[House Report 117-485]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


117th Congress    }                                  {       Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session       }                                  {       117-485

======================================================================

 
OF INQUIRY DIRECTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO PROVIDE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS 
   IN HIS POSSESSION TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RELATING TO THE 
  OCTOBER 4, 2021 MEMORANDUM ISSUED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ENTITLED 
``PARTNERSHIP AMONG FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL, TRIBAL, AND TERRITORIAL LAW 
  ENFORCEMENT TO ADDRESS THREATS AGAINST SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS, BOARD 
                     MEMBERS, TEACHERS, AND STAFF''

                                _______
                                

 September 22, 2022.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Nadler, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                             ADVERSE REPORT

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                      [To accompany H. Res. 1239]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
resolution (H. Res. 1239) of inquiry directing the Attorney 
General to provide certain documents in his possession to the 
House of Representatives relating to the October 4, 2021 
memorandum issued by the Attorney General entitled 
``Partnership Among Federal, State, Local, Tribal, and 
Territorial Law Enforcement to Address Threats Against School 
Administrators, Board Members, Teachers, and Staff'', having 
considered the same, report unfavorably thereon with amendments 
and recommend that the resolution not be agreed to.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     3
Hearings.........................................................     5
Committee Consideration..........................................     5
Committee Votes..................................................     6
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     8
Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects..........................     8
New Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost 
  Estimate.......................................................     8
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................     8
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     8
Advisory on Earmarks.............................................     8
Section-by-Section Analysis......................................     8
Minority Views...................................................     9

    The amendments are as follows:
  Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
following:

  That the Attorney General of the United States is directed to 
transmit to the House of Representatives, not later than 14 days after 
the date of adoption of this resolution, copies of any document, 
record, audio recording, memorandum, call log, correspondence 
(electronic or otherwise), or other communication in his possession, or 
any portion of any document, record, audio recording, memorandum, call 
log, correspondence (electronic or otherwise), or other communication, 
that refers or relates to the following:
          (1) The Memorandum issued by the Attorney General, dated 
        October 4, 2021, and entitled ``Partnership Among Federal, 
        State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Law Enforcement to 
        Address Threats Against School Administrators, Board Members, 
        Teachers, and Staff''.
          (2) Communication or coordination between the Department of 
        Justice and the Executive Office of the President regarding the 
        Attorney General's Memorandum, dated October 4, 2021.
          (3) Communication or coordination between the Department of 
        Justice and the National School Boards Association regarding 
        the Attorney General's Memorandum, dated October 4, 2021.
          (4) Communication or coordination between the Department of 
        Justice and the National School Boards Association regarding 
        threats at school board meetings or the letter, dated September 
        29, 2021, from Dr. Viola M. Garcia and Chip Slaven to President 
        Joseph Robinette Biden.
          (5) Communication or coordination between the Department of 
        Justice and the Executive Office of the President regarding 
        threats at school board meetings or the letter, dated September 
        29, 2021, from Dr. Viola M. Garcia and Chip Slaven to President 
        Joseph Robinette Biden.
          (6) Communication or coordination between the Department of 
        Justice and United States intelligence agencies referring or 
        relating to alleged threats posed by concerned parents at local 
        school board meetings, the letter dated, September 29, 2021, 
        from Dr. Viola M. Garcia and Chip Slaven to President Joseph 
        Robinette Biden, or the Attorney General's Memorandum, dated 
        October 4, 2021.
          (7) The Federal Bureau of Investigation's ``EDUOFFICIALS'' 
        threat tag and investigations labeled with the ``EDUOFFICIALS'' 
        threat tag.
          (8) The total number of parents tagged by the Federal Bureau 
        of Investigation with the ``EDUOFFICIALS'' threat tag.
          (9) The Department of Justice's Task Force ``to determine how 
        federal enforcement tools can be used to prosecute these 
        crimes'' and the National Security Division's role in the Task 
        Force.

    Amend the title so as to read:
    A resolution of inquiry directing the Attorney General to 
provide certain documents in his possession to the House of 
Representatives relating to the October 4, 2021, Memorandum 
issued by the Attorney General entitled ``Partnership Among 
Federal, State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Law Enforcement 
to Address Threats Against School Administrators, Board 
Members, Teachers, and Staff''.

                          Purpose and Summary

    H. Res. 1239 is a non-binding resolution of inquiry that 
directs Attorney General Merrick Garland to provide certain 
documents to the House of Representatives relating to the 
October 4, 2021, memorandum issued by the Attorney General 
entitled ``Partnership Among Federal, State, Local, Tribal, and 
Territorial Law Enforcement to Address Threats Against School 
Administrators, Board Members, Teachers, and Staff.''

