To prevent across-the-board direct spending cuts, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 233 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, today, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 233, providing for consideration of H.R. 1620 under a structured rule. The rule self- executes a manager's amendment by Chairman Nadler, makes in order 41 amendments, and provides en bloc authority to Chairman Nadler.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 6, H.R. 1603, and H.J. Res. 17, under closed rules.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate each, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their designees for H.R. 1620, H.R. 6, H.R. 1603, and H.J. Res. 17.

The rule provides for one motion to recommit on each bill. The rule also self-executes a manager's amendment by Chairman Nadler for H.R. 1603.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1868 under a closed rule. It also provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Budget or their designees.

Finally, the rule provides that H.R. 232 is hereby adopted and extends the deadline for the committee funding resolution until April 22, 2021.

Madam Speaker, we are here today to protect the vulnerable among us, to strengthen the foundation of our democracy, and ensure humane working conditions for the people who feed America.

We are here to live up to our best ideals as a Nation by creating protections against some of the worst threats that a person can face, threats like domestic violence.

In the minute that I have been talking, 20 people in this country have been abused by their partner. By the time we are done tonight, that number will be over a thousand.

As someone who worked as a 911 dispatcher for nearly 18 years, as someone who has been on the other end of the line from domestic violence, as someone who has heard gunshots silence a young girl's screams for help, I am telling you, the thousand people victimized while we are here tonight need and deserve our help.

That is exactly what the Violence Against Women Act does. It makes vital new investments in prevention. It strengthens essential protections for the most vulnerable among us, including immigrant, LGBTQ, and Native American women, and it improves services for victims, prevents abusers and stalkers from getting firearms, and much, much more.

VAWA is one of many vital protections we will discuss today, but it isn't the only one.

Madam Speaker, this September will mark 100 years since an amendment was first proposed for our Constitution to guarantee women equal rights with men. It finally passed Congress in 1972.

This simple amendment, which reads in part, ``Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged,'' is being held up on a technicality. States took so long to sign on that the arbitrary deadline that was set by Congress, this body, has passed, even as 38 States have ratified the amendment.

Congress created this problem, and Congress must fix it. H.J. Res. 79 will remove the deadline for ratification and finally allow us to ensure women are treated as equals to men in our democracy.

The need for equal rights under the law is not debatable. Too often, we have seen the results of unfair and unequal policies for women. This bill will help end those injustices.

As we strive to make our Nation a more perfect union, we need to consider how we treat immigrants, too. Immigrants are the invisible backbone of this country. They are our family members, our neighbors, our frontline workers, woven into every aspect of the American fabric.

Dreamers grew up in our communities. They pledge allegiance to our flag. They played in our fields, prayed in our churches, and worked in our stores. They want to contribute to the only Nation that they have ever called home.

The American Dream and Promise Act helps them do that. It creates a pathway to citizenship for our Dreamers. And it updates our temporary protected status and deferred enforced departure laws to prevent devastating deportations.

The fact is, too often the contributions of aspiring Americans are left out of our dialogue about immigrants. But this pandemic has put a spotlight on just how vital they are.

Without immigrants working our fields, your last meal would have looked much different. Without them enduring record-setting temperatures, facing threats of wildfires, and doing it all without proper PPE, the price you pay to feed your family would go way up.

Deaths among Latino farmworkers increased by 60 percent during the pandemic. They are sacrificing their lives to feed us. The question is: What are we willing to do in return?

The Farm Workforce Modernization Act creates a pathway to legal status for more than a million farmworkers and addresses our future labor needs by modernizing our outdated system for temporary workers. This bill will give farmworkers the dignity and recognition they deserve, while giving our farmers the stability they need to run their businesses.

Now, before I move on to another topic, I want to say something about my personal immigration story. Just like many other Dreamers, I was sent here by my parents to escape the violence my family faced in Guatemala. I know exactly what it is like to decide between the violence and poverty of staying or the dangers and unknowns of trying to immigrate here.

What I know is that we cannot legislate a solution for immigration when we ignore the factors that drive it. Strongmen, narco-traffickers, have taken hold in Central America, and the rule of law is under assault.

The organizations that once fought to hold corrupt actors accountable have been dismantled, and their former employees are now being pursued by those very same corrupt actors. Attorneys General, unfortunately, are asylum seekers in our own country.

We don't just have a responsibility to help stabilize the region; it is imperative if we are ever to stop the rush of people trying to come here.

I will close by saying every policy I describe today is a policy I am truly proud of. Just like the American Rescue Plan did last week, Democrats are making clear, with our actions, exactly what our priorities are.

It doesn't matter how good our agenda is if we can't deliver on the bills we pass. The one thing standing in our way right now is an inside-the-beltway term called ``PAYGO.'' If we don't address it now, it will trigger massive cuts. It goes without saying that this would be completely unacceptable at a time when Americans are in urgent need of more support, not less.

Republicans passed legislation in 2017 to avoid PAYGO, in order to provide tax cuts for the filthy rich, so they clearly understand the need to avoid draconian cuts. I expect them to join us in preventing them.

H.R. 1868, the final bill we are here to discuss today, will do exactly that. I look forward to a fruitful debate on these bills.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Madam Speaker, let the Record show that Oklahoma's Fourth District has 146,168 eligible Medicare beneficiaries that will be harmed if H.R. 1868 does not pass.

Let the Record show that Minnesota's Seventh District has 152,451 eligible Medicare beneficiaries that will also be harmed if H.R. 1868 does not pass.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an October 18, 2019, USA Today article entitled, ``1 in 3 American Indian and Alaska Native women will be raped, but survivors rarely find justice on tribal lands.''

[From USA TODAY, Oct. 18, 2019]

1 in 3 American Indian and Alaska Native Women Will Be Raped, But

Survivors Rarely Find Justice on Tribal Lands

(By Maren Machles, Carrie Cochran, Angela M. Hill and Suzette Brewer)

Twila Szymanski lowered the scope on her rifle, took aim

and hit a target in the distance. The shooting range is where

she and her husband go to relax and forget the things they

worry about, she said.

Some experiences are hard to shake.

``To trust somebody you know after a sexual assault happens

. . . it has been so difficult to work through that,''

Szymanski said.

Szymanski, 40, has lived on the Fort Peck Reservation in

northeast Montana since she was born and is an enrolled

member of the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux tribes. She

said she's been assaulted three times.

``I was a victim when I was 13, a victim when I was 14 and

a victim when I was 34,'' she said.

Twila Szymanski is a lifelong resident of the Fort Peck

Reservation. ``Native women have told me that what you do

when you raise a daughter in this environment is you prepare

her for what to do when she's raped--not if, but when,'' said

Sarah Deer, University of Kansas professor and author of

``The Beginning and End of Rape: Confronting Sexual Violence

in Native America.''

