[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 18, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H5127-H5135]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 350, DOMESTIC TERRORISM PREVENTION
ACT OF 2022; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 7688, CONSUMER FUEL
PRICE GOUGING PREVENTION ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R.
7790, INFANT FORMULA SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2022, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
MR. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1124 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1124
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 350) to
authorize dedicated domestic terrorism offices within the
Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice,
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to analyze and
monitor domestic terrorist activity and require the Federal
Government to take steps to prevent domestic terrorism. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill,
modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of
the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be
considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further 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 or their respective
designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 7688) to
protect consumers from price-gouging of consumer fuels, and
for other purposes. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived. The amendment printed in part B of
the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, and on any further 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 or their respective designees; (2) the further
amendments described in section 3 of this resolution; and (3)
one motion to recommit.
Sec. 3. After debate pursuant to section 2 of this
resolution, each further amendment printed in part C of the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution
shall be considered only in the order printed in the report,
may be offered only by a Member designated in the report,
shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn by the proponent
at any time before the question is put thereon, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question. All points of order against the
further amendments printed in part C of the report of the
Committee on Rules are waived.
Sec. 4. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 7790) making
emergency supplemental appropriations to address the shortage
of infant formula in the United States for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2022, and for other purposes. 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 further
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
Appropriations or their respective designees; and (2) one
motion to recommit.
Sec. 5. (a) At any time through the legislative day of
Thursday, May 19, 2022, the Speaker may entertain motions
offered by the Majority Leader or a designee that the House
suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV with
respect to multiple measures described in subsection (b), and
the Chair shall put the question on any such motion without
debate or intervening motion.
(b) A measure referred to in subsection (a) includes any
measure that was the object of a motion to suspend the rules
on the legislative day of May 16, 2022, May 17, 2022, May 18,
2022, or May 19, 2022, in the form as so offered, on which
the yeas and nays were ordered and further proceedings
postponed pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX.
(c) Upon the offering of a motion pursuant to subsection
(a) concerning multiple measures, the ordering of the yeas
and nays on postponed motions to suspend the rules with
respect to such measures is vacated to the end that all such
motions are considered as withdrawn.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Schneider). The gentleman from New York
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. MORELLE. 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. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
{time} 1445
Mr. MORELLE. 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
[[Page H5128]]
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. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman
from New York for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today provides for consideration of
three pieces of legislation, including H.R. 350, which my colleagues
claim will prevent incidents of domestic terrorism. But let's make no
mistake, Republicans are committed to fighting hatred and violence in
all forms.
Unfortunately, H.R. 350 does absolutely nothing to actually make our
communities safer. Rather, this legislation expands the Federal
bureaucracy. It ignores new and evolving domestic terrorist threats,
and it makes it more difficult for law enforcement to recruit and
retain qualified candidates.
Alarmingly, it empowers Biden's DOJ to continue labeling American
parents and other political opponents as threats to stifle their First
Amendment rights.
The rule before us today also provides for consideration of H.R.
7688, the Democrats' attempt to distract and shift blame for President
Biden's self-inflicted energy crisis. Since his first day in office,
President Biden has waged an unrelenting war on American energy
producers. From canceling the Keystone XL pipeline to suspending oil
and gas leasing on Federal lands, President Biden's radical Green New
Deal policies have discouraged and denied development of American
energy resources and the American energy sector.
Yet, at the same time that Joe Biden has done all this, he absolutely
refuses to take any accountability for the soaring gas prices and the
economic pain he continues to inflict on hardworking American families.
First, the President tried to blame Putin, despite the fact that gas
prices had risen more than 50 percent during his first year in office.
A quick history lesson: That is 1 year before Russia ever invaded
Ukraine. In fact, gas prices have increased every single month of this
Presidency.
Now, the President is blaming hardworking oil and gas producers in
places like Pennsylvania and across the country, accusing them of price
gouging, even though multiple FTC investigations have repeatedly
concluded supply and demand is the ultimate driver of these rising
prices and, by the way, an artificial decrease in supply thanks to
these radical policies.
H.R. 7688 will impose a socialist price-fixing scheme on oil and gas,
leading to even less production, which will hit small businesses and
American families the hardest.