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    Resolutions of inquiry, if properly drafted, are given 
privileged parliamentary status in the House. This means that, 
under certain circumstances, a resolution of inquiry can be 
considered on the House floor even if the committee to which it 
was referred has not ordered the resolution reported and the 
majority party's leadership has not scheduled it for 
consideration. Clause 7 of House rule XIII requires the 
committee to which the resolution is referred to act on the 
resolution within 14 legislative days, or a motion to discharge 
the committee from consideration is considered privileged on 
the floor of the House. In calculating the days available for 
committee consideration, the day of introduction and the day of 
discharge are not counted.\1\ The 117th Congress operated under 
temporary procedures ``that effectively `turned off' the 14-day 
deadline'' for resolutions of inquiry until July 19, 2022.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Wm. Holmes Brown, et al., House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, 
Precedents, and Procedures of the House ch. 49, Sec. 6, p. 834 (2011).
    \2\Christopher M. Davis, Resolutions of Inquiry in the House, Cong. 
Rsch. Serv. 1 (Jul. 21, 2022), https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/
pdf/IN/IN10661/4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under the Rules and precedents of the House, a resolution 
of inquiry is a means by which the House requests information 
from the President of the United States or the head of one of 
the executive departments. According to Deschler's Precedents, 
it is a ``simple resolution making a direct request or demand 
of the President or the head of an executive department to 
furnish the House of Representatives with specific factual 
information in the possession of the executive branch.''\3\ 
Such resolutions must ask for facts, documents, or specific 
information; they may not be used to request an opinion or 
require an investigation.\4\ Resolutions of inquiry are not 
akin to subpoenas; they have no legal force and thus compliance 
by the Executive Branch with the House's request for 
information is purely voluntary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\7 Deschler's Precedents of the United States House of 
Representatives, H. Doc. No. 94-661, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., ch. 24, 
Sec. 8.
    \4\A resolution that seeks more than factual information does not 
enjoy privileged status. Brown, supra note 1, at 833-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to a study conducted by the Congressional 
Research Service (CRS), between 1947 and 2017, 313 resolutions 
of inquiry were introduced in the House.\5\ Within this period, 
CRS found that ``two periods in particular, 1971-1975 and 2003-
2006, saw the highest levels of activity on resolutions of 
inquiry'' and that ``the Committees on Armed Services, Foreign 
Affairs, and the Judiciary have received the largest share of 
references.''\6\ CRS further found that ``in recent Congresses, 
such resolutions have overwhelmingly become a tool of the 
minority party in the House.''\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Christopher M. Davis, Resolutions of Inquiry: An Analysis of 
Their Use in the House, 1947-2017, Cong. Rsch. Serv. R40879, at i (Nov. 
9, 2017), https://sgp.fas.org/crs/secrecy/R40879.pdf.
    \6\Id.
    \7\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A committee has a number of choices after a resolution of 
inquiry is referred to it. It may vote on the resolution up or 
down as introduced or it may amend it, and it may report the 
resolution favorably, unfavorably, or with no recommendation. 
The fact that a committee reports a resolution of inquiry 
adversely does not necessarily mean that the committee opposes 
looking into the matter. In the past, resolutions of inquiry 
have frequently been reported adversely for several reasons. 
The two most common reasons are substantial compliance and 
competing investigations.
    H. Res. 1239 was introduced by Representative Mike Johnson 
(R-LA) on July 20, 2022. The resolution seeks information 
related to a memorandum issued by the Attorney General 
directing Department of Justice resources to address threats 
against school administrators, board members, teachers, and 
staff.
    The memorandum that is the focus of this resolution of 
inquiry notes the ``disturbing spike in harassment, 
intimidation, and threats of violence'' against school 
personnel and calls for a coordinated response to protect 
against criminal conduct directed toward these dedicated public 
servants.\8\ Protecting school officials from threats of 
violence is fundamental to the mission of the Department of the 
Justice, and the Attorney General should be applauded for 
supporting those who are responsible for educating our 
children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\Memorandum from Merrick Garland, Partnership Among Federal, 
State, Local, Tribal, And Territorial Law Enforcement to Address 
Threats Against School Administrators, Board Members, Teachers, and 
Staff, Off. Att'y Gen. (Oct. 4, 2021), https://www.justice.gov/ag/page/
file/1438986/download.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Teachers, school administrators, and local school board 
officials are being targeted for threats and violence at their 
homes, in their schools, and throughout their daily lives. For 
example, a Loudon County, Virginia school board member received 
a message threatening her children and saying, ``I am going to 