More than half of American Indian and Alaska Native women

will experience sexual violence in their lifetimes, according

to the Department of Justice.

``You talk to Native women who have lived their whole lives

on a reservation, and they say, `I can't think of anyone, any

woman that I know who hasn't been victimized in this way,' ''

said Deer, a citizen of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation of

Oklahoma.

National data on sex crimes in tribal communities is

scarce, so Newsy spent 18 months focused on two reservations:

the Fort Peck Reservation in Montana and the Fort Berthold

Reservation in North Dakota. After analyzing exclusively

obtained documents and conducting dozens of interviews, a

stark picture emerged.

Sexual assault investigations can fall through the cracks

when tribes and the federal government fail to work together.

Even for those few cases that end in a conviction in tribal

court, federal law prevents most courts from sentencing

perpetrators to more than a year.

Survivors who come forward to report assaults often find

themselves trapped in small communities with their

perpetrators, and several said the broken legal system

contributed to their trauma.

The federal government has a unique political and legal

relationship with the 573 federally recognized tribes. The

tribes are sovereign and have jurisdiction over their

citizens and land, but the federal government has a treaty

obligation to help protect the lives of tribal members. This

legal doctrine, called the ``trust responsibility,'' goes

back to the treaties the United States signed with tribal

nations in the 18th and 19th centuries.

The array of Supreme Court decisions and federal laws that

followed resulted in a complicated legal arrangement among

federal, state and tribal jurisdictions, making it difficult

for survivors of sexual assault to find justice.

Sarah Deer is author of ``The Beginning and End of Rape:

Confronting Sexual Violence in Native America.'' ``A lot of

times, when I try to explain it, people don't even believe me

because it's so bizarre,'' Deer said. ``And the reason it's

bizarre is because there's been this patchwork of laws that

don't talk to each other over the last century.''

Only one year

The tribal courthouse on the Fort Peck reservation is a

small brick building. The front desk is lined with pamphlets

about dating violence and sexual assault.

``The trauma that has developed over the generations . . .

some of the assaults are generational, and they're within the

same home,'' said Chief Judge Stacie Smith, a member of the

Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux tribes. ``Pretend it wasn't

there, and maybe it'll go away, you know, the next

generation, it won't happen again. But it continues.''

Smith wants to break the cycle, but tribal courts face

major restrictions, including a one-year limit on sentences

regardless of the crime and almost no jurisdiction over non-

Indians.

Stacie Smith is chief judge of the Fort Peck Tribal Court.

``When you think about rape and you think about somebody who

is a perpetrator of that kind of crime, and you think, `What

do they deserve?' one year doesn't usually sound like the

right answer,'' Deer said.

In 2010, the sentencing cap was expanded to three years per

offense through the Tribal Law and Order Act as long as the

tribes met certain requirements. Only 16 tribes have

implemented the three-year sentencing enhancement.

Fort Peck is one of them.

When the law took effect, there were no attorneys, no one

with a law degree in the court system.

Smith decided to leave her young daughters to attend law

school hundreds of miles away. This would help the tribal

court meet the federal requirements and give it more

authority.

The tribal court was able to hand out three-year sentences

starting in late 2012. From 2013-2018, there were three

sexual assault convictions, but none of them had enhanced

sentences. The longest sentence was still one year.

``We use the enhanced sentencing sparingly because we want

it to have meaning,'' said Scott Seifert, a member of the

Comanche Nation of Oklahoma and Fort Peck's lead tribal

prosecutor.

Going federal

Tribal court is not the only option for those seeking

justice for sexual assault. In most cases, the FBI, Bureau of

lndian Affairs (BIA) and U.S. attorneys' offices are

federally mandated to work with the tribes to investigate and

prosecute ``major crimes,'' which include sexual assault.

``So if you have a rape case or a child sex abuse case and

you do want to see that perpetrator put away, the best

possibility for you is that it will go federal,'' Deer said.

That responsibility falls to the U.S. attorneys' offices,

which have seen their funding and staffing in Indian

communities cut by more than 40% in the past seven years,

according to the Department of Justice.

Data Newsy obtained from the DOJ shows that the Montana

U.S. Attorney's Office declined 64% of cases of sexual

assault in the past four fiscal years.

Kurt Alme is the U.S. attorney for Montana. The U.S.

attorney for Montana, Kurt Alme, said a lot of cases are

declined because of weak or insufficient evidence, ``and it

is something that has to be worked on,'' he said.

According to the BIA, tribal courts received less than 5%

of the funding that was needed in 2016. Law enforcement

received 22% of what was needed, and jails received less than

50%.

Less than half of the law enforcement agencies that the

bureau funds and oversees are properly staffed, said Charles

Addington, director of the BIA Office of Justice Service and

a member of the Cherokee Nation.

In August 2018, Fort Peck tribal police had funding for 21

positions, but nine of them were vacant, said Ken Trottier,

criminal investigations supervisor for the Fort Peck Tribes

and a member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa.

``We have a hiring pool that is literally nothing here on

the reservation, even though we open it up to off-reservation

people,'' he said. ``There's no houses for sale. No houses

for rent. Where's that person going to live?''

Constant turnover and understaffing can lead to an under

trained police department, Deer said.

``[The survivor is] waiting for help. They don't know if

help is coming. They don't know if the help is going to be

compassionate and trained,'' Deer said. ``The system is not

feeling like a safe, productive system to them anymore.''

Big money but little justice Three hours east of Fort Peck,

the Fort Berthold Reservation in North Dakota sits on the

Bakken oil basin and has an annual budget of $400 million.

The reservation is home to the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara

Nation, or the Three Affiliated Tribes.

Driving around the remote reservation, council member

Monica Mayer pointed to a multimillion-dollar housing project

that she said will soon have an aquatic center, baseball

diamonds and mini golf.

A $17 million public safety and judicial center was built,

and staffing increased in the court system. In the past three

years, the reservation has hired more than a dozen additional

officers to help an understaffed police department.

Monica Mayer is a tribal council member on the Fort

Berthold Reservation. Despite this financial independence,

the justice system appears to be failing sexual assault

survivors who report.

``At every level, we are not adequately functioning to

provide the services that are needed in a critical

situation,'' Mayer said.

The Fort Berthold tribal court does not have enhanced

sentencing. The court sentenced three people for sexual

assault from 2013 to mid-2018, according to court records.

Sentences ranged from eight days to six months.

The tribes' relationship with its federal partners--the

BIA, the FBI and the U.S. attorneys--is crucial to helping

survivors get justice. Based on interviews and records

obtained from federal and tribal agencies, it's unclear

whether all sexual assaults on Fort Berthold were fully

investigated by any agency in the past six years.