Now, I wasn't alive in the 1970s, but I know there are a lot of
Members in this Chamber who were, and I am sure they can remember
waiting in line to fuel up their cars. If H.R. 7688 is signed into law,
that travesty will once again be a reality.
Finally, the rule before us makes in order H.R. 7790, the Infant
Formula Supplemental Appropriations Act. Under President Biden's
leadership, our Nation is facing an infant formula supply crisis, with
reports that more than 40 percent of formula is out of stock. Instead
of working with Republicans to redirect excess stocks of formula at
Federal agencies and force the FDA to develop a plan to address this
shortage, House Democrats simply want to throw money at the problem
with absolutely no plan, no guardrails to ensure that funding is spent
to actually put baby formula back on grocery store shelves.
[[Page H5129]]
Let me be clear. We are giving $28 million to the very same unelected
career bureaucrats who failed to address this crisis when it came to
their attention a year ago. It is absolute madness.
H.R. 7790 will do nothing, absolutely nothing, to alleviate Biden's
baby formula crisis, and it is American babies and American families
who will be forced to suffer the consequences.
Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I failed to mention that today's
rule also does not make in order a single Republican amendment, but I
guess I shouldn't be surprised. Republicans have attempted to work with
our Democratic colleagues to make our communities safer, to address
inflation and lower gas prices, and to help parents feed their babies.
But it is absolutely clear from today's rule and from their actions
over the last 3 years that House Democrats would rather continue their
partisan political theater than put forth real solutions to help real
Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. MORELLE. 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.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I will start by acknowledging the sorrow
and terror inflicted upon the families and loved ones of the victims of
the hateful attack in Buffalo last weekend.
The brutal murders that occurred in Buffalo were yet another
heartbreaking landmark in the growing storm of domestic terrorism
impacting communities across America.
Whether in Buffalo, Charleston, El Paso, or Pittsburgh, domestic
terrorists are being radicalized online, fueled by elected officials
and media pundits who either embrace or wink at twisted white
supremacist ideology spawned in the darkest corners of the internet and
infecting our Nation.
Communities across America are terrified, scared to go to their
supermarkets, schools, churches, mosques, and synagogues because of the
fear that the combination of lax gun laws and unchecked white
supremacist conspiracies will have deadly consequences.
But with this bill, we are here to say that we are one American
community, and we will remain united in the face of these attacks.
Where domestic terrorists aim to scare and divide our communities
against each other, we must come together and condemn this hateful
ideology and give law enforcement the tools to fight its most violent
consequences.
We are Americans; we are proud of our diversity; and we must choose
community over chaos. That is why I am proud to support the Domestic
Terrorism Prevention Act.
{time} 1500
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice), my good friend.
Mrs. BICE of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for
yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the combined rule and
the underlying fuel prices legislation in this package as it seeks to
cast blame on hardworking Americans in the energy industry and offers
no real solutions.
The underlying bill, H.R. 7688, establishes de facto price control on
fuels, a dangerous step that has the potential to create fuel
shortages. Many Americans remember the long lines of cars waiting at
gas stations in the mid-1970s, and they do not want to return to that
scenario.
But don't take my word for it. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned
Congress last night that this bill has the potential to cause, `` . . .
rationing, gas lines, and a much greater dependence on imported energy.
. . . ''
Madam Speaker, I remind my colleagues that the price of gasoline is
determined on a global market based on supply and demand. The way to
lower prices is to increase supply, and we can do that by unleashing
American production.
Sadly, the administration has been doing the exact opposite, delaying
permit approvals, denying access to public lands, and gaslighting the
energy industry.
What is worse, just today, the administration announced that they are
removing sanctions on Venezuela in order to import foreign oil from a
hostile socialist country.
In my home State of Oklahoma, nearly a quarter of all jobs are
connected to the energy industry. Frankly, this legislation is
insulting to hardworking Oklahomans throughout the Fifth Congressional
District whose efforts power this great Nation.
Instead of legislation that blames American energy producers, we
should roll back the onerous energy policies of the Biden
administration and unleash American energy.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the rule and to reject
the underlying bill.
Mr. MORELLE. 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.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for
yielding.