gut you like the fat f---ing pig you are when I find you.''\9\ 
Later that year, the school board member's daughter received a 
letter threatening, ``It is too bad that your mother is an ugly 
communist whore. If she doesn't quit or resign before the end 
of the year, we will kill her, but first, we will kill 
you!''\10\ An email to the Loudon County superintendent read, 
``Your life is being laid bare on the open and dark web. I 
don't condone what's gonna be sent to those close to you or the 
danger they may be in, but you personally do deserve it.''\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Gabriella Borter, Joseph Ax & Joseph Tanfani, School boards get 
death threats amid rage over race, gender, mask policies, Reuters (Feb. 
15, 2022), https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-
education-threats/.
    \10\Id.
    \11\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Examples of threats and intimidation directed at educators 
and school officials can be seen across the country. A 
Pennsylvania elementary school teacher received a voicemail 
from a man who threatened sexual violence and death and who 
said, ``Mass of people who know who you are. They will f---ing 
see your head swinging from a pole.''\12\ Board members in 
another Pennsylvania school district received a slew of racist, 
antisemitic, and abusive messages, including one that said, 
``This why hitler threw you c--ts in a gas chamber,'' and 
another threatening, ``You better grow eyes in the back of your 
head motherf---er.'' A Virginia woman told members of the Page 
County school board, ``I will bring every single gun loaded and 
ready'' to her children's school on the following Monday.\13\ A 
man threatened the president of the Northwest Allen County 
school board in Indiana that someone would ``bag and tag your 
ass in a parking lot.''\14\ A school board official in Brevard 
County, Florida had protestors outside of her home, yelling, 
``We're coming at you like a freight train! We are going to 
make you beg for mercy. If you thought January 6 was bad, wait 
until you see what we have for you!''\15\ And in North 
Carolina, school board members were confronted by masked Proud 
Boy members who said, ``someone should tie rocks around [your] 
necks and [you] should throw [your]selves in a river.''\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\Id.
    \13\Tim Stelloh, `I will bring every single gun loaded,' parent 
tells Virginia school officials during mask mandate meeting, NBC News 
(Jan. 21, 2022), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/-will-bring-
every-single-gun-loaded-parent-tells-virginia-school-offic-rcna13144.
    \14\Gabriella Borter, Joseph Ax & Joseph Tanfani, School boards get 
death threats amid rage over race, gender, mask policies, Reuters (Feb. 
15, 2022), https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-
education-threats/.
    \15\Jennifer D. Jenkins, I'm a Florida school board member. This is 
how protesters come after me., Wash. Post (Oct. 20, 2021), https://
www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/10/20/jennifer-jenkins-brevard-
school-board-masks-threats/.
    \16\Elle Kehres, Proud Boys' Presence Leads to Metal Detectors, 
Deputies at School Board Meetings, Chapelboro (Oct. 12, 2021), https://
chapelboro.com/news/pre-k-12-education/proud-boys-presence-leads-to-
metal-detectors-deputies-at-school-board-meetings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Threats to education officials have also escalated beyond 
verbal abuse to physical intimidation and violence. In Arizona, 
three men carrying zip ties stormed into the office of an 
elementary school principal, threatening to detain her and 
refusing to leave.\17\ An elementary school teacher in Northern 
California was struck multiple times by a parent, leaving him 
with bruises and lacerations on his face and head.\18\ And a 
Texas parent assaulted a teacher by getting in her face and 
ripping her face mask off.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\Antonio Planas & Suzanne Ciechalski, Three men with zip ties 
confront Arizona principal after student told to quarantine, NBC News 
(Sep. 3, 2021), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/three-men-zip-
ties-confront-arizona-principal-after-student-told-n1278504.
    \18\Tasneem Nashrulla, A California Dad Allegedly Attacked A 
Teacher Because His Daughter Had To Wear A Mask To School, BuzzFeed 
News (Aug. 13, 2021), https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/
tasneemnashrulla/parent-attack-teacher-mask-mandate-california.
    \19\Sarah Asch, Superintendent: Eanes parent rips off teacher's 
face mask, Austin Am.-Statesman (Aug. 17, 2021), https://
www.statesman.com/story/news/local/westlake/2021/08/17/mask-mandate-
school-parent-assault-teacher-eanes-school-district/8169047002/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This resolution of inquiry seeks to trivialize the 
legitimate threat facing students, educators, and school 
officials as part of a concerted attempt to delegitimize the 
Department of Justice. It also seeks to impede criminal law 
enforcement activity by requesting documents about potentially 
ongoing investigations into threats to education officials. The 
Judiciary Committee will investigate any credible allegations 
of misconduct by the Executive Branch to the extent such 
allegations fall within this Committee's jurisdiction. However, 
the Committee will not do so through politically charged 
resolutions of inquiry that could jeopardize the integrity of 
ongoing investigations.