The tribes are supposed to refer every major crime to

either the BIA or the FBI for investigations. Both are

charged with overseeing all major criminal investigations on

Fort Berthold and will determine which agency takes the lead.

The tribal criminal investigators had records of 66 sexual

assault cases from January 2016 to September 2018. The BIA

had records of only 10 investigations during that same time

period. The FBI declined to provide any records.

After Newsy asked about the status of these cases, Three

Affiliated Tribes Police Capt. Grace Her Many Horses, a

member of the Oglala Sioux tribe from the Pine Ridge

Reservation, said she would do a case file review.

``The priority for me, right now, is to go through those

case files to find out what's been declined, why, and is

there anything we can do to make it happen,'' she said. ``I

guess part of that is on me, too. I should know this by

now.''

Her Many Horses said she finished the case file review

nearly a year later, but she did not provide the details of

what she found, nor did she disclose whether the police

referred all 66 cases up to their federal partners.

Exactly one week after Newsy's last trip to Fort Berthold,

during which reporters asked how sexual assaults and rapes

are handled on the reservation, the Department of Justice and

the BIA released a joint statement saying, ``A number of

concerns have been raised about public safety and criminal

investigations on the Fort Berthold Reservation.''

Citing ``the high rate of violence against women and

children,'' it said the BIA was increasing the number of

special agents from ``one to two.'' As of the start of

October, no second agent had started working on Fort

Berthold.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued two reports on

funding in Indian communities, one in 2003 and an update in

December 2018, called ``Broken Promises.'' The report said,

``The federal government continues to fail to support

adequately the social and economic well-being of Native

Americans,'' and this ``contributes to the inequities

observed in Native American communities.''

Trying to make a difference

Twila Szymanski works as the deputy court administrator for

the Fort Peck Tribal Court, maintaining records and stats.

Szymanski reported only one of her three assaults--the one

when she was 14. Her case made it into federal court.

The defendant pleaded guilty in 1995. He was sentenced to

three years' probation and no prison time.

Twila Szymanski is the deputy court administrator for the

Fort Peck Tribal Court. ``Justice wasn't served, in my

opinion,'' she said. ``He was back in the community quickly,

and I had to see him when this was all fresh.''

Szymanski is confronted with the memory of what happened to

her each time a case comes up and each time she sees her

perpetrator in the community.

She said she uses her position in the court to go through

cases and stop them from dropping through the cracks, and she

is running for Fort Peck associate judge in the election this

month.

``When the system has failed you time and time and time

again, you don't feel empowered,'' Deer said. ``It feels like

a disconnect between this moment of `Me Too' and the reality

of lndian country and sexual assault.''

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the situation at the border has nothing to do with the Dream and Promise Act. If anything, former President Trump's attempt to eliminate all resources contributed to the crisis at the border. The Dream and Promise Act does not apply to future migrants, just those who were already in the country before 2021.

This Dream and Promise Act has a very high criminal bar. An applicant is disqualified if they have any one of the following: A felony conviction, one misdemeanor conviction involving moral turpitude, more than two misdemeanors, or one misdemeanor for domestic violence.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, my colleagues across the aisle are not supportive of provisions to protect LGBTQ-plus individuals in this bill, but LGBTQ-plus members of our community experience domestic violence, too. Abusers do not discriminate based on sexual orientation, and neither should this body.

Legislators who oppose equality are trying to turn this into a debate about abortion to distract from the issue at hand. I would like to clarify that the ERA doesn't include any requirement to provide specific healthcare services, including abortion. It is about equality under the law.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a March 16 USA Today opinion piece from activists Dolores Huerta, Carol Jenkins, and Eleanor Smeal titled ``There is no deadline on women's equality. Add the equal rights amendment to the Constitution.''

[From USA TODAY, March 16, 2021]

There's No Deadline on Women's Equality. Add the Equal Rights Amendment

to the Constitution.

(By Dolores Huerta, Carol Jenkins and Eleanor Smeal)

For the second time in a century, a global pandemic has

occurred at the height of a determined movement to expand

women's rights under the U.S. Constitution. The 1918 flu

pandemic nearly halted the drive for ratification of the 19th

Amendment on women's suffrage. But advocates rallied, lobbied

President Woodrow Wilson for support and urged Congress to

pass a joint resolution adopting the amendment. That was

followed by ratification by the states and final

certification in August 1920.

Today, the campaign for ratification of the Equal Rights

Amendment is in the middle of another global pandemic with

women losing jobs at a much higher rate than men, especially

affecting women of color. In these first 100 days of the

Biden-Harris administration and during Women's History Month,

there is a real opportunity to make constitutional history

again with lasting change for women's rights and gender

equality by adding the ERA to the Constitution.

No rights denied 'on account of sex'

Congress approved the ERA in 1972. It says, very simply,

that ``equality of rights under the law shall not be denied

or abridged by the United States or any state on account of

sex.''

President Joe Biden and Congress now have the opportunity

to rally as well. This week, the House of Representatives

will consider a joint resolution clearing the way for the ERA

to be added to the Constitution. If the Senate also adopts

the resolution, it could become part of the Constitution this

year.

The ERA won ratification by the necessary three-fourths of

the states when Virginia became the 38th state last year.

Earlier, Nevada ratified in 2017 and Illinois in 2018.

However, the ERA has yet to be formally enshrined into the

Constitution because of an arbitrary timeline in the

amendment's preamble--not the legislative text sent to the

states for approval--which set 1979 for ratification.

Congress changed the timeline by extending it to 1982.

Congress can again weigh in by removing the timeline and

recognizing the final three states, because Article V of the

Constitution puts the amending process with the Congress and

ratification with the states.

Button supporting the Equal Rights Amendment on April 2,

2013, in Little Rock, Arkansas. Congressional action is

needed to support the attorneys general of Virginia, Nevada

and Illinois, who went to federal court asking the national

archivist to include the ERA in the Constitution.

But a U.S. district judge ruled this month that the three

states did not have standing to bring the case, and the 1982

deadline remains in effect.

Now is the time for Congress to recognize there can be no

time limit on equality. The

House and Senate should approve a joint resolution ``removing

the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights

amendment.'' The measure, introduced in the House in January,

already has more than 200 co-sponsors.

The vast majority of Americans across demographic and

partisan lines agree that women should have equal rights with

men in this country. In a 2020 Pew Research Center survey,

more than 9 in 10 U.S. adults said it is very important (79%)

or somewhat important (18%). Fully 78% of U.S. adults--

including majorities of women, men, Republicans and

Democrats--favored adding the ERA to the Constitution.