The rise of racially motivated violent extremism is a serious threat
to Americans across the country. We, in Congress, can't stop the likes
of Tucker Carlson from spewing hateful, dangerous replacement theory
ideology across the airwaves. Congress hasn't been able to ban the sale
of assault weapons. The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act is what
Congress can do
[[Page H5130]]
this week to try to prevent future Buffalo shootings, prevent future
California shootings, future El Paso shootings, future Charleston
shootings, future Pittsburgh shootings, or future Wisconsin shootings.
We need to ensure that Federal law enforcement has the resources they
need to best preemptively identify and thwart extremist violence
wherever that threat appears.
In 2020, this House passed the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act on a
voice vote with overwhelming support on both sides of the aisle. I
thank my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, who saw the benefit of
this legislation and sent it to the Senate. It didn't get a vote in the
Senate in 2020, which is why we are here today. I am grateful that this
legislation is being brought forward today in this moment.
To those who are considering voting against this bill, I ask them the
following:
What has happened in the 2 years since that they no longer support
this legislation?
What has changed that they no longer support giving the FBI, the
Department of Justice, and the Department of Homeland Security, the
resources they need to keep Americans safe, to make sure kids in their
schools don't fear the threat of terrorism, that people shopping in a
grocery store, going about their business, don't have to worry about
someone coming in and killing them simply because of the color of their
skin.
What has changed in 2 years that after sending this to the Senate on
a voice vote, without any opposition from Republicans, today, we are
not there?
Following the vote in 2020, we introduced this bill on January 19,
2021; three Democrats, three Republicans leading that with me. It was
bipartisan. We have added nearly 200 Democrats to the list, and the
Republicans stand silently by. The only thing that has changed in 2
years is that the risk of violence, the risk of domestic terror has
gone up.
Madam Speaker, I am calling on my colleagues, I am pleading with my
colleagues, join us in this legislation. Let's join together and send a
message that we stand with Federal law enforcement, we stand with
American communities, and we stand against domestic terrorism.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I would be more than happy to answer the question that
my friend from Illinois posed.
The difference from 2 years ago and now is that the DOJ has started
going after concerned parents that are showing up at school board
meetings labeling them domestic terrorists.
The difference is that the Department of Homeland Security thinks it
is fitting to have a truth and disinformation board, like something
from an Orwellian novel. This is a different time.
Also, in the last 2 years, we had $2 billion of damage that was
caused by antifa. Yet, my colleagues across the aisle refuse to label
antifa a domestic terrorist organization.
Those are just a few of the things that have changed between now and
the last time we had this bill.
Now, my good friend from New York was talking about the oil and gas
industry. Let me just remind everybody that in 2020, the oil and gas
industry lost $76 billion.
There was talk about buybacks. Maybe we should consider why these
buybacks are occurring. Maybe it is because of investor shareholder
activism and this notion of ESGs that has something to do with it. And
by the way, that activism also dries up investment and capital into the
oil and gas industry.
But don't take my word for it, Dr. Jason Furman of Harvard
University--clearly no bastion of conservative thought--he actually was
an adviser to President Obama. Listen to what he said: ``When more
people want to buy things than companies are capable of making, prices
go up. That's just the law of supply and demand. Companies always want
to maximize their profits. I don't think they're doing it any more this
year than any other year.''
Again, that was Jason Furman, not exactly a conservative.
But while we are talking about all these issues, we are also failing
to talk about police week. It is National Police Week. Across our
Nation, police departments are struggling to recruit new officers, to
fill open positions. Some cities are facing shortages as high as 17
percent. At the same time, our Nation is in the midst of a crime crisis
with homicide rates up 48 percent compared with just 2 years ago.
The crime crisis is a direct result of President Biden and the
Democrats' efforts to demonize the police, to defund the police, and
also pushing for soft-on-crime policies.
House Republicans will always stand with our police. We will always
invest in our Nation's law enforcement, and we will always fight to
make our communities safer.
That is why, if we defeat this previous question, I will personally
offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider the Communities
Deserve Cops Act.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous materials
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Bustos). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Rutherford), a former sheriff, good friend, and the
author of this legislation, here to explain the amendment.
Mr. RUTHERFORD. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the previous question so that we can
immediately consider H.R. 7809, the Communities Deserve Cops Act. My
bill will make retention and hiring bonuses allowable for COPS grants.
Madam Speaker, I spent over 40 years in law enforcement, including 12
as sheriff, and I know firsthand the challenges that agencies all
across America are facing in hiring, training and retaining their
personnel. However, the challenges I faced as sheriff pale in
comparison to what these agencies face today.