                                Hearings

    The Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on H. Res. 
1239.

                        Committee Consideration

    On September 21, 2022, the Committee met in open session 
and ordered the resolution, H. Res. 1239 unfavorably reported 
with an amendment by a rollcall vote of 17 to 15, a quorum 
being present.

                            Committee Votes

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of House rule XIII, the 
following rollcall vote occurred during the Committee's 
consideration of H. Res. 1239.
    1. A motion to report H. Res. 1239 unfavorably to the House 
passed by a rollcall vote of 17 to 15. The vote was as follows:

	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of House rule XIII, the 
Committee advises that the findings and recommendations of the 
Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) 
of House rule X, are incorporated in the descriptive portions 
of this report.

                Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects

    Pursuant to clause 3(d) of House rule XIII, the Committee 
adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by the Director of 
the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

   New Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of House rule XIII and section 
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and pursuant to 
clause 3(c)(3) of House rule XIII and section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has requested 
but not received from the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office a budgetary analysis and a cost estimate of this 
resolution.

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of House rule XIII, no provision 
of H. Res. 1239 establishes or reauthorizes a program of the 
federal government known to be duplicative of another federal 
program.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of 
House rule XIII, H. Res. 1239 directs certain documents from 
Attorney General Garland related to the Attorney General's 
memorandum entitled ``Partnership Among Federal, State, Local, 
Tribal, and Territorial Law Enforcement to Address Threats 
Against School Administrators, Board Members, Teachers, and 
Staff.''

                          Advisory on Earmarks

    In accordance with clause 9 of House rule XXI, H. Res. 1239 
does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax 
benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 
9(f), or 9(g) of rule XXI.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

    The following discussion describes the resolution as 
reported by the Committee.
    H. Res. 1239, a non-binding resolution of inquiry, directs 
Attorney General Merrick Garland to provide certain documents 
to the House of Representatives relating to the October 4, 
2021, memorandum issued by the Attorney General entitled 
``Partnership Among Federal, State, Local, Tribal, and 
Territorial Law Enforcement to Address Threats Against School 
Administrators, Board Members, Teachers, and Staff.''

                             Minority Views

    H. Res. 1239 directs Attorney General Merrick Garland to 
provide the documents and materials previously requested by 
House Judiciary Committee Republicans in over 100 letters to 
Departmental components regarding the Department's use of 
criminal and counterterrorism resources against concerned 
parents at school board meetings.\1\ To date, the Justice 
Department has responded with half-page response letters and 
has not provided any requested documents or substantive 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\H. Res. 1239, 117th Cong. (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Parents have an undisputed right to direct the upbringing 
and education of their children, especially as school boards 
attempt to install controversial curricula and propagate a far-
left agenda. However, school boards and the radical left 
refused to listen to these parents. Instead, the National 
School Boards Association (NSBA) and the Biden Administration 
coordinated to send a letter equating parents with domestic 
terrorists. The letter urged the Biden Administration to use 
the heavy hand of federal law enforcement to target concerned 
parents at local school board meetings and chill their 
protected First Amendment activity. Information from the NSBA 
shows that Justice Department employees coordinated with the 
White House well in advance of the NSBA's letter and likely 
knew--and raised no concerns--that the NSBA letter would urge 
the use of the Patriot Act to target parents.
    Just five days after the NSBA's letter, Attorney General 
Garland issued a memorandum directing the FBI and other 
Departmental components to address a purported ``disturbing 
spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence'' at 
school board meetings. As the result of protected disclosures 
from brave whistleblowers, we know that the FBI quickly 
operationalized counterterrorism tools against concerned 
parents. Parents voicing their concerns at school board 
meetings are not domestic terrorists. Committee Republicans 
have repeatedly called on Attorney General Garland to rescind 
his memorandum, but he has refused to do so.

