-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment attempts to create a problem where none exists by requiring investigations into law enforcement and the armed services for alleged rampant white supremacist or white nationalist sympathies.

Proponents suggest that there are instances in which members of the armed services have shown sympathies toward white supremacist or white nationalist groups. However, as these same proponents know all too well, the various branches of the military have addressed the Democrat- offered examples of extremism.

This amendment denigrates our men and women in the service. It is Orwellian in nature.

Mr. Speaker, in fact, every member of the military who showed an interest or actual participation in a white supremacist or white nationalist group has faced discipline. The relevant branch either demoted the individual, discharged them, or otherwise disciplined the sympathizer.

Further, the armed services have taken steps to address these concerns going all the way back to the 1980s.

At a time when it is difficult to recruit military and law enforcement, Democrats should not be maligning their integrity by implying they are overrun with white supremacists and neo-Nazis. In fact, we have recently lost tens of thousands forced out of military service due to the vaccine mandate. We are way below in our recruiting levels.

This type of malignancy, this type of imputation of bad conduct in a generic form, in a generalized form because that is what this amendment does, actually will make it harder to recruit.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the defeat of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, when you begin to study in a broad basis, very broad implications take place. The urging that an analysis be done regarding white supremacist and neo-Nazi activity in our uniformed services and Federal law enforcement agencies imputes and implies that it is present in a widespread fashion. That then denigrates those offices.

If we are going to say we think that they are the best that this country has to offer, let's treat them like they are the best this country has to offer. When there have been problems, these services have addressed it. We don't need this superfluous, denigrating study.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, taking cues from President Biden and Attorney General Garland, this amendment is just another attempt by Democrats to shamelessly politicize domestic terrorism.

In a memorandum dated October 4, 2021, Attorney General Garland directed the FBI and all U.S. Attorneys' Offices to address the ``disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence'' at school board meetings.

Although the Attorney General's memorandum did not specifically mention ``domestic terrorism,'' the Justice Department's press release accompanying the memorandum noted involvement of the National Security Division.

A whistleblower alerted the Judiciary Committee that the FBI's Counterterrorism Division has been responsible for implementing the Attorney General's directive and that the FBI had created a unique ``threat tag'' to track investigations against parents.

We know from other whistleblowers that the FBI has opened dozens of investigations into parents as a result of Attorney General Garland's memorandum, including one into a mother who was merely part of a group called ``Moms for Liberty.''

The Attorney General's memorandum was the product of a letter from the National School Board Association to President Biden. That letter triggered the Attorney General's memorandum which equated parents with domestic terrorists and urged the Biden administration to use Federal authorities, including the PATRIOT Act, to target parents who happen to show up at school boards. That is how loosy-goosey the term ``domestic terrorism'' is. It is not defined anywhere. It is fluid.

We know from publicly available information that the Biden White House knew the NSBA would encourage the use of the PATRIOT Act and never pushed back. Instead, President Biden called up the head of the NSBA and invited her to the Oval Office. That is just one reason to oppose this amendment.

Miss RICE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I am ready to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

The Justice Department is not alone in abusing domestic terrorism powers. On February 7, 2022, the DHS issued a National Terrorism Advisory Bulletin warning that the United States remains in heightened threat and citing so-called ``mis-, dis-, and mal-information'' as a source of the increased threat environment.

Does that sound like they have got that nailed down in how it is defined?

According to DHS, the purpose of allegedly misleading narratives and conspiracy theories is to increase societal friction and undermine public trust in governmental institutions. It cited two examples: ``Online proliferation of false or misleading narratives regarding unsubstantiated widespread election fraud and COVID-19.'' That used to be called free speech.

Although DHS has admitted that ``conditions underlying the heightened threat landscape have not significantly changed over the last year,'' it cited ``the proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. Government institutions'' as one factor for why the threat environment remains elevated.

The bulletin itself is further evidence of how the Biden administration has used existing counterterrorism resources as a tool to target and silence citizens who disagree with government actions. If you have a heterodox point of view from the Biden left-stream orthodoxy, they consider you a domestic terrorist. We should not be further enabling these actions.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Miss RICE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source