[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 101 (Tuesday, June 14, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H5495-H5499]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                SUPREME COURT POLICE PARITY ACT OF 2022

  Mr. LIEU. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (S. 4160) to amend title 40, United States Code, to grant the 
Supreme Court of the United States security-related authorities 
equivalent to the legislative and executive branches.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                S. 4160

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Supreme Court Police Parity 
     Act of 2022''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO PROTECT FAMILY MEMBERS.

       Section 6121(a)(2) of title 40, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by adding ``and'' after the 
     semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) any member of the immediate family of the Chief 
     Justice, any Associate Justice, or any officer of the Supreme 
     Court if the Marshal determines such protection is 
     necessary.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lieu) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.


                             General Leave

  Mr. LIEU. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on S. 4160.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LIEU. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 4160, the Supreme Court Police 
Parity Act of 2022.
  While the Supreme Court police force is currently authorized to 
provide protection to the Justices of the Supreme Court, this bill 
would unequivocally extend their authority to provide protection to 
family members of Justices if there is reason to believe they are at 
risk.
  It is imperative that the Justices are free from fear of violence or 
physical intimidation to make decisions based on the Constitution and 
law as applied to the facts of the cases before them. This is essential 
to the rule of law. Assailants like the man arrested recently for 
allegedly plotting against the life of one of our Justices are a threat 
to our democracy, but with the right security, they can also be stopped 
before they inflict harm.
  I thank Senators Coons and Cornyn for their work on this issue in the 
Senate, and Representatives Stanton, Correa, and Issa for their work in 
the House, likewise introducing bills that would extend protection to 
the families of Justices. I also thank Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee 
as well.
  I further note that Mr. Stanton's bill would have also extended 
protection to the families of Court employees. We understand that there 
was Republican opposition to that aspect of the bill, and in the 
interest of protecting the Justices' families, we could no longer delay 
in passing the only version of the bill they would apparently agree to. 
But I hope we will swiftly move another bill to extend protection to 
families of employees as well.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in passing this straightforward 
measure to ensure that the families of Supreme Court Justices have the 
necessary protection from any threats they may face.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, why did it take so long? Why did it take so long to 
bring this legislation to the floor? It has been over a month since the 
leak of the draft opinion, over a month of threats on Supreme Court 
Justices and their families, over a month of protests at their homes. 
Why did it take so long? I mean, the protests at their homes are a 
direct violation of the law, 18 U.S.C. section 1507. Over a month.
  It has been over a week, or actually a week, since an assassination 
attempt on a Supreme Court Justice, on Justice

[[Page H5496]]

Kavanaugh. Think about that for a second. An assassination attempt on a 
sitting United States Supreme Court Justice.
  And what did the Speaker of the House say last week? No one is in 
danger. No rush on this legislation. No concern here.
  The Senate passed this bill a month ago. Why hasn't the House? Why 
did it take so long? I think the answer is obvious. Because they have 
always wanted to intimidate the Court. That has been their goal since 
the get-go. Their goal was to intimidate the Court. That has been their 
objective all along.
  Think about the history first. We had the Kavanaugh confirmation mess 
where the left has made up things about Justice Kavanaugh and his 
family. Then we had the leader of the Senate, the Democrat leader of 
the Senate on the Supreme Court steps say to two Justices, Mr. 
Kavanaugh and Mr. Gorsuch: You have released the whirlwind, and you 
will pay the price.
  Last April, the Democrat chair of the Judiciary Committee introduced 
legislation to do what? To pack the Court, to add four Associate 
Justices to the United States Supreme Court. Why four? Why not one? Why 
not two? Why not three? Why four? Because four would give them a 
majority on the Court.
  Then there was the sustained attack on Justice Thomas and his wife 
over the last several weeks. The Democrats on the Judiciary Committee 
even had hearings about Justice Thomas.
  Then, of course, there was the leak of the draft opinion itself, 
something that has never happened. And then there were the protests at 
Supreme Court Justices' homes, again in direct violation of the 
statute.
  And then, finally, there was the hearing the Democrats had in the 
Judiciary Committee about the abortion issue while the Dobbs decision 
is pending in front of the Court. You remember that hearing. That was 
the one where the Democrat witness said men could get pregnant. That is 
the history here.
  And then, of course, last week, we had an assassination attempt on 
Justice Kavanaugh. Intimidation is their goal. It is the same reason 
the Department of Homeland Security stood up the Disinformation 
Governance Board. It is the same reason the Department of Justice is 
targeting parents who have the nerve to show up at a school board 
meeting and speak up for their kids. It is all about intimidation. That 
is how the left operates, and we have seen it play out now against the 
Supreme Court.
  But the good news is, finally, this bill is going to pass and give 
the Justices of the highest Court in our land the protection they and 
their families deserve. I say better late than never. We support this 
legislation. It should have passed a darn long time ago.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIEU. Madam Speaker, let me tell you why it took us a few weeks 
rather than just 1 week to pass this legislation. It is because 
Republicans refused to protect the families of Supreme Court employees 
who are at risk. Shame on you for not doing that.