Police departments across America are in the middle of a hiring
crisis. After years of far-left politicians defunding, demoralizing,
and delegitimizing police officers, we are seeing now the disastrous
results. A recent survey, as was mentioned earlier, found some cities
are facing shortages as high as 17 percent. Just last year, retirements
nationwide went up 45 percent.
And guess what? Violent crime also increased in every major city
across the Northeast almost. Less officers equals more crime, plain and
simple.
Madam Speaker, this pattern of retirements and difficulty recruiting
new officers is unsustainable and will have disastrous effects.
My legislation makes a very small but necessary change to how COPS
grants are utilized. In addition to using COPS funding to hire, train,
and equip officers, agencies will be able to use Federal dollars to
offer financial bonuses up to $5,000 to keep officers on the force and
to attract and hire new officers.
I know many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim to
support law enforcement. So I ask you: Join with us in this important
moment. Join with us in voting ``yes'' today that you will fund and not
defund the police.
As we wrap up National Police Week, let's show the police officers
across America that we have their back.
Mr. MORELLE. 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.
[[Page H5131]]
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.
Mr. MORELLE. 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.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I just have to push back a little bit on my good
friend from New York because the facts just don't line up with his
argument, respectfully.
I will give you a great example. During the committee markup,
Representative Steube of Florida offered an amendment to strike
references to white supremacists and neo-Nazis, and insert neo-Nazis,
white supremacists, antifa, Black Lives Matter, and radicalized social
justice organizations.
So when the Democrats had the chance to actually include a whole slew
of domestic terror organizations, when they had the chance, that
amendment that Representative Steube offered, it failed on a party-line
vote with only one Republican joining the Democrats in voting ``no.''
{time} 1515
While Democrats refused to put antifa, Black Lives Matter, and
radicalized social justice organizations into the definition of
``domestic terrorism,'' they simultaneously believed that concerned
parents at school board meetings are the domestic terrorists. That is
the problem, and that is what has changed between 2 years and now.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Rice) to
talk more about the police. Again, it is Police Week, and we are doing
very little talking about the police.
Mr. RICE of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose the
previous question so we can amend the rule and immediately consider
H.R. 7809, the Communities Deserve Cops Act, which allows for the use
of COPS grants to provide officers with signing and retention bonuses
up to $5,000.
Predictably, Madam Speaker, we have seen shocking increases in
violent crime following the calls from my friends across the aisle to
defund the police.
This week is National Police Week, a time when we should be honoring
those who put their lives on the line every day to keep our communities
safe. Sadly, we are not taking the opportunity to vote on legislation
to bolster law enforcement and decrease violent crime.
Despite House leadership having numerous bipartisan bills to vote on,
only two bills have been added to the suspension calendar. The Senate
Judiciary Committee is taking up five bills tomorrow.
Representative Rutherford's legislation provides much-needed
assistance for agencies to hire and retain officers. The COPS grant
program is vital to law enforcement agencies of all sizes, but while it
has continued to receive funds, it has not been authorized since 2009.
I have also introduced a bill with Representative Spanberger that
would reauthorize the COPS grant program and help low-income, rural
agencies compete for these grants. It has 53 cosponsors on both sides
of the aisle. More of my Democratic colleagues have cosponsored it than
Republicans. If Speaker Pelosi would allow a vote on the floor, it
would pass.
There are many more bipartisan law enforcement bills that deserve to
see the light of day. I hope that, moving forward, we can work together
to support the many bipartisan law enforcement bills that deliver
targeted solutions to the Nation.
I ask my colleagues to oppose the previous question so that we can
provide the needed support for law enforcement agencies.
Mr. MORELLE. 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
[[Page H5132]]
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
[[Page H5133]]
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.
Mr. MORELLE. 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.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I have a lot of respect for my good friend from New York, but, again,
facts don't care about friendships. If you look at the facts, and just
a quick history lesson, on September 29, 2021, the National School
Boards Association sent a letter to the Biden White House asking the
administration to treat parents as terrorists. Madam Speaker, 5 days
after that letter, which, again, asks Biden's DOJ to treat parents as
domestic terrorists, 5 days later, Attorney General Garland sent a memo
to the Director of the FBI, directing the FBI to work with each U.S.
attorney to convene meetings with Federal, local, and territorial
leaders within 30 days of the issuance of the memo and to open
dedicated lines of communication for threats reported at school board
meetings. Just a few weeks after that, they created a threat tag to be
used on parents.