`All men would be tyrants if they could'

Abigail Adams is often quoted as saying, ``Remember the

Ladies.'' In March of 1776, she wrote more than these three

words to her husband, John, just months before the

Declaration of Independence was adopted and as he was engaged

in drafting the U.S. Constitution. She had some ideas about

what should be included ``in the new code of laws' he was

making: ``I desire you would remember the ladies and be more

generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. . . .

Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If

particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we

are determined to formant a rebellion, and will not hold

ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or

representation.''

That rebellion has been taking place through the hundreds

of peaceful ERA marches and rallies that led up to the 2017

Women's March, events that galvanized millions of women and

men nationwide to new levels of political activism. The

#MeToo movement sparked public outrage over sexual assault

and misogyny in the workplace.

In 2020, women again far outnumbered men as voters with a

gender gap that has become decisive in presidential, Senate

and House elections. And women and men alike supported the

Equal Rights Amendment by electing a pro-ERA majority of

members in the House and Senate.

An estimated 1 million more women than men have lost their

jobs during the COVID-19 lockdowns, and the pandemic shows

that most essential workers are women, most of them are Black

and Latina, and most still have the majority of caregiving

responsibilities. These along with other economic realities

make constitutional rights for women more urgent than ever

before.

The pandemic has sparked a reexamination of the role of

government and the need for social safety net and economic

policies that work for all. In short, the new reality of 2021

demands that Congress approve the ERA resolution. It will

mark a historic commitment to women's rights by ensuring

equality under the law for current and future generations.

Madam Speaker, COVID's impact on women shows the continued need for equality. We have the power to remove the ERA ratification deadline and make it a reality.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, President Biden inherited a dismantled and gutted immigration system. The prior administration's strategy of cruelty, chaos, and confusion was ineffective and set the stage for our current challenges.

I include in the Record a March 15 Columbus Dispatch article titled ``Undocumented immigrants pay billions in taxes each year--and have been for 25 years.''

[From the Columbus Dispatch, Mar. 15, 2021]

Undocumented Immigrants Pay Billions in Taxes Each Year--and Have Been

for 25 Years

(By Danae King)

Every year, Arturo pays thousands of dollars in taxes from

the revenue produced by his central Ohio-based painting

company.

But he will never receive Social Security benefits. Or

Medicare. Or Medicaid.

That's because Arturo, whose last name is not being used

for his safety, is an undocumented immigrant from Mexico--one

of about 6 million who pay taxes annually, according to the

Congressional Budget Office.

Jorge Beltran is a Columbus tax preparer who is certified

by the IRS to file taxes for undocumented immigrants. He

hopes to shatter misconceptions about immigrants not paying

taxes and being drains on society.

A report from the office shows that 50% to 75% of

undocumented immigrants pay billions in taxes each year--and

have been since the Internal Revenue Service created a

program 25 years ago allowing people without a Social

Security number to file taxes.

When it comes to state and local taxes, undocumented

immigrants pay more than $11 billion a year, according to a

2017 report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic

Policy, a nonpartisan nonprofit based in Washington, D.C. In

Ohio, they paid $83.2 million in state and local taxes in

2017, according to the institute.

Jorge Beltran, left, reviews tax documents with client Ana

Narciso. Beltran is a Columbus tax preparer who is certified

by the IRS to file taxes for undocumented immigrants. He

hopes to shatter misconceptions about immigrants not paying

taxes and being drains on society. Narciso has legal status

to be in the United States.

``When you hear people who are citizens--who may be against

immigration or immigrants, especially undocumented--say, `Oh,

they're here and sucking up all the government resources and

taking handouts and

welfare.' That's not the case,'' said Jessica Rodriguez Bell,

a Columbus immigration attorney who has undocumented clients.

``These people are not eligible for those benefits, and

many times they're paying into the system like we are. It's

frustrating to hear that a lot.''

Still, many attorneys recommend their undocumented clients

pay taxes, Rodriguez Bell said.

``The reason for that is that, one, it's income they've

been paying in and are likely entitled to a refund of some

sort,'' Rodriguez Bell said. ``Then, also because in the

future, even if they don't have a current immigration case

pending or even if they're not eligible for relief at this

time . . . oftentimes you want to demonstrate good moral

character and that you've been an upstanding citizen while

you've been here.''

Years of tax returns also establish that a person has been

living in the United States, she said.

To some, though, the issue is not whether or not

undocumented immigrants pay taxes, said Mark Krikorian,

executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a

Washington, D.C.-based conservative think tank.

``There's this sort of implicit assumption that if you pay

your taxes everything else is fine,'' he said. ``Paying your

taxes doesn't wipe away everything else that you've done.''

Krikorian said that the real question is what is the

balance of taxes undocumented immigrants pay versus the

services they consume.

``There's no real debate about less-skilled workers,'' he

said. ``Whether they're legal or illegal, they use more in

services than they pay in taxes.''

A 2010 report from another Washington, D.C., think tank,

the Brookings Institution, however, suggests that while U.S.-

citizen children of undocumented immigrants can be costly

when they're young, those costs are paid out through a

lifetime of taxes.

The mere act of filing taxes could be seen as a risk for

undocumented immigrants because it could result in the

federal government pursing legal action to return the

immigrants to their home country. But Rodriguez-Bell said she

hasn't seen any such negative consequences.

``The IRS is a separate department, so it's not something

where we've ever seen information exchanged between the IRS

and, say, ICE,'' she said, referring to Immigration and

Customs Enforcement. ``This is not something that's going to

get you in trouble, and you're not doing something illegal by

doing that. It can only help your situation in the future if

you are filing.''

In 1996, the IRS created the Individual Taxpayer

Identification Number (ITIN) to allow people working in the

United States without Social Security numbers to pay taxes.

It is a 9-digit number, the same length as a Social Security

number, issued only to those who are not eligible for Social

Security numbers.

In order to help undocumented immigrants get a tax ID

number and file, the IRS certifies what are called acceptance

agents. There are 13 in Columbus, 79 in Ohio and more than

5,000 nationwide.

Jorge Beltran, the owner of Belmont Services LLC, a tax

preparation company on Columbus' Northwest Side, has been a

certified acceptance agent with the IRS since 2008. The vast

majority of Beltran's clients are undocumented immigrants,

and he's passionate about letting people know that they pay

taxes.

``Imagine if more people knew this,'' Beltran said. ``These

are not people asking for a handout. They're not asking for

unemployment. They're not asking for any benefits. Even if

they wanted to, they couldn't.''

Consider his clients Javier and Norma--whose first names

only are being used, as with other undocumented immigrants in

this story, for their safety--who both worked in food service

before the pandemic. In March 2020, Javier got laid off but

had no access to unemployment or COVID-19 relief payments due

to his status. Over the course of the rest of the year, he

worked six different jobs to support his family, which

includes their three U.S.-born children.

