time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized mr. lieu: i rise in support of the supreme court police parity act of 2022. while the supreme court police force is to provide protection to the justices this bill would extend their authority to provide protection to the family members of justices if there is reason to believe they are at risk. it is imperative they are free from fear of physical violence 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 recently or a threat to a democracy but with the right security, they can be stopped before they inflict harm. i thank the senators coon and cornyn and likewise introducing bills that will extend protection to the families of justices and thank congresswoman jackson lee. mr. stanton's bill would extended protection to family of court employees. there was republican opposition to that aspect and in protecting the justice families. i hope we will move swiftly another bill to extend protection of the families of employees as well. i hope my colleagues will join me to ensure the families of supreme court justices have the necessary protection from any threats they may face.

i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from ohio. mr. jordan: i ask to -- yield myself such time as i may consume. why did it take so long? why did it take so long to bring this legislation to the floor. it has been a month since a draft of the opinion, a month of threats on supreme court justices and their families and over a month of protests at their home. why did it take so long? the protests at their home are direction violation 18u.s.c.1507, over a month. it has been over a week, a week since an assassination attempt on a supreme court justice, on justice kavanaugh. think about that for a second. assassination attempt on a sitting united statessupreme

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 -- they have always wanted to intimidate the court. that has been their goal since the get-go and that has been their objective and think about the history first. we have the kavanaugh confirmation mess where the left made up things against justice kavanaugh and then we had the leader of -- to mr. kavanaugh and mr. gorsuch said you released the whirl wind, 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 statessupreme court. why four? why not one, two, three, why four? because four would give them a majority on the court. and there was an attack on justice thomas and his wife. then there was the leak of the draft opinion itself, something that has never happened and then there were the protests at supreme court justices' home indirect 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. that's where the democrat witness said men could get pregnant. that's the history here and then

of course last week, we had an assassination attempt on justice kavanaugh. intimidation is their goal and same reason department ofhomeland security stood up the disinformation governance board and same reason they are targeting parents who have the nerve to speak up for their kids. it's all about intimidation. that's 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 they and their families deserve. better late than never. we support this legislation. should have passed a darn long time ago. and we reserve our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from california. mr. lieu: thank you, let me tell you why it took us a few weeks

rather than a week to pass this legislation. it's because republicans refuse to protect the families of supreme court employees who are at risk. shame on you for not doing that. by the way, there are threats to justices across the board. i support this legislation, i just felt -- and intimidation goes on both sides. i support this legislation and i reserve the legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time mr. jordan: that's why republicans have condemned violence every time it happens. we condemn when it happened on january 6 and we condemned in the summer of 2020. it has been a six weeks since the leak of the draft opinion. the senate passed this legislation unanimously and they wouldn't bring it you. they wouldn't bring it up.

the speaker of the house said last week, there was no need to bring it up. but now now we are going to. i yield four minutes to the gentleman from california, my friend, mr. issa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: 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 needs to be told. when i authored this legislation a month ago, i knew we had support in the senate and we would have support in the house. i called up the most senior member of the judiciary committee on the other side of the aisle and said to him, i believe we should do this. he agreed.

not a second, not checking with staff, he agreed that this simple bill of protecting those who would be intimidated and threatened and those whose lives who could not be replaced in a timely fashion without changing the outcome. that was it. . a bill was dropped in the hopper by the speaker's staff and it was done so without a republican co-sponsor, without a call to the republican 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. so this legislation is not only essential to protect against another assassination attempt or of 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 edge sword that i come with here today. democrats who took 30 days and had to see 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 those who will vote for it today and i suspect it will be voted 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. so 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. and i thank the speaker and the ranking member and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. does the gentleman reserve? the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. lieu: thank you, madam speaker. 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 drts are fighting for families of law clerks, 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 right-wing activist posted the personal details of a law clerk who he baselessly claimed leaked justice alito's draft opinion. it posted the clerk's wedding announcement and singled out the clerk's spouse and republicans don't want to protect that person or their families. after another republican strategist claimed a different law clerk had leaked the op opinion, an extremist abortion rights group targeted that clerk and the justice the clerk worked for. the office of 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 they could -- he could smell their fear. republicans don't want to protect families of supreme court employees. shame on them. and recently, a news outlet painted d.h.s. intelligence report identifying threats to murder justices and their