  And, by the way, there are threats to Justices across the board. I 
support this legislation. I just note that recently there was an 
article on CNN titled ``Justice Sonia Sotomayor was targeted by gunman, 
Federal judge tells `60 Minutes,' '' dated February 19, 2021. 
Intimidation goes on both sides.
  Madam Speaker, I support this legislation, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, that is why Republicans have condemned 
violence every single time it happened. We condemned it when it 
happened on January 6. But guess what? We also condemned it when it 
happened in the summer of 2020.
  It hasn't been a few weeks since the leak of the draft opinion. It 
has been 6 weeks. The Senate passed this legislation unanimously, and 
they wouldn't bring it up. They wouldn't bring it up. In fact, the 
Speaker of the House, as I said before, the Speaker of the House said 
last week there was no need to bring it up, but now we are going to. 
Thank goodness for that.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Issa), my friend.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, listening to the initial debate here, you 
would believe that there was a legitimate difference of opinion here on 
the floor about protecting the Justices. Clearly, there was no such 
difference in the U.S. Senate. What there is, though, is a story that I 
think needs to be told.

                              {time}  1230

  When I authored this legislation a month ago, I knew that we had 
support in the Senate, and I knew that we would have support in the 
House. The first thing I did was I called up the most senior member of 
the Judiciary Committee on the other side of the aisle and said to him 
that I believe we should do this. He agreed. Not checking with staff, 
he agreed to this simple bill of protecting those who would be 
intimidated and those who would be threatened and those whose lives 
could not be replaced in a timely fashion without changing the outcome 
of the Court. And that was it; I had my cosponsor.
  A day later, mysteriously, another bill, very different, was dropped 
in the hopper by the Speaker's staff. It was done so without a 
Republican cosponsor, without a call to the ranking member who stands 
here today. That was done because they wanted to play message with it. 
They wanted to delay, and the Speaker has delayed for a month.
  Madam Speaker, 18 U.S.C. 1507 is not a suggestion that you prevent 
intimidation of the Court. It is a law. It is a law that the President 
of the United States has sworn to uphold and, through his Attorney 
General, has not, has negated the responsibility.
  This legislation is not only essential to protect against another 
assassination attempt of a Justice or their family, but it is even more 
important because this administration, as we speak, is not obeying the 
law that they have sworn to obey, one that the Attorney General is 
required to. So, it is a double-edged sword that I come with today.
  Democrats took 30 days and waited a week after the attempted 
assassination of a Supreme Court Justice before they would bring a 
commonsense, noncontroversial piece of legislation to the floor. I 
applaud all of those who will vote for it today, and I suspect that it 
will be voted for unanimously here on the floor.
  But justice delayed, or protection of our Justice delayed, could have 
led to the death of a Justice and, even as we speak, still could.
  Let's pass it. Let's pass it without further controversy. And let's 
never again do something as shameful as ignore the law and delay 
protection of people who are being intimidated.
  Mr. LIEU. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The Republicans are misleading you. Supreme Court Justices already 
have protection. Let me say that again. Supreme Court Justices already 
have protection.
  This is about families of Supreme Court Justices, which I support 
them having protection, and Democrats are fighting for families of law 
clerks and employees of the Supreme Court. They should have protection, 
too.
  Let me tell you the threats to employees of the Supreme Court. Soon 
after the draft decision leaked, a rightwing activist posted the 
personal details of a law clerk who he baselessly claimed had leaked 
Justice Alito's draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. This rightwing 
activist even posted the clerk's wedding announcement and singled out 
the clerk's spouse. Republicans don't want to protect that person or 
their family.
  After another Republican strategist claimed a different law clerk had 
leaked the opinion, an extremist anti-abortion rights group issued a 
press release targeting that clerk and the Justice the clerk worked 
for. The author of the press release had served years in prison for 
conspiring to blow up an abortion clinic. Referring to the people in 
the Justice's office, the group's leader said that he could smell their 
fear.
  Republicans don't want to protect the families of Supreme Court 
employees. Shame on them.
  Recently, a news outlet obtained a DHS intelligence report 
identifying threats to murder Justices and their clerks. Why don't 
Republicans want to protect the families of Supreme Court employees?
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Hice).