The couple made $56,369 in 2020 and got a refund of $3,337,

which made a big difference in their lives, Beltran said,

possibly paying for five months of their rent. If they had

Social Security numbers, they could've gotten $6,900 in

federal COVID relief payments in 2020 to help support their

family, Beltran said.

``They contribute to all of our communities,'' he said.

``They pay the school system from their taxes. They pay for

the roads from their taxes, and they spend money they make in

the grocery stores and movie theaters and everywhere but

nobody knows about it.''

Beltran shared the story of another two of his clients,

Cirilo and Patricia, who live in Mount Vernon and have been

in the country for almost 20 years. Cirilo works two jobs as

a cook, but only made $26,784 last year, paying $3,706 in

taxes. His earnings had to support his six children--four of

whom have Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)

status, allowing them to work and go to school legally, and

two of whom were born in the United States.

Nicole, who owns a painting business with her undocumented

immigrant husband, Arturo, both pose for a portrait on

Friday, March 12, 2021. Undocumented immigrants pay taxes and

own businesses that employ people and help the local economy.

Arturo and his wife, Nicole, a U.S. citizen whose family is

from Mexico and who owns their painting company with him, are

Beltran's clients as well. They employ 47 people and paid

$118,250 in estimated taxes this year, according to Beltran.

``Talk about being productive members of society,'' he

said. ``Forty-seven people can feed their families, help pay

the schools, whatever, with the employment they have and

that's generated by this company.

More than $11,000 from the family's taxes went to the city

of Columbus.

The couple started their business after Arturo got injured

in his job as a butcher and was fired. He started working for

a friend as a painter, but had always dreamed of working for

himself and owning a business. So, with the help of a friend,

they started their own business six years ago and now support

themselves and their four children.

``He comes from nothing in Mexico. His parents are farmers,

and he has just a middle school, almost high school

education,'' Nicole said, of her husband. ``It was really

important for him not to be stuck. He came to the United

States to make something for himself, to provide a better

future for his children.''

Immigrants are here to make the country better, Nicole

said.

``This is what makes America great,'' she said.

``immigrants coming here and finding their way and helping

the country prosper, too.''

Madam Speaker, during the last 4 years, millions of immigrants faced uncertainty as the Trump administration pursued cruel immigration policies. With passage of H.R. 6, we are beginning a new chapter in our Nation's immigration policy.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a statement by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas in which he states the many issues associated with the southern border and what we are doing to address those issues.

For example, Border Patrol facilities and border personnel that had not had complete access to a COVID-19 vaccine now have complete access to the vaccine. It talks about the disruptions of the previous administration and their lack of commitment to deal with tender-age children and many other issues that could help inform this conversation moving forward.

[From the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Mar. 16, 2021]

Statement by Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas

Regarding the Situation at the Southwest Border

There is understandably a great deal of attention currently

focused on the southwest border. I want to share the facts,

the work that we in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

and across the government are doing, and our plan of action.

Our personnel remain steadfast in devotion of their talent

and efforts in the service of our nation.

The situation at the southwest border is difficult. We are

working around the clock to manage it and we will continue to

do so. That is our job. We are making progress and we are

executing on our plan. It will take time and we will not

waver in our commitment to succeed.

We will also not waver in our values and our principles as

a Nation. Our goal is a safe, legal, and orderly immigration

system that is based on our bedrock priorities: to keep our

borders secure, address the plight of children as the law

requires, and enable families to be together. As noted by the

President in his Executive Order, ``securing our borders does

not require us to ignore the humanity of those who seek to

cross them.'' We are both a nation of laws and a nation of

immigrants. That is one of our proudest traditions.

The Facts

We are on pace to encounter more individuals on the

southwest border than we have in the last 20 years. We are

expelling most single adults and families. We are not

expelling unaccompanied children. We are securing our border,

executing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's

(CDC) public health authority to safeguard the American

public and the migrants themselves, and protecting the

children. We have more work to do.

This is not new. We have experienced migration surges

before--in 2019, 2014, and before then as well. Since April

2020, the number of encounters at the southwest border has

been steadily increasing. Border Patrol Agents are working

around the clock to process the flow at the border and I have

great respect for their tireless efforts. To understand the

situation, it is important to identify who is arriving at our

southwest border and how we are following the law to manage

different types of border encounters.

Single Adults

The majority of those apprehended at the southwest border

are single adults who are currently being expelled under the

CDC's authority to manage the public health crisis of the

COVID-19 pandemic. Pursuant to that authority under Title 42

of the United States Code, single adults from Mexico and the

Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and

Honduras are swiftly expelled to Mexico. Single adults from

other countries are expelled by plane to their countries of

origin if Mexico does not accept them. There are limited

exceptions to our use of the CDC's expulsion authority. For

example, we do not expel individuals with certain acute

vulnerabilities.

The expulsion of single adults does not pose an operational

challenge for the Border Patrol because of the speed and

minimal processing burden of their expulsion.

Families

Families apprehended at the southwest border are also

currently being expelled under the CDC's Title 42 authority.

Families from Mexico and the Northern Triangle countries are

expelled to Mexico unless Mexico does not have the capacity

to receive the families. Families from countries other than

Mexico or the Northern Triangle are expelled by plane to

their countries of origin. Exceptions can be made when a

family member has an acute vulnerability.

Mexico's limited capacity has strained our resources,

including in the Rio Grande Valley area of Texas. When

Mexico's capacity is reached, we process the families and

place them in immigration proceedings here in the United

States. We have partnered with communitybased organizations

to test the family members and quarantine them as needed

under COVID-19 protocols. In some locations, the processing

of individuals who are part of a family unit has strained our

border resources. I explain below additional challenges we

have encountered and the steps we have taken to solve this

problem.

Unaccompanied Children

We are encountering many unaccompanied children at our

southwest border every day. A child who is under the age of

18 and not accompanied by their parent or legal guardian is

considered under the law to be an unaccompanied child. We are

encountering six- and sevenyear-old children, for example,

arriving at our border without an adult. They are vulnerable

children and we have ended the prior administration's

practice of expelling them.

An unaccompanied child is brought to a Border Patrol

facility and processed for transfer to the Department of

Health and Human Services (HHS). Customs and Border

Protection is a passthrough and is required to transfer the

child to HHS within 72 hours of apprehension. HHS holds the

child for testing and quarantine, and shelters the child

until the child is placed with a sponsor here in the United

States. In more than 80 percent of cases, the child has a

family member in the United States. In more than 40 percent

of cases, that family member is a parent or legal guardian.

These are children being reunited with their families who

will care for them.

The children then go through immigration proceedings where

they are able to present a claim for relief under the law.