clerks. why don't republicans want to protect the families of supreme court employees? i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from ohio. mr. jordan: thank you, madam speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. hice. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hice: look, unfortunately, this bill is necessary because we have a radical and unhinged left-wing activist group of individuals that also have been encouraged by slow walking democratic party in hopes of intimidation being used to influence the courts. that's why we're here today. we've sass nation attempts on judge kavanaugh. we have firebombings of women resource centers and health care facilities. we have u.s. senators sitting -- sitting u.s. senators encouraging violence against the children and families of supreme court justices. and ever since the leak took

place some six weeks ago, there have been at least 14 coordinated attacks on women's pregnancy care facilities. democratic leadership has endorsed and encouraged physical threats to their political opposition. it's totally unacceptable, it's 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 attack or intimidate those who work there. they would not be threatening the life of and encouraging violence towards 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 is unacceptable and democratic le leadership has refused to condemn the threats of violence. one great example of this, the prohibition to spite the law and

the prohibition against such protests, jen psaki, while she was white house press secretary, she said, quote, we certainly encourage that outside the judges' homes and that's the president's position. this isn the thing, fear, gettig out of control. it's time democrats admit it. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities towards the senate or its members. the gentleman from california. mr. lieu: i am prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from ohio. mr. jordan: thank you, madam speaker. i would yield two minutes to my friend, the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> i thank the gentleman from

ohio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> the supreme court justices are already protected. really? really? they're already protected? the speaker said no one is in danger, no one is in danger after an assassination attempt. mr. perry: i don't know if i'd feel very protected on the very day of the assassination attempt in violation of the law, in violation of the law protesters at the very house of the supreme court justice being intimidated by protesters. the speaker says that no one's 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 won't know what hit you. and then down the street, pennsylvania avenue, a high-ranking official said, well, said, there might be a mini revolution. does that sound not like intimidation to you because 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 head or in their hearts but i listen what they say and watch what they do. we should have passed this much, much longer ago when it was available to us. the fact we didn't might be the reason why they come to assassinate a supreme court justice. you don't get your way you blow up the supreme court. it is not appropriate. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. i yield the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. is the gentleman prepared to close from ohio? mr. jordan: madam speaker, we have another speaker on the way. let me say this. reading from a headline here, this group, ruth -- this group hinted at targeted supreme court justice comey barrett's children and church.

group gave details of justice comey barrett's routine, her children's school, and familiary's spiritual life -- family's spiritual life. where justice comey barrett goes each day, where her children goes to school and where they go to church, they gave details. last week the democrats said no one is in danger after an assassination attempt on ms. barrett's colleague, justice kavanaugh, and they said not to worry. everything's fine. we don't need to pass this legislation. after the senate had done it unanimously. that's the position of the democrats in this body. that's why we're saying, why did it take so long? six weeks ago was when the draft leak happened and the protests started at justices' homes. after the unprecedented leak of that draft opinion. they have been doing it now for weeks and weeks and weeks. here's the email from this

organization, here's one of the messages. if you're in the d.c. metro area, join us our protest at barrett's home. move the needle this -- to this coverage. falls church. she sends her seven children to her people of praise school that he sat on the -- she sat on the -- she goes to church daily. as if it's a bad thing. i think it's a good thing. the details where her kids go to school, church and daily routine. the democrats said nothing to worry about. that's our concern. so thank goodness this bill is here. madam chair, we reserve our time. mr. lieu: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman continue to reserve? mr. lieu: i'm going to respond to that because that's a lie. the fact he's saying that democrats think there's nothing wrong, there's no danger to

supreme court justices is a lie. why? we're the majority party and look, we just put this bill up and we're 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're talking about today. because, again, i just want to remind you, the republicans are misleading you. supreme court justices right now have law enforcement protection details. they are protected by law enforcement. this bill has to deal with the families of supreme court justices. i support protecting them. i also support protecting employees and their families of the supreme court. and that is a dispute. the democrats want to also protect employees and families who are getting threats from right-wing activists, intimidation. you want to talk about intimidation? i tell you what intimidation is. it's trump supporters assaulted the capitol on january 6,

brutalizing 140 police officers. that is intimidation. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from ohio. mr. jordan: and madam speaker, we condemn what took place on january 6. it would be nice if democrats have done the same thing in the summer of 2020 or pass this legislation six weeks ago, 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, quote, kick republicans. when they go low we kick them. that's what this new democratic party is about. it sure is. it sure is. it's all about intimidation. intimidating the court. intimidating parents who have the nerve to set up at school board meetings. intimidating free speech rights of all americans. that's what the new democratic party is about. we've seen it time and time again. in the summer of 2018, we saw

one of our colleagues from california, democrat member said, 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 you 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're not welcome any more anywhere. a cabinet member not welcomed. we have another member on the democratic side said this. there needs to be, quote, unrest on the streets. calling for unrest on the streets while there was unrest on the streets in the summer of 2020. that's why this legislation is so darn important and why we cannot figure out. the gentleman just said something that wasn't accurate. the speaker said last week no one's in danger.