Fast forward, during a markup in the Judiciary Committee, Judiciary
Republicans expressed concerns that H.R. 350 will codify what took
place last fall, treating parents as domestic terrorists.
To date, that memo has not been rescinded.
Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Morelle) to see if he supports the actions of the Attorney General, if
he supports the letter, and if he has anything to say in response.
Mr. MORELLE. 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.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, the question
was simple. It is on the issue of the memoranda, whether or not my
colleague agreed that the FBI should treat parents as domestic
terrorists.
The letter has not been rescinded. It is still in place, and the
actions of the Attorney General and the DOJ are irrefutable. Again, I
point to the fact that that letter has still not been rescinded.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi
(Mr. Guest) to elaborate more on this matter.
Mr. GUEST. Madam Speaker, Scriptures tell us: ``Blessed are the
peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God.''
As Police Week comes to a close, it is important that we continue to
thank our law enforcement officers that protect our communities and
tackle the huge recruiting and retention issues that our police
departments are seeing.
At a time when violent crime is at an all-time high, and our police
departments are understaffed and overworked
[[Page H5134]]
because of the impact of the defund the police movement and antipolice
rhetoric, it is more important than ever that we support our law
enforcement officers.
Former President Ronald Reagan once said: ``There can be no more
noble vocation than the protection of one's fellow citizens. . . . No
single group is more fully committed to the well-being of their fellow
Americans and to the faithful discharge of duty than our law
enforcement.'' Law enforcement, we know, lives by creed. That creed is
to serve and to protect.
Sheriff Rutherford's bill, H.R. 7809, would help law enforcement
accomplish that mission. It would put law enforcement back into our
communities and take criminals off the streets by allowing Federal
grant dollars to offer a $5,000 hiring and retention bonus to law
enforcement officers.
I am grateful for the men and women of law enforcement and for their
service, and I will continue to work with these heroes to see that our
communities are safe places to live, to worship, and to raise a family.
Mr. MORELLE. 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.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis), my good friend.
Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the previous
question so we can immediately consider H.R. 7809, the Communities
Deserve Cops Act, to get police back on the force and criminals off our
streets.
Police departments across the country are struggling to hire and
retain new recruits to keep up with the pace of retirements and
resignations.
Officer morale has been decimated by antipolice rhetoric coming from
politicians and procrime policies that tie the hands of our police,
like the disastrous bail law of my State where a perp arrested in the
morning gets out of jail before the police officer even finishes his
shift.
Crime in America's cities is skyrocketing. It is skyrocketing as a
result of these policies.
An increase in ambush-style attacks against our police has put our
officers in harm's way both on and off duty. In 2021, America saw the
most law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty since 1995.
An NYPD officer puts their life on the line for $46,000 a year. My
hometown department, the NYPD, has seen more than 5,700 retirements
over the last 3 years because politicians have made it impossible for
them to do their job.
Nationally, retirements are up 45 percent, and resignations are up 18
percent, creating a dangerous situation in cities like mine that
finished 2021 with the highest homicide rate in a decade.
The Communities Deserve Cops Act would allow law enforcement agencies
to use Federal grant dollars to offer hiring and retention bonuses to
our police officers. It would increase resources for our police at a
time when too many politicians, including those in this Chamber, are
looking to strip away resources.
It is unfortunate that legislation like this even needs to be
considered. The endemic problems surrounding our police are a direct
result of a systematic targeting of those who protect us by progressive
politicians.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to
the gentlewoman.
Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. Madam Speaker, earlier this Congress, I offered a
resolution condemning calls to defund, abolish, or dismantle our
police, and guess what? Every one of our colleagues on the other side
of the aisle voted against it. This is the problem.
When our police departments are understaffed and overworked, Congress
must step up to provide them with the tools they need to effectively do
their job.
In this year's Federal budget, I fought to get millions of dollars
for the NYPD's K9 unit, forensic equipment, and protective gear.
I urge my colleagues to support this critically important piece of
legislation to give our brave men and women in blue the respect and the
support they need to do their jobs and keep our communities safe.