The Border Patrol facilities have become crowded with

children and the 72-hour timeframe for the transfer of

children from the Border Patrol to HHS is not always met. HHS

has not had the capacity to intake the number of

unaccompanied children we have been encountering. I describe

below the actions we have taken and the plans we are

executing to handle this difficult situation successfully.

Why the Challenge is Especially Difficult Now

Poverty, high levels of violence, and corruption in Mexico

and the Northern Triangle countries have propelled migration

to our southwest border for years. The adverse conditions

have continued to deteriorate. Two damaging hurricanes that

hit Honduras and swept through the region made the living

conditions there even worse, causing more children and

families to flee.

The COVID-19 pandemic has made the situation more

complicated. There are restrictions and protocols that need

to be followed. The physical distancing protocol, for

example, imposes space and other limitations on our

facilities and operations.

The prior administration completely dismantled the asylum

system. The system was gutted, facilities were closed, and

they cruelly expelled young children into the hands of

traffickers. We have had to rebuild the entire system,

including the policies and procedures required to

administer the asylum laws that Congress passed long ago.

The prior administration tore down the lawful pathways that

had been developed for children to come to the United States

in a safe, efficient, and orderly way. It tore down, for

example, the Central American Minors program that avoided the

need for children to take the dangerous journey to our

southwest border.

The previous administration also cut foreign aid funding to

the Northern Triangle. No longer did we resource efforts in

El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to tackle the root

causes of people fleeing their homes.

And, there were no plans to protect our front-line

personnel against the COVID-19 pandemic. There was no

appropriate planning for the pandemic at all.

As difficult as the border situation is now, we are

addressing it. We have acted and we have made progress. We

have no illusions about how hard it is, and we know it will

take time. We will get it done. We will do so adhering to the

law and our fundamental values. We have an incredibly

dedicated and talented workforce.

Actions We Have Taken

In less than two months, Customs and Border Protection

stood-up an additional facility in Donna, Texas to process

unaccompanied children and families. We deployed additional

personnel to provide oversight, care, and transportation

assistance for unaccompanied minors pending transfer to HHS

custody.

We are standing up additional facilities in Texas and

Arizona to shelter unaccompanied children and families. We

are working with Mexico to increase its capacity to receive

expelled families. We partnered with community-based

organizations to test and quarantine families that Mexico has

not had the capacity to receive. We have developed a

framework for partnering with local mayors and public health

officials to pay for 100% of the expense for testing,

isolation, and quarantine for migrants. ICE has also

developed additional facilities to provide testing, local

transportation, immigration document assistance, orientation,

travel coordination in the interior, and mechanisms to

support oversight of the migrant families who are not

expelled.

Working with Mexico and international organizations, we

built a system in which migrants who were forced to remain in

Mexico and denied a chance to seek protection under

the previous administration can now use a virtual platform--

using their phones--to register. They do not need to take the

dangerous journey to the border. The individuals are tested,

processed, and transported to a port of entry safely and out

of the hands of traffickers. We succeeded in processing the

individuals who were in the Matamoros camp in Mexico. This is

the roadmap going forward for a system that is safe, orderly,

and fair.

To protect our own workforce, we launched Operation

Vaccinate Our Workforce (VOW) in late January. At the

beginning of this administration, less than 2 percent of our

frontline personnel were vaccinated. Now more than 25 percent

of our frontline personnel have been vaccinated.

We directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

to assist HHS in developing the capacity to meet the surge of

unaccompanied children. FEMA already established one new

facility for HHS to shelter 700 children. They have

identified and are currently adding additional facilities. We

are working with HHS to more efficiently identify and screen

sponsors for children. In two days, we recruited more than

560 DHS volunteers to support HHS in our collective efforts

to address the needs of the unaccompanied children.

We are restarting and expanding the Central American Minors

program. It creates a lawful pathway for children to come to

the United States without having to take the dangerous

journey. Under this expansion, children will be processed in

their home countries and brought to the United States in a

safe and orderly way.

In addition, DHS and HHS terminated a 2018 agreement that

had a chilling effect on potential sponsors--typically a

parent or close relative--from coming forward to care for an

unaccompanied child placed in an HHS shelter. In its place,

DHS and HHS signed a new Memorandum of Agreement that

promotes the safe and timely transfer of children. It keeps

safeguards designed to ensure children are unified with

properly vetted sponsors who can safely care for them while

they await immigration proceedings.

The Path Forward

We are creating joint processing centers so that children

can be placed in HHS care immediately after Border Patrol

encounters them. We are also identifying and equipping

additional facilities for HHS to shelter unaccompanied

children until they are placed with family or sponsors. These

are short-term solutions to address the surge of

unaccompanied children.

Longer term, we are working with Mexico and international

organizations to expand our new virtual platform so that

unaccompanied children can access it without having to take

the dangerous journey to our border. As mentioned, we are

expanding the Central American Minors program to permit more

children to be processed in their home countries and if

eligible, brought to the United States in a safe and orderly

way.

We are developing additional legal and safe pathways for

children and others to reach the United States. While we are

building a formal refugee program throughout the region, we

are working with Mexico, the Northern Triangle countries, and

international organizations to establish processing centers

in those countries so that individuals can be screened

through them and brought to the United States if they qualify

for relief under our humanitarian laws and other authorities.

For years, the asylum system has been badly in need of

reengineering. In addition to improving the process by which

unaccompanied children are placed with family or sponsors, we

will be issuing a new regulation shortly and taking other

measures to implement the long needed systemic reforms. We

will shorten from years to months the time it takes to

adjudicate an asylum claim while ensuring procedural

safeguards and enhancing access to counsel.

President Biden laid out a vision of a ``multi-pronged

approach toward managing migration throughout North and

Central America that reflects the Nation's highest values.''

To that end, we are working with the Departments of Health

and Human Services, Justice, and State in an all-of-

government effort to not only address the current situation

at our southwest border, but to institute longer-term

solutions to irregular migration from countries in our

hemisphere that are suffering worsening conditions. This is

powerfully exemplified by the President's goal to invest $4

billion in the Northern Triangle countries to address the

root causes of migration.

Conclusion

The situation we are currently facing at the southwest

border is a difficult one. We are tackling it. We are keeping

our borders secure, enforcing our laws, and staying true to

our values and principles. We can do so because of the

incredible talent and unwavering dedication of our workforce.

I came to this country as an infant, brought by parents who

understood the hope and promise of America. Today, young

children are arriving at our border with that same hope. We

can do this.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, as difficult as the situation is at our southern border, we are addressing it.

The Biden administration has acted, and they have made progress. They have no illusions about how hard it is, because they inherited a dismantled program. And to protect our own workforce, they have launched Operation Vaccinate our Workers, VOW, in late January.

