[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.

                          ____________________