                  COMMITTEE REPUBLICANS' INVESTIGATION

    In October 2021, House Judiciary Committee Republicans 
opened an investigation into the Biden Administration's misuse 
of federal law enforcement resources to target concerned 
parents. Since then, Committee Republicans have sent over 100 
letters to Departmental components requesting documents and 
information related to this investigation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\See Letter from Rep. Mike Johnson et al, to Hon. Merrick 
Garland, Atty Gen., U.S. Dep't of Justice (Oct. 13, 2021); Letter from 
Rep. Jim Jordan et al, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, to 
Hon. Merrick Garland, Atty Gen., U.S. Dep't of Justice (Oct. 25, 2021); 
Letter from Rep. Jim Jordan et al, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on the 
Judiciary, to Mr. E. Bryan Wilson et al, Acting U.S. Atty, District of 
Alaska (Nov. 1, 2021); Letter from Rep. Jim Jordan et al, Ranking 
Member, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, to Mr. Mark Lesko, Acting Assistant 
Atty Gen., Nat'l Sec. Division, U.S. Dep't of Justice (Nov. 2, 2021); 
Letter from Rep. Jim Jordan et al, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on the 
Judiciary, to Hon. Christopher Wray, Dir., Fed. Bureau of Investigation 
(Nov. 3, 2021); Letter from Rep. Jim Jordan, Ranking Member, H. Comm. 
on the Judiciary, to Hon. Merrick Garland, Atty Gen., U.S. Dep't of 
Justice (Nov. 16, 2021); Letter from Rep. Jim Jordan, Ranking Member, 
H. Comm. on the Judiciary, to Hon. Christopher Wray, Dir., Fed. Bureau 
of Investigation (Nov. 18, 2021); Letter from Rep. Jim Jordan, Ranking 
Member, H. Comm. On the Judiciary, to Hon. Christopher Wray, Dir., Fed. 
Bureau of Investigation (Feb. 10, 2022); Rep. Jim Jordan, Ranking 
Member, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, to Hon. Merrick Garland, Atty Gen., 
U.S. Dep't of Justice (May 11, 2021); Letter from Rep. Jim Jordan et 
al, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, to Hon. Merrick Garland, 
Atty Gen., U.S. Dep't of Justice (Jun. 14, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           October 13, 2021--To Attorney General 
        Garland regarding ethics concerns raised by the 
        issuance of his October 4, 2021 memorandum in relation 
        to his son-in-law's work.
           October 25, 2021--To Attorney General 
        Garland requesting he rescind his October 4, 2021 
        memorandum.
           November 1, 2021--To all 93 U.S. Attorneys 
        requesting documents regarding the meetings convened 
        with FBI and local law enforcement at the request of 
        Attorney General Garland's October 4, 2021 memorandum.
           November 2, 2021--To Acting Assistant 
        Attorney General of the National Security Division Mark 
        Lesko requesting documents and information on the NSD's 
        role in the Department-wide task force.
           November 3, 2021--To FBI Director Wray 
        requesting documents and information on the FBI's role 
        in carrying out the Attorney General's October 4, 2021 
        directives.
           November 16, 2021--To Attorney General 
        Garland on the completeness of his congressional 
        testimony following whistleblower disclosures on the 
        creation of an EDUOFFICIALS threat tag.
           November 18, 2021--To FBI Director Wray 
        requesting additional documents on threat tags and re-
        requesting November 3 documents.
           February 10, 2022--To FBI Director Wray 
        regarding FBI's unresponsiveness to Committee 
        Republicans' requests.
           February 28, 2022--To Attorney General 
        Garland regarding responsiveness to congressional 
        requests for documents and information.
           May 11, 2022--To Attorney General Garland 
        reiterating requests for information and citing 
        examples of threat tags applied to parents exercising 
        their First Amendment rights.
           June 14, 2022--To Attorney General Garland 
        reiterating requests and noting reported collusion 
        between the Justice Department, White House, and NSBA.
H. Res. 1239 is necessary because the Justice Department has 
only responded to these requests with two half-page letters, 
and has not provided any of the requested documents or 
information.
    Committee Republicans requested this information because 
the Biden Administration is abusing federal law enforcement 
resources to target concerned parents. In addition, new 
information from the NSBA shows that Justice Department 
employees coordinated with the White House well in advance of 
the NSBA's letter and likely knew--and raised no concerns--that 
the NSBA letter would urge the use of the Patriot Act to target 
parents.\3\ The NSBA-commissioned report also uncovered 
communications between Justice Department employees and NSBA 
staff prior to the release of the October 4, 2021 memorandum, 
which included sending NSBA staff an advance copy of the 
memorandum.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\NSBA Final Report at 2.
    \4\E-mail from Ms. Alivia Roberts, Special Assistant to the Dir. of 
Public Affairs, U.S. Dep't of Justice, to Mr. Chip Slaven, Interim CEO 
& Exec. Dir., Nat'l School Boards Assoc. (Oct. 4, 2021 4:59 PM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Given the Attorney General's refusal to comply with 
oversight requests from Committee Republicans, on July 20, 
2022, Rep. Mike Johnson introduced H. Res. 1239. On September 
14, 2022, the Committee considered H. Res. 1239 at a business 
meeting. Democrats unfortunately failed to join Republicans in 
the Committee's constitutional duty to conduct oversight of the 
Executive Branch and hold the Biden Administration accountable 
for targeting America's parents. Despite the overwhelming 
evidence of collusion between the Biden Administration and 
NSBA, Democrats voted to report H. Res. 1239 unfavorably to the 
House.

COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS' REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S 
               ABUSE OF FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES

    Despite staggering evidence to the contrary, Democrat 
Committee Members have continued to push the Biden 
Administration's false narrative that the federal law 
enforcement apparatus is not being used to target and tag 
parents. At an April 5, 2022 business meeting, Chairman Nadler 
assured the Committee that he was ``confident'' that the threat 
tag would be applied to threats, not to people.\5\ At the same 
business meeting, Rep. Raskin rhetorically asked, ``Does 
anybody really think that the FBI or the Department of Justice 
are out investigating parents for participating in school board 
meetings or speaking about their kids'' education?''\6\ Rep. 
Cicilline even asserted that the controversy was ``made up'' by 
Republicans, saying:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Business Meeting: Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 117th 
Cong. at 37 (April 5, 2022) (statement of Rep. Jerrold Nadler, 
Chairman).
    \6\Id. at 74 (statement of Rep. Jamie Raskin).

          [N]o one has ever suggested that a threat tag should 
        attach to a parent who goes to a school board meeting. 
        No one other than my colleagues on the other side of 
        the aisle who have made up this claim. Mr. Biggs said 
        this whistleblower memo says to label and track 
        parents. That is not true. Mr. Jordan said it is a 
        snitch line on parents. The whistleblower told us that. 
        That is also not true.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Id. at 30 (statement of Rep. David Cicilline).

    Democrats continued this charade when the Committee 
considered H. Res. 1239 at a September 14, 2022 business 
meeting. Rep. Cicilline reasserted that this was a ``made up 
story,''\8\ and Chairman Nadler claimed that the Resolution 
focuses on an ``invented scandal.''\9\ Rep. Hank Johnson even 
went so far as to claim that there is ``not one scintilla of 
evidence'' of coordination between the Biden Administration and 
the NSBA to target parents protesting at school board 
meetings.\10\ However, Rep. Hank Johnson later added a publicly 
available report to the business meeting's record--a document 
that is full of evidence of this collusion.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\Id. at 99 (statement of Rep. David Cicilline).
    \9\Id. at 167 (statement of Chairman Jerrold Nadler).
    \10\Id. at 112 (statement of Rep. Hank Johnson).
    \11\Id. at 139-140 (statement of Rep. Hank Johnson).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ATTORNEY GENERAL GARLAND'S OCTOBER 4 MEMORANDUM AND DOJ TASK FORCE 
              RELATED TO PARENTS AT SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS

    On September 29, 2021, the NSBA sent a letter to President 
Biden equating concerned parents voicing their opinion at 
school board meetings as domestic terrorists and urging the 
Administration to exercise its authorities under the Patriot 
Act.\12\ The NSBA letter stated that ``malice, violence, and 
threats'' against school officials ``could be the equivalent of 
a form of domestic terrorism or hate crimes.''\13\ The letter 
cited a number of interactions at school board meetings, the 
vast majority of which did not involve violence or threats.\14\ 
Notably, as one ``example'' of alleged domestic terrorism, the 
NSBA cited an instance in Loudoun County, Virginia, where a 
father angrily confronted members at a school board meeting 
about the heinous sexual assault of his daughter.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\Letter from Dr. Viola M. Garcia, President, Nat'l School Board 
Assoc. & Mr. Chip Slaven, Chief Exec. Officer, Nat'l School Board 
Assoc., to President Joseph R. Biden, White House (Sept. 29, 2021).
    \13\Id.
    \14\Id.; see also Caroline Downey, Vast majority of incidents cited 
by school-board group to justify federal intervention didn't involve 
threats, Nat'l Rev. (Oct. 2, 2021).
    \15\Id.; see also Jessica Chasmar, Loudoun County father arrested 
at school board events says school tried to cover up daughter's 
bathroom assault, Fox News (Oct. 12, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On October 4, 2021, just five days after the NSBA letter, 
Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memorandum that 
directed the Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. 
Attorneys' Offices to address a purported ``disturbing spike in 
harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence'' at school 
board meetings.\16\ The memorandum explained that the 
Department would be ``using its authority and resources to 
discourage these threats, identify them when they occur, and 
prosecute them when appropriate.''\17\ In a press release 
announcing the Attorney General's memorandum, the Justice 
Department announced that the National Security Division would 
be part of a Department-wide task force ``to determine how 
federal enforcement tools can be used to prosecute these 
crimes.''\18\ The press release also announced the existence of 
``open dedicated lines of communication for threat reporting, 
assessment and response by law enforcement''--in other words, a 
snitch line for complaints about concerned parents.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\Memorandum from Atty Gen. Merrick Garland, U.S. Dep't of 
Justice, Partnership Among Federal, State, Local, Tribal, And 
Territorial Law Enforcement to Address Threats Against School 
Administrators, Board Members, Teachers, and Staff (Oct. 4, 2021).
    \17\Id.
    \18\Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Department 
Addresses Violent Threats Against School Officials and Teachers (Oct. 
4, 2021).
    \19\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On October 21, 2021, Attorney General Garland testified 
before the House Judiciary Committee that the Department and 
its components were not using counterterrorism statutes and 
resources to target concerned parents at school board 
meetings.\20\ Specifically, he testified that he could not 
``imagine any circumstance in which the Patriot Act would be 
used in the circumstances of parents complaining about their 
children, nor . . . a circumstance where they would be labeled 
as domestic terrorists.''\21\ He also testified: ``I do not 
think that parents getting angry at school boards for whatever 
reason constitute domestic terrorism. It's not even a close 
question.''\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\Oversight of the United States Department of Justice: Hearing 
Before the H. comm. on the Judiciary, 117th Cong. (2021) (testimony 
from Hon. Merrick Garland, Atty Gen., U.S. Dep't of Justice).
    \21\Id.
    \22\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Following the Attorney General's testimony, the NSBA Board 
of Directors issued a new memorandum to its members apologizing 
for the letter, stating: ``On behalf of NSBA, we regret and 
apologize for the letter.''\23\ (emphasis in original). 
Although Attorney General Garland testified that the NSBA 
letter was the basis for his October 4 directive to insert 
federal law enforcement into local school board matters, the 
Attorney General has yet to rescind his memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\Memorandum from NSBA Board of Directors, Message to NSBA 
Members (Oct. 22, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     COLLUSION BETWEEN THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AND NSBA TO CREATE 
      JUSTIFICATION TO USE FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGAINST PARENTS