At the beginning of the Biden administration, less than 2 percent of our frontline personnel were vaccinated. To date, more than 25 percent of our frontline personnel have been vaccinated. That is leadership. That is not avoidance of the problem that we face.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Last week, we passed a historic American Rescue Plan, which set out a vision of who we are as a nation. We are a country that can conquer this virus, a country that cares about eliminating childhood poverty, and a country that is dedicated to ensuring that

everyone--everyone, not just the rich--are able to emerge from the pandemic and do better.

The bills before us today are a continuation of this vision of a country committed to doing better for the people. Too many people in America live in fear, fear because they are not protected under the law, but these bills before us today say: ``No more.''

The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act says to domestic abuse survivors: ``You are safe. You are going to be safe.''

H.J. Res. 17, which removes the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment says to women: ``You are equal.'' ``We are equal.''

The Dream and Promise Act says to Dreamers: ``You, too, can have a shot at the American Dream.''

And the Farm Workforce Modernization Act tells our farm workers: ``You can do your job without fear of deportation.''

H.R. 1868 tells Americans: ``Don't worry about draconian cuts. Let's focus on recovery.''

Madam Speaker, the bills before us today will continue the Democratic Congress' work to do better by all the American people.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank our distinguished chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, whenever you hear the words of Speaker Pelosi, you know that the gentlewoman is leading us on the fight to protect our seniors. I am glad to cosponsor this legislation to be a strong supporter of being on the front seat of protecting our seniors.

Whenever you hear us being demagogued from those on the other side using demagoguery, you can be assured that when they pass a tax bill, it was not having seniors as their priority. But when you hear the word ``Medicare,'' you know that Democrats are standing strong to make sure that not one dime is taken away from our seniors with Medicare.

My open letter to my seniors in my district--open message to my seniors is: We will die on the vine to protect your Medicare. That is what we are doing today on the floor of the House. Not one dime will come out of your Medicare.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support H.R. 1868, which excludes the budgetary effects of the American Rescue Plan of 2021 from scorecards established by the Pay-As-You-Go, or PAYGO Act of 2010, preventing across-the-board cuts to numerous direct-spending programs. That is what we are doing here today. We are taking our seniors seriously.

I say to seniors: Have no fear with all of this demagoguery because we are going to make sure that not one dime comes out of your pocket.

In addition, I say to seniors: You are going to be living in cities like Houston, where it says that Houston's share of the stimulus package is $615 million.

That is going to help keep the city services going, the fire, the police, and trash pickup going. We know that seniors call my office and these issues are important to them.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a Houston Chronicle article dated March 10, 2021, showing that the city of Houston will receive $615 million.

[From the Houston Chronicle, Mar. 10, 2021]

Houston's Share of Stimulus Bill Expected To Top $600M, Help Avoid Cuts

to City Services, Officials Say

(By Jasper Scherer)

Houston and Harris County are expected to receive more than

$1.5 billion through the stimulus bill approved by Congress

Wednesday, providing a massive cash injection that city

officials say will help close a budget shortfall widened by

the pandemic for the second year in a row.

The measure provides local governments with their most

generous round of COVID-related funding yet, and it comes

with fewer spending restrictions than last year's aid.

Houston will receive an estimated $615 million, putting the

city at more than $1 billion in direct federal relief during

the pandemic, while Harris County is projected to receive

$914 million--more than double its allotment from the first

round of local aid last March.

``I'm hopeful and optimistic that we will be able to use

this money to, essentially, bail

the city out of a very dire financial situation,'' said City

Controller Chris Brown, who monitors the spending of

Houston's more than $5 billion city budget.

Many local governments, including Houston, have seen their

sales tax revenues plummet as the pandemic slowed consumer

spending on dining, tourism and other leisure activity. And

while rising appraisal values mean the city is projected to

take in more money from property taxes this year than last,

officials say the pandemic's true toll on property tax

revenue may not be felt until early 2022, when homeowners

make payments for this year's not-yet-certified tax rolls.

Much to the relief of local officials, the latest round of

federal aid allows cities and counties to spend the funds to

replace revenue lost due to the pandemic. Trump

administration rules barred local governments from using the

first round of local COVID relief to plug budget holes,

stipulating it could only cover expenses tied directly to the

pandemic, though Mayor Sylvester Turner's administration

still was able to use the funds to avoid furloughing city

employees.

Marvin Odum, the former Shell executive appointed by the

mayor to oversee the city's COVID recovery, said Wednesday he

is ``very optimistic the funds will be able to be used to

mitigate the city's budget shortfalls resulting from COVID-

19.'' Still, he noted that beyond the broad language in the

bill, federal officials have yet to release specific rules

for how local governments can spend the funds.

``I'll just caution that clarity on the guidelines for

these programs tends to come over time. It's not always

available immediately,'' Odum said.

Republican lawmakers bitterly opposed the local aid,

including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who accused

Democrats of sending ``wheelbarrows of cash to state and

local bureaucrats to bail out mismanagement from before the

pandemic.'' Meanwhile, local officials across the country

have warned they would have to enact deep cuts to city

services, such as fire, police and trash collection, without

federal aid to offset their revenue losses.

``Every mayor, every county judge, every local official

that I visited with since before December, they all need

help,'' said U.S. Rep. Sylvia Garcia, D-Houston, a former

Houston controller and county commissioner. ``Every city in

America will get dollars to help with their revenue

shortfalls. And that's huge, because they can keep the

firefighters working, they can keep police departments open,

they can get the garbage picked up.''

Even before the pandemic, Houston officials in recent years

have scrambled to close major city budget gaps, often dipping

into reserves to balance spending and revenue. The city's

public safety costs, which make up more than half of spending

on core services, have steadily increased as the budget

remains capped by a limit on how much property tax revenue

the city can take in each year.

``It's going to solve, in the short term, some of these

problems, but the real challenge is, you cannot solve a

structural problem with one-time financing sources,'' Brown

said. ``You actually have to do the hard work to cut

recurring expenses. And that's the only way you can narrow

that budget gap over time.''

Local governments will receive half their federal aid

within 60 days of Friday, when President Joe Eiden will sign

the bill into law, according to White House press secretary

Jen Psaki. They will receive the second half of the funds at

least a year later.

That means Houston will receive more than $300 million to

offset its revenue losses next fiscal year, along with any

potential shortfall before the current fiscal year ends June

30. Odum said the city finance department is projecting a

budget gap of between $160 and $200 million next year, while

Brown--whose office generates its own estimates separate from

Turner's administration--said he expects the shortfall to be

even higher.

Brown noted that while finance department projections

assume the city will see a less-than-1 percent reduction in

sales tax revenue this year, the actual decrease has been 7

percent.