Mr. MORELLE. 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.
{time} 1530
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler), my good friend and
fellow appropriator.
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge defeat of
the previous question so we can protect and support local police
departments to help them hire and retain more officers. It is that
simple.
Over the past year we have seen a dramatic rise in crime in
communities across our Nation. And the district I serve, my home in
southwest Washington, hasn't been spared. Not a day goes by without a
local paper depicting another carjacking, killing, burglary, or
assault. These are on the rise.
When you meet with our local law enforcement, as I have, they have
been sounding the alarm for well more than a year. Then consider the
phrase that we have all heard repeated by politicians across this
country and in this town: Defund the police.
In States like mine, Washington, so-called police reform laws have
made it harder for police to catch criminals and do their jobs. Place
yourself in the shoes of a law enforcement officer who puts her life on
the line every single day. It is no wonder that honorable individuals
have left the profession in droves.
One county sheriff's department in my region announced that deputies
would no longer be able to respond to certain crimes like theft of
property, stolen vehicles, and more, due to the laws that are trying to
defund police. This is deeply concerning. We must act now to help shore
up our police forces to keep our cities and streets safe.
The Communities Deserve Cops Act will help reverse staffing shortages
by providing and signing retention bonuses for police officers. It is
time to stop chasing individuals away from the profession of policing,
which is exactly what we have been doing, and the Communities Deserve
Cops Act will help bring folks back into law enforcement.
Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of the previous question so the House can
bring up this legislation to improve it, to help hire and retain police
officers, to shore up our police departments, and help keep our
communities safe.
Mr. MORELLE. 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
[[Page H5135]]
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.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Roy), my good friend.
Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
I would just note, my colleagues are talking about what we are actually
here to talk about. We are talking about the concern about Black
Americans. How about the fact that in Chicago we had 800 homicides last
year. How about in Philadelphia, 562 homicides. How about in D.C., 227
homicides. How about in Austin, we had 89 homicides. The 12 major
cities that broke homicide records in 2021 all have Democratic mayors.
Now, Democrats on the other side of the aisle want to politicize what
should be a bipartisan approach to figure out how to combat crime, the
very crime that has been created by the policies of our Democratic
friends on the other side of the aisle. That is the truth and that is
what we know.
The gentleman from New York is talking about what is going on with
respect to domestic terrorism. The fact of the matter is, we know the
truth. He asked what is different? Well, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania answered what is different. We know precisely what is
different, which is that this Department of Justice is targeting
Americans, like Scott Smith, a father in Loudon County, Virginia, who
dared to go to the school board and complain about the assault of his
daughter in a public school.
Now, the gentleman from New York is smirking--smirking about a little
girl who was raped in a high school. The father goes to complain to the
school board, and then the National School Boards Association
coordinates with the Department of Justice to figure out how to target
parents; to then tag individuals specifically as to whether or not they
are threatening people by merely going to a school board to register
their complaint.
That is what is at stake here. That is why we are opposing what
Democrats are trying to do. Then they want to gloss over things like
Frank James in Brooklyn, a Black nationalist who goes in and assaults
30 to 33 people on a subway in New York. That just gets wistfully wiped
away while the gentleman wants to politicize that which we should be
coming together to figure out how to save the American people from the
harm befalling them.
That is what is going on with the rule here. I will talk about energy
later. The rule here is bad for the United States of America, and we
should be protecting the people here during cop week.
Mr. MORELLE. 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.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers at this
time, and I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, for over 3 years, House Democrats have pushed for a
radical, far left agenda that does absolutely nothing to address the
serious issues facing American families. The legislation made in order
under today's rule is no exception to that.
H.R. 350 adds bureaucracy and adds red tape to existing law
enforcement resources, while completely ignoring new and evolving
terrorist threats.
H.R. 7688, this is the Democrats' socialist energy price-fixing
scheme that will actually lead to less energy production and further
exacerbate American families' pain at the pump.
Finally, H.R. 7790, does nothing--I repeat, nothing--to put more
formula on store shelves or hold Biden's FDA accountable for ignoring
this crisis despite knowing about it for the last year.
Madam Speaker, the American people deserve more than empty promises
and meaningless legislation, they deserve action.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question and ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. MORELLE. 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.
Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
____________________