[[Page H5497]]

  

  Mr. HICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, unfortunately, this bill is 
necessary because we have a radical and unhinged leftwing activist 
group of individuals that also have been encouraged by the slow-walking 
Democratic Party in hopes of intimidation being used to influence the 
courts. That is why we are here today.
  We have assassination attempts on Judge Kavanaugh. We have fire 
bombings of women's resource centers and healthcare facilities. We have 
U.S. Senators, sitting U.S. Senators, encouraging violence against the 
children and families of Supreme Court Justices.
  Ever since the leak took place some 6 weeks ago, there have been at 
least 14 coordinated attacks on women's pregnancy care facilities, and 
Democratic leadership has endorsed and encouraged physical threats to 
their political opposition. This is totally unacceptable. It is un-
American.
  The unhinged left is not the party that empowers women. If that were 
true, they would not be trying to destroy women's resource centers, nor 
would they be trying to attack and intimidate those who work there. 
They would not be threatening the life of and encouraging violence 
toward the children of the fourth woman to serve on the United States 
Supreme Court.
  The protests that have been taking place outside the Justices' homes 
this past month are unacceptable, and Democratic leadership has refused 
to condemn the threats of violence.
  One great example of this is, despite the law and the prohibition 
against such protests, Jen Psaki, while she was White House press 
secretary, stated: ``. . . we certainly continue to encourage that 
outside of judges' homes, and that is the President's position.''
  This is the position of the Democratic Party: intimidation and fear. 
Now it is getting out of control. It is about time the Democrats are 
coming to admit it. I encourage my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the Senate or its Members.
  Mr. LIEU. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
  Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, Supreme Court Justices are already 
protected. Really? Really? They are already protected?
  The Speaker said no one is in danger, no one is in danger after an 
assassination attempt. I don't know if I would feel very protected. On 
the very day of the assassination attempt, in violation of the law, 
protesters are at the very house of the Supreme Court Justice being 
intimidated by protesters.
  The Speaker says that no one is in danger. I don't want to engage in 
personalities, so I might say a high-ranking official on the other side 
of the Capitol here said: You have released the whirlwind; you don't 
know what will hit you. And then down the street, Pennsylvania Avenue, 
a high-ranking official said there might be a mini-revolution.
  Does that not sound like intimidation to you? It sure sounds like it 
to me. I don't know what my friends on the other side of the aisle want 
to happen. I don't know. I am not in their heads, and I am not in their 
hearts. But I listen to what they say, and I watch what they do. We 
should have passed this much longer ago when it was available to us, 
and the fact that we didn't might be the cause for people to come to 
assassinate a United States Supreme Court Justice.
  This is not a third-world country. If you don't get your way, you 
don't blow up the Court and kill the Justices. But, apparently, that is 
what some people in America think is appropriate. It is not 
appropriate. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. LIEU. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me say this. Reading from a headline here, this group, Ruth Sent 
Us, ``. . . hinted at targeting Supreme Court Justice Barrett's 
children, church.'' Let me read the headline here. ``Group gave details 
on Barrett's routine, her children's school, and family's spiritual 
life.''
  In plain English, this group was saying where Justice Coney Barrett 
goes each day, where her kids go to school, and where her family goes 
to church. They gave those details.
  Last week, the Democrats said no one is in danger. After an 
assassination attempt on Justice Barrett's colleague, Justice 
Kavanaugh, they said not to worry. Everything is fine. We don't need to 
pass this legislation after the Senate had done it unanimously. That is 
the position of the Democrats in this body.
  That is why we are saying: Why did it take so long? Six weeks ago was 
when the draft leak happened, and the protests started at Justices' 
homes almost immediately after the leak of that draft, that 
unprecedented leak of that draft opinion. They have been doing it now 
for weeks and weeks and weeks.
  Here is the email from this organization, this Ruth Sent Us 
organization. Here is one of the messages: ``If you are in the D.C. 
metro area, join us. Our protests at Barrett's home moved the needle to 
this coverage. Falls Church is a People of Praise stronghold. She sends 
her seven kids to a People of Praise school that she sat on the board 
of directors for. She attends church daily,'' as if that is bad to go 
to church daily. I think that is a good thing. But this is what they 
are saying, this group, giving the details of where her kids go to 
school, where they go to church, and her daily routine.
  And the Democrats said: Nothing to worry about.
  That is our concern. So thank goodness this bill is here.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIEU. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am going to respond to that because what he just said is a lie. The 
fact that he is saying Democrats think there is nothing wrong, there is 
no danger to Supreme Court Justices, is a lie. Why? Because we are the 
majority party, and we just put this bill up, and we are about to vote 
on it. We clearly care about Supreme Court Justices.
  But we also care about the families and employees of the Supreme 
Court, and that is what we are talking about today. Again, I just want 
to remind you, Republicans are misleading you. Supreme Court Justices 
right now have law enforcement protection details. They are protected 
by law enforcement. This bill has to do with the families of Supreme 
Court Justices. I support protecting them. I also support protecting 
the employees and their families of the Supreme Court.
  That is the dispute. The Democrats want to also protect the employees 
and families who are getting threats from rightwing activists, 
intimidation from the far right.
  Do you want to talk about intimidation? I will tell you what 
intimidation is. It is Trump supporters assaulting the Capitol on 
January 6, brutalizing 140 police officers. That is intimidation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We condemned what took place on January 6. It would have been nice if 
Democrats would have done the same thing in the summer of 2020 or 
passed this legislation 6 weeks ago or a month ago when the Senate 
passed it.
  Let me just recite a few things here that have been said by our 
colleagues on the other side.
  Former Attorney General Eric Holder said in 2018, at a campaign event 
in Georgia, to kick Republicans. ``No. No. When they go low, we kick 
them.'' That is what this new Democratic Party is about.
  It sure is. It is all about intimidation: intimidating the court, 
intimidating parents who have the nerve to show up at school board 
meetings, setting up a Disinformation Governance Board to intimidate 
free speech rights of all Americans. That is what the new Democratic 
Party is about.
  We have seen it time and time again. In the summer of 2018, we saw 
one of our colleagues from California, a Democrat Member, say: Let's 
make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see 
anybody from the Trump Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, 
at a gasoline station, out in a crowd, you create a crowd and push back 
on them, and you tell them--think about this. This is a Member of 
Congress saying this to a Cabinet member--you tell them they are