    The letter and ensuing Biden Administration action was the 
product of weeks of discussions between the Justice Department, 
the White House, and the NSBA. On May 20, 2022, the NSBA 
released a report it had commissioned to examine the events 
surrounding its September 29 letter to President Biden.\24\ 
This report offered new evidence of how the Justice Department 
coordinated with the White House to target parents. The report 
found that the first communications between the NSBA and the 
White House occurred on September 9, and that the Biden White 
House closely coordinated with the NSBA on its letter to 
President Biden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\NSBA Final Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On September 21--eight days before the NSBA letter--Mary 
Wall, a Senior Policy Advisor to President Biden, emailed 
NSBA's Interim CEO and Executive Director Chip Slaven asking:

          Is there any way we can take a look at the letter in 
        advance of release? In specific, I'm meeting with 
        colleagues from other WH offices and DOJ tomorrow 
        morning to see if there might be any options we can 
        pursue here, so if you have concrete recommendations in 
        your letter (e.g., the threat assessment you 
        mentioned), would be good to know so I can include in 
        discussions.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\E-mail from Ms. Mary Wall, Senior Policy Advisor to the Pres., 
Exec. Office of the Pres., to Mr. Chip Slaven, Interim CEO & Exec. 
Dir., Nat'l School Boards Assoc. (Sept. 21, 2021 10:10 PM) (emphasis 
added).

    In response, Slaven emailed Wall a detailed summary of the 
contents of the letter, which included specific language about 
the Patriot Act and the use of domestic terrorism tools.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\E-mail from Mr. Chip Slaven, Interim CEO & Exec. Dir., Nat'l 
School Boards Assoc., to Ms. Mary Wall, Senior Policy Advisor to the 
Pres., Exec. Office of the Pres. (Sept. 21, 2021 11:26 PM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The NSBA-commissioned report concluded that ``White House 
officials discussed the existence of the [NSBA] Letter, its 
requests, and the contents of the Letter with Department of 
Justice officials more than a week before the Letter was 
finalized and sent to President Biden.''\27\ In other words, 
Justice Department officials knew that the NSBA would encourage 
President Biden to invoke the Patriot Act and domestic 
terrorism resources against parents, and the Justice Department 
apparently raised no concern about this effort. The report also 
noted how President Biden telephoned the then-NSBA president to 
say he was ``appreciative'' of the September 29th letter and to 
invite her to the Oval Office.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\NSBA Final Report at 2.
    \28\NSBA Final Report at 5-6, 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The NSBA-commissioned report also uncovered communications 
between Justice Department employees and NSBA staff prior to 
the release of the Attorney General's October 4 memorandum. The 
report found that on October 4, a Justice Department employee 
contacted Slaven ``about steps the Department could take to 
address the threats referenced in the letter.''\29\ Justice 
Department officials and Slaven had a call that afternoon, 
after which Alivia Roberts, Special Assistant to the Director 
of Public Affairs, followed up with an email to Slaven that 
included an advance copy of Garland's memorandum.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\Id. at 46.
    \30\E-mail from Ms. Alivia Roberts, Special Assistant to the Dir. 
of Public Affairs, U.S. Dep't of Justice, to Mr. Chip Slaven, Interim 
CEO & Exec. Dir., Nat'l School Boards Assoc. (Oct. 4, 2021 4:59 PM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While the NSBA-commissioned report uncovered pieces of 
information about the NSBA's deliberations and its interaction 
with the Biden Administration, it did not examine the Biden 
Administration's decision-making process to use 
counterterrorism resources to chill parents' First Amendment 
rights. As such, key details of this matter remain unknown.