no one's in danger. i just read what they're posting about justice comey 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've done to intimidate the court and an assassination attempt on another justice, justice kavanaugh. i yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from north carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized from north carolina. >> thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman from ohio. i've missed part of the debate, most of the debate on the floor. mr. jordan just made reference to that item that bowls me over. you wonder after you've been in washington for a little while whether anything will surprise you but, yes, 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 protesters to, quote, voice your anger, closed quote, by demonstrating there is a new low. . not just the identification of justices' addresses, not just crowds materializing there, which i never thought we'd 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. and the gentleman from ohio made the point, i had never environs countered any republican who declined to condemn the violence and rioting at the capitol that day. i never found one. i never heard one, and yet i never hear condemnation of such conduct as i have described from democrats. i'm not hearing it now. i'm hearing about what about january 6? i condemned the rioting and violence at the capitol on january 6. mr. bishop: i condemn democrat leader of the senate standing in front of the supreme court to say two specific justice, that

you have released the whirl wind, you will suffer the result i don't remember the exact words, and 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. and that is because you want to protect the leaker. and that implies that although this has been pending for a month and a half and the nation doesn't know who the leaker was, somebody knows who the leaker was and that's 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 advocacy, unprecedented advocacy on the left. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time the gentleman from california. mr. lieu: i condemn violence whether from right-wing groups, left-wing groups. democrats say it all the time. republicans don't hear it because they are in their bubble fox news. that's why they don't hear any of this stuff because it's never played to them or their stuff. democrats condemn violence and last year, the headline of this

article again, justice sotomayor was targeted by gunman. did the republicans jump up in outrage? they didn't. let's be clear, supreme court justices get law enforcement protection right now as we speak. this is actually a dispute about employees and i'm going to ask republicans a question and i bet you they will not answer it. why do they not want to protect families and employees of the supreme court? i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio. mr. jordan: employees of the court are already protected. this is about protecting the justices' families and that is based on the headline that i read and email that mr. bishop just talked about. the gentleman said democrats they condemn violence. no they don't.

no, they don't. they call rioters in the summer of 20, peaceful protestors and now vice president raised money to bail them out of jail. so you have to stick with the facts here and that is not accurate what was stated earlier. for all the reasons we have highlighted, we are glad this bill is going to pass and wish it would have happened weeks and weeks ago when this threat was first present for supreme court justices. i reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. lieu: i yield two minutes of time to the the gentlewoman from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. >> 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 risk and the dangers existed for my community, el paso, texas, where 23 innocent people were slaughtered by a white supremacist with an a.k.-47. where were they then? how about uvalde? buffalo, you name it. last week, we brought to the floor legislation to protect millions of americans, 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 than those innocent lives that were taken in enumerable 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 it was house democrats that wanted one 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 gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. escobar: may i have 30 seconds? mr. lieu: i yield 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. escobar: i want to remind the american public why they brought this bill to the floor in the senate and here. it's a talking point. it's not bus it does anything, but simply a talking point and came as a result of a leaked decision on the justices' desire to take away women's reproductive care. guess who doesn't get protection in america, and it's those health care providers and patients and staff who are vulnerable every day especially because of the actions of the supreme court. i yield back. mr. lieu: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio. mr. jordan: a talking point? the left is telling people where justice barrett's kids go to

school. that is not a talking point, that's a fact. that's one of the craziest things i heard, a talking point. every single senator voted for this package and that includes democrats. a talking point? you got to be kidding me. they are reporting where a supreme court justice -- where her kids go to school and family goes to church, daily routine and the left calls it a talking point. i urge a yes vote on this bill, for goodness sake. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. lieu: thank you. s.4160 is a straightforward bill that will protect the families of the justices and democrats also tried to protect the families of court employees and republicans objected and this is the b