[[Page H5498]]

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

  We had another Member of Congress on the Democrat side say this: 
There needs to be ``unrest on the streets,'' calling for unrest on the 
streets while there was unrest on the streets in the summer of 2020.
  That is why this legislation is so darn important and why we cannot 
figure out--the gentleman just said something that wasn't accurate. The 
Speaker of the House last week said no one is in danger. I just read 
you what they are posting about Justice Coney Barrett and her family 
and where they go to church and where her seven kids go to school. Of 
course, this is in the context of everything they have done to 
intimidate the Court and an assassination attempt on another Justice, 
Justice Kavanaugh.
  Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
from Ohio for yielding.
  I have missed most of the debate on the floor. Mr. Jordan just made 
reference to an item that bowls me over. You wonder after you have been 
in Washington for a little while whether anything will surprise you. 
Yes, Madam Speaker, that tweet by the pro-abortion group, Ruth Sent Us, 
that identified Justice Barrett's church and identified the school that 
her children attend and encouraged protestors to ``voice your anger'' 
by demonstrating there, is a new low.
  Not just the identification of Justices' home addresses, which I 
never thought we would see, not just the crowds materializing there, 
which I never thought we would see, not just the appearance of an 
assassin at the home of a Justice, which we have never seen, and yet, 
the response is: What about January 6?
  As the gentleman from Ohio made the point, I have never encountered 
any Republican who declined to condemn the violence and rioting at the 
Capitol that day. I have never found one. I have never heard one. And 
yet, I never hear condemnation of such conduct as I have described from 
Democrats. I might be missing it. I am not hearing it now. I am hearing 
this, What about January 6?
  I condemn the rioting and the violence at the Capitol on January 6.
  I condemn the Democrat leader of the Senate standing in front of the 
Supreme Court to say to two specific Justices that, You have released 
the whirlwind. You will suffer the result. I don't remember the exact 
words. And then what I do remember, the phrase that sticks in my mind: 
``You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful 
decisions.'' I never hear condemnation for that. I don't know why.
  I do think I know why this bill had to be delayed from last week when 
we were here and could have passed it. That is because you want to 
protect the leaker. That implies that although this has been pending 
for a month and a half and the Nation doesn't know who the leaker is, 
somebody knows who the leaker is; and that is who you want to protect, 
amazing as that is, unprecedented as that is.
  We certainly ought to pass this legislation and protect the Justices 
of the United States Supreme Court from assassins, assassins responding 
to the unprecedented advocacy on the left.
  Mr. LIEU. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I condemn violence whether it is from rightwing groups or leftwing 
groups or white supremacist groups or any other group. Democrats say 
this all the time.
  I will tell you why Republicans don't hear it. Because they are in 
their bubble watching just Fox News, who won't even show the January 6 
hearings. That is why they don't hear any of this stuff because it is 
never played to them or their base. Democrats condemn violence all the 
time.
  By the way, last year--I am just going to tell you the headline of 
this article again: ``Justice Sonia Sotomayor was targeted by gunmen . 
. .'' Did Republicans jump up in outrage? No, no, they didn't.
  So let's just be clear here what we are talking about today, once 
again: Supreme Court Justices get law enforcement protection right now, 
as we speak.
  This is actually a dispute about employees. So I am going to ask 
Republicans a question, and I bet you they will not answer it: Why do 
they not want to protect the employees and their families of the 
Supreme Court?
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, the employees of the Supreme Court are 
already protected. This is about protecting the Justices' families, and 