     DOJ USING CRIMINAL AND COUNTERTERRORISM RESOURCES TO TAG AND 
                          INVESTIGATE PARENTS

    Contrary to Attorney General Garland's testimony to the 
Committee, whistleblower information shows that the Justice 
Department and its components quickly operationalized Attorney 
General Garland's directive. On October 20, 2021--the day 
before Attorney General Garland's congressional testimony--the 
FBI's Assistant Director for the Counterterrorism Division and 
the Assistant Director for the Criminal Division sent an email 
referencing Garland's October 4 directive and notifying FBI 
personnel about a new ``threat tag'' created to apply to school 
board investigations.\31\ The email directed FBI personnel to 
apply this new EDUOFFICIALS threat tag to all ``investigations 
and assessments of threats specifically directed against school 
board administrators, board members, teachers, and staff.''\32\ 
The email articulated the purpose as ``scop[ing] this threat on 
a national level and provid[ing] an opportunity for 
comprehensive analysis of the threat picture for effective 
engagement with law enforcement partners at all levels.''\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\Id.
    \32\Id.
    \33\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Information from whistleblowers show that the FBI has 
opened investigations with the EDUOFFICIALS threat tag in 
almost every region of the country and relating to all types of 
educational settings. The information received shows how, as a 
direct result of Attorney General Garland's October 4 
directive, federal law enforcement is using counterterrorism 
resources to investigate protected First Amendment activity. 
For example:
           In one investigation, an FBI Field Office 
        interviewed a mom for allegedly telling a local school 
        board ``we are coming for you.'' The complaint, which 
        came into the FBI through the National Threat 
        Operations Center snitch-line, alleged that the mom was 
        a threat because she belonged to a ``right wing mom's 
        group'' known as ``Moms for Liberty'' and because she 
        ``is a gun owner.'' When an FBI agent interviewed the 
        mom, she told the agent that she was upset about the 
        school board's mask mandates and that her statement was 
        a warning that her organization would seek to replace 
        the school board with new members through the electoral 
        process.
           An FBI Field Office opened an investigation 
        into a dad opposed to mask mandates. The complaint came 
        in through the National Threat Operations Center 
        snitch-line and alleged that the dad ``fit the profile 
        of an insurrectionist'' because he ``rails against the 
        government,'' ``believes all conspiracy theories,'' and 
        ``has a lot of guns and threatens to use them.'' When 
        an FBI agent interviewed the complainant, the 
        complainant admitted they had ``no specific information 
        or observations of . . . any crimes or threats,'' but 
        they contacted the FBI after learning the Justice 
        Department had a website ``to submit tips to the FBI in 
        regards to any concerning behavior directed toward 
        school boards.''
           In another case, an FBI Field Office opened 
        an investigation into Republican state elected 
        officials after a state Democrat party official accused 
        them of making an ``online terroristic threat by 
        politicians against school board members.'' This 
        complaint also came into the FBI through the National 
        Threat Operations Center snitch-line. It alleged that 
        one Republican official ``incited violence'' against 
        school board members by expressing displeasure with 
        school districts' vaccine mandates.
    These investigations into concerned parents were the direct 
result of Attorney General Garland's October 4 directive. Each 
of the cases was initiated following the directive, the 
complaints came into the FBI through the same snitch-line--the 
National Threat Operations Center--highlighted in the press 
release accompanying the October 4 memorandum. One complainant 
even told an FBI agent that they reported the tip to the FBI 
because of the snitch-line, despite having ``no specific 
information'' about any actual threat. The Justice Department 
has subjected these moms and dads to the opening of an FBI 
investigation about them, the establishment of an FBI case file 
that includes their political views, and the application of a 
``threat tag'' to their names as a direct result of their 
exercise of their fundamental constitutional right to speak and 
advocate for their children. This information is evidence of 
how the Biden Administration is using federal law enforcement, 
including counterterrorism resources, to investigate concerned 
parents for protected First Amendment activity.

                               CONCLUSION

    H. Res. 1239 is necessary because Attorney General Garland 
has refused to rescind his October 4, 2021 memorandum inserting 
federal law enforcement into local school board matters. It is 
simply unacceptable for the Biden Administration to use federal 
domestic terrorism resources to target American parents. The 
use of these resources chills protected First Amendment 
activity as parents rightfully fear that their passionate 
advocacy for their children could result in a visit from 
federal law enforcement. We strongly disagree with the 
Committee's decision to unfavorably report this resolution to 
the House.
                                                Jim Jordan,
                                                    Ranking Member.

                                  [all]