracted and 
apologized for its letter, the Justice Department--the Biden Justice 
Department--still refuses to do so. Attorney General Garland has 
doubled down on this colossal overreach and still refuses to take 
ownership or consider how his swift and uninformed action has harmed 
public discourse in our country.

  But, clearly, it is not only where we are headed, because we are 
already there. The President and the leaders in his administration 
aren't making decisions on the basis of the law of the land, but based 
on demands of their radical left.
  Amid an alarming spike in murder and violent crime rates, the Justice 
Department is focused on the threat of concerned parents, because that 
is what the radical left wants.
  The Department is filing meritless lawsuits against State election 
laws, like those in Georgia and Texas, because that is what their 
radical base wants.
  The Secretary of Homeland Security has told Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement officers not to enforce our Nation's immigration laws, 
because that is what the radical left and the Democratic Party want.
  President Biden has signaled that he is not only OK with this kind of 
selective law enforcement, he actually wants more of it.
  One of the most controversial nominees being considered by the Senate 
right now is Rachael Rollins, who the President has nominated to serve 
as the U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts. Ms. Rollins currently serves as 
a district attorney for Suffolk County, MA, where she is embroiled in 
her own controversy.
  Shortly after taking office in 2019, Ms. Rollins released a memo 
outlining more than a dozen crimes that she said should be ignored by 
local law enforcement. According to Ms. Rollins, individuals who commit 
offenses like trespassing, shoplifting, larceny, wanton or malicious 
destruction of property, and even possession with intent to distribute 
drugs, she said her office would not prosecute them, so law enforcement 
should not arrest them.
  Now, I have no issue with law enforcement using limited resources to 
prioritize the biggest threats, but there is a big difference between 
prioritizing dangerous criminals and offenses and exempting wholesale 
classes of crimes from enforcement.
  What happens when the message is sent that government will not 
enforce its laws? As being played out in California now, where many 
businesses are simply withdrawing from places like San Francisco, 
where, if you steal or shoplift something under $950 worth of 
merchandise, law enforcement will not arrest you; they will not 
prosecute; and thus the stores are left without recourse and, as you 
can imagine, thievery runs riot.
  Well, leaders certainly shouldn't tip their hat to criminals as to 
what crimes may be committed free of any consequences, and that is 
exactly what is happening. The Justice Department's priorities are 
completely out of whack, and radical, partisan U.S. attorneys will only 
make things worse.
  The Biden administration cannot continue to take their marching 
orders from the radical base of their political party. And the United 
States should never be a place where concerned parents are treated like 
criminals and actual criminals get a free pass.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.