[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.
____________________