Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2022

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, before I start making my remarks, the gentleman who just spoke is a member of the Republican Party. The Republican National Committee passed a resolution telling the American people--and they passed it overwhelmingly--that what they saw on January 6 was legitimate political discourse.

A couple of law enforcement officers lost their lives, people were injured, people in the hallways yelling to hang the Vice President of the United States and to kill the Speaker of the House.

Legitimate political discourse.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. It was not, when they attacked anything.

You ought to visit the Speaker's home. She has protestors in front of her home all the time. All the time, Mr. Speaker.

Legitimate political discourse is demonstration; it is speaking out. And as a matter of fact, as the gentleman knows, we had this bill that raised questions by those very concerned--meaning all of us--about the legitimate exercising of First Amendment rights by all Americans; left, right, and in between. The fact of the matter is that we worked hard to make sure that what the gentleman who previously spoke asserted is not true.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I will guarantee you that our side of the aisle does not condone violence by either the left or the right. Violence in and of itself should be rejected.

Now, Mr. Speaker, on January 6 we saw what happens when extremist ideology disseminated online, in the media, and even by elected officials is allowed to fester into violent action. And I repeat, whether that happens from the right or the left is irrelevant. What is relevant is the violence and the danger that it presents to individuals as well as to property, I would tell my friend from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, we see far too much these days of ideology being transformed into violence, which is never acceptable and must not be met with silence or acquiescence, or--I would tell the gentleman from Ohio--rationalization.

Legitimate political discourse on January 6. Absurd.

In recent days, Mr. Speaker, we have watched families mourn those killed in horrific acts of hatred in Buffalo, New York, where someone who espoused white supremacy committed a mass shooting targeting African Americans.

We have also seen this terror in places like Atlanta and Laguna Woods, California, where members of the Asian-American community were targeted with deadly violence. We saw it in El Paso in 2019 against the Latino community and in Pittsburgh in 2018 against Jewish Americans.

This resolution does not condemn extremism on the right or the left. It condemns extremism which leads to violence against people on the right or people on the left or people who are neither right nor left and are not politically identified as such.

Indeed, in the aftermath of these events, and particularly this week, Americans have been learning more about the kind of violence-promoting and twisted ideologies of hate that pose a clear and present danger to our democracy, to the safety of our communities, and to the social fabric of our country.

I condemn violence from the left, from the middle, and from the right. And I would hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would condemn, as vigorously, violence from whichever quarter it is proposed. One of the worst of these, which is known as the ``great replacement theory,'' is no more than a centuries-old form of prejudice and bigotry which holds that minorities are conspiring to replace White people.

This vile and false narrative is, sadly, not restricted to the dark and distant corners of the internet where extremists lurk. It has found a foothold in mass media and, shockingly, even among elected officials and Representatives in this House.

Many in this House who have had the opportunity to condemn this theory and those who espouse it have chosen silence. That kind of silence, Mr. Speaker. Many in this House condemn violence from whichever source, as I just said.

It is from that same kind of silence that the seeds of dehumanization, persecution, and horrific violence were planted in Germany in the 1930s. We know where that kind of rhetoric leads, and we must not allow our Nation to go down that path.

This is one of the most pernicious forms of hatred that fuels domestic terrorism in our day. It is incumbent upon us as the Representatives of the American people and the guardians of our democracy to ensure that those who espouse violent, extremist views have no place in our government, our military, or any position of public trust.

We have seen published by Members of this House images of violence, of threats, of killings of one of our Members.

Hopefully, this bipartisan legislation will do that and will also equip law enforcement with the tools needed to identify and stop domestic terrorists--the head of the FBI says that our greatest danger in America today is domestic terrorism, the head of the FBI--including white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and other racially motivated extremists; and do so proactively.

So everybody on this floor knows, I condemn unequivocally, of whatever ideological bent there is, people using violence to promote their political ideas, left or right.

This legislation also commissions numerous reports on the rising threat to domestic extremism that will help guide future policymaking on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, to stop these purveyors of evil from tearing our country apart, we must act decisively, and we must act now.

I thank Representative Brad Schneider and Chairman Jerry Nadler for their leadership on this very important issue.

I know, as I believe every Member of this House knows, that extremist violence can reach anyone, anytime, anywhere, whether it be a place of worship, a grocery store, or as we learned last year, this very Hall.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues of whatever political persuasion--this does not adopt a political persuasion, but it adopts the premise that the use of violence and hate and bigotry should be shunned by all of us.

Our Constitution provides protection for almost any speech that one can pursue--almost. Not all, if we place others in danger. Not all, but almost any speech you can give. We are unique in the world in that regard. We protect that, and we call it the First Amendment, one of our most important amendments. It makes our country what it has been: a free and open Nation for discussion and debate. It must not devolve into the use of violence, the result of death, and the tearing apart of our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge each Member to support that premise and support this resolution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source