we know that is needed based on the headline I read and the email that 
Mr. Bishop just talked about.
  The gentleman said that Democrats condemn violence. No, they don't. 
No, they don't. They called rioters and looters the entire summer of 
2020, they called them ``peaceful protestors.'' And that same summer, 
then-Senator now-Vice President Harris raised money to bail those 
rioters and looters and people who went after the police out of jail. 
So you have got to stick with the facts here, and that is just not 
accurate what was stated earlier.
  For all the reasons we have highlighted, Madam Speaker, we are glad 
this bill is finally going to pass. We just wish it would have happened 
when it should have, weeks and weeks ago when this threat was first 
present for Supreme Court Justices.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIEU. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Escobar).
  Ms. ESCOBAR. Madam Speaker, it is incredible to stand here and listen 
to our Republican colleagues talk about the risks and the dangers that 
exist to the Supreme Court.
  I want to know where they were when the risks and the dangers existed 
for my community, El Paso, Texas, where 23 innocent people were 
slaughtered by a white supremacist with an AK-47? Where were they then? 
How about Uvalde? Where were they then? How about every other mass 
shooting? Buffalo? You name it.
  Last week, we brought to the floor legislation intended to protect 
millions of Americans, especially and including children. The vast 
majority of our Republican colleagues voted against those protections 
for vulnerable people who don't have access to 24-hour, round-the-clock 
U.S. Marshal protection. They don't have access to round-the-clock, 24/
7 Capitol Police protection, which Supreme Court Justices have today. 
Supreme Court Justices have far more protections than Members of 
Congress do, but more importantly they have more than those innocent 
lives that were taken in innumerable cities across America.
  And as they rail about and clutch their pearls over the fact that it 
took House Democrats some time to get this bill to the floor, the 
reason it took that much time is because it was House Democrats that at 
least wanted to get one itty-bitty concession out of this bill to 
protect the staff of that institution, the United States Supreme Court. 
But they refused.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. LIEU. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. ESCOBAR. Madam Speaker, I remind the American public why they 
brought this bill to the floor, both in the Senate and here; it is a 
talking point. It is not because it really does anything, it is simply 
a talking point. It came as a result of a leaked decision on the 
Justices' desire to take away women's reproductive care.
  Guess who else doesn't get protections in America the way that they 
would like to protect others? It is those healthcare providers and 
patients and staff who are vulnerable every day, especially because of 
the actions of the Supreme Court.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, a talking point? The left is telling 
people where Justice Barrett's kids go to school. That is not a talking 
point, that is a fact. That is one of the craziest things I have heard 
said on this floor.
  A talking point? Every single Senator voted for this package. That 
includes Democrats. Every single one.
  A talking point? You have got to be kidding me.

[[Page H5499]]

  They are reporting where a Supreme Court Justice's kids go to school, 
where her family goes to church, her daily routine, and the left calls 
it a talking point?
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIEU. Madam Speaker, S. 4160 is a straightforward bill that will 
protect the families of the Justices. Democrats also fought to try to 
protect the families of Supreme Court employees. Republicans objected 
and won't do that, so this is the best we can get.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lieu) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, S. 4160.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. LIEU. 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.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this motion 
are postponed.

                          ____________________