``The (Turner) administration, I don't think, has properly

evaluated the reductions in sales and property tax,'' Brown

said. ``There's a $40 million variance between us and (the)

finance (department) in sales tax alone.''

Brown estimated city officials will have to lay off about a

dozen city employees for every $1 million trimmed from the

budget, meaning Houston could have been looking at more than

2,000 layoffs without any federal aid.

Instead, Houston's relief will far exceed its budget

deficit. The city also is expected to devote a chunk of the

aid to direct COVID relief, such as testing and vaccinations.

Turner's administration exhausted the previous round of aid,

totaling $405 million, in December. Those funds covered

contact tracing efforts, city workers whose jobs were

consumed by COVID, and relief to renters and small

businesses, among other areas.

Turner, who proposes the annual budget to city council each

year, did not respond to questions Wednesday about how he

intends to spend the new round of relief aid.

Mr. Speaker, let me also indicate that seniors' healthcare will be in a good place with this particular program. Their grandchildren will be able to go back to school with almost $1 billion to the Houston Independent School District.

Seniors' stimulus checks are not going to be ignored. They are going to be able to get stimulus checks directly into their accounts. Their grandchildren, their children will get $3,600 for a 5-year-old.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, they will get $3,000 for children above 9 years old. There will be enhanced unemployment for the young people in their lives who have been unemployed. And then, of course, that local restaurant will be able--and I fought for this--to be open again with $28 billion.

The issue of public assistance or local government assistance was something I was allowed to offer a motion to instruct on. It was something that I thought we could not abandon. We will not abandon seniors. We will not let them touch one dime of Medicare, as our friends on the other side have.

Vote for this legislation because we are seniors first.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary, on Homeland Security, on the Budget, and as the Member of Congress for a congressional district that has experience the worst of the COVID-19 as a public health emergency and economic catastrophe, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1868, which excludes the budgetary effects of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, from the scorecards established by the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Act of 2010, preventing across-the- board cuts to numerous direct spending programs.

The legislation also excludes the budgetary effects of this Act from the Senate PAYGO scorecards.

This legislation is necessary to ensure that that Medicare and other programs are protected from PAYGO sequestration.

The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act requires across-the-board cuts, known as ``sequestration,'' to a defined set of programs if certain legislation affecting mandatory spending or revenues increases net deficits.

Although legislation that Congress designates as an emergency or otherwise excludes from the PAYGO scorecard does not trigger sequestration, this action is necessary because restrictions on the content of reconciliation bills prevented the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 from including a provision to avert sequestration.

The bill before also extends a separate Medicare sequester relief provision, first enacted in the CARES Act, that expires March 31,

Mr. Speaker, Congress has never permitted sequestration to affect the Medicare trust fund and it certainly will not allow it now, just when help is arriving under the American Rescue Plan Act to put shots in arms, money in pockets, kids in school, and workers back on the job.

It is worthwhile to explain why the American Rescue Plan Act is the most transformative legislation in more than a half century and easily justifies exclusion from sequestration.

H.R. 1319, the American Rescue Plan Act, is a landmark, life-saving legislation that will provide urgently-needed resources to defeat the virus, put vaccines in people's arms, money into families' pockets, children safely back into classrooms, and people back to work.

With tens of millions of Americans infected, more than half a million lives lost, over 18 million Americans unemployed and millions more hungry and food and housing insecure, thanks to the work of congressional Democrats in the House and Senate and the Biden Administration, at long last the people of the United States and my home state of Texas can be assured that `Help Is On The Way.'

In simple terms this life-saving and life-enhancing legislation puts vaccines in arms, puts money in people's pockets, puts children safely back in school, and it will put workers back in jobs.

1. Put Vaccines in Arms: The plan will mount a national vaccination program that includes setting up community vaccination sites nationwide and addressing disparities facing communities of color. It will also take complementary measures to combat the virus, including scaling up testing and tracing, addressing shortages of personal protective equipment and other critical supplies, investing in high-quality treatments, and addressing health care disparities.

2. Put Money in People's Pockets: The plan finishes the job on the President's promise to provide $2,000 in direct assistance to households across America with checks of $1,400

per person, following the $600 down payment enacted in December. The plan will also provide direct housing assistance, nutrition assistance for 40 million Americans, expand access to safe and reliable child care and affordable health care, extend unemployment insurance so that 18 million American workers can pay their bills and support 27 million children with an expanded Child Tax Credit and more than 17 million low-wage workers through an improved Earned Income Tax Credit.

3. Put Children Safely Back in School: The plan delivers $170 billion for education and $45 billion for childcare providers. This includes a $130 billion investment in K-12 school re-opening and making up for lost time in the classroom, with funds that can be used for such things as reducing class sizes, modifying spaces so that students and teachers can socially distance, improving ventilation, implementing more mitigation measures, providing personal protective equipment and providing summer school or other support for students that help make up lost learning time this year. The plan also provides more than $40 billion for higher education.

Here is what the American Rescue Plan Act means for the State of Texas, Houston, and Harris County.

An estimated $16.7 billion will come to the State of Texas.

The lion's share of $3.3 billion will come directly to the City of Houston, and Harris County will receive a similar share of $5.667 billion, thanks to a provision in the law I helped secure that created the Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund and appropriated $45.57 billion.

$1.4 billion in direct payments is allocated to smaller jurisdiction like Jacinto City.

Houston Independent School District can expect to receive close to $100 million ($993,198 million to be more precise).

The law specifically allows this funding to be used:

1. To respond to the pandemic or its negative economic impacts, including assistance to households, small businesses, and nonprofits, or aid to impacted industries such as tourism, travel, and hospitality;

2. For premium pay to eligible workers performing essential work (as determined by each recipient government) during the pandemic, providing up to $13 per hour above regular wages;

3. For the provision of government services to the extent of the reduction in revenue due to the pandemic (relative to revenues collected in the most recent full fiscal year); and

4. To make necessary investments in water, sewer, or broadband infrastructure.

In addition to these funds, Texas will receive $100 million out of the newly created $10 billion Coronavirus Capital Projects Fund for ``critical capital projects directly enabling work, education, and health monitoring, including remote options, in response to the public health emergency with respect to the Coronavirus Disease.

Now all that is well and good but let me tell you what the American Rescue Plan Act means for a hard-working and hard-pressed single mother of two children making a modest income:

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 233, I call up the bill (H.R. 1868) to prevent across-the-board direct spending cuts, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record on H.R. 1868.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, because of the American Rescue Plan, relief checks are already being deposited in Americans' bank accounts, furloughs have already ended for tens of thousands of workers, and we have averted the unemployment cliff. But we have a loose end to tie up before our work is finished, and that is the bill before us.

Enacting COVID relief through budget reconciliation was always plan B, but the American people could not afford any more delays, and Congress needed a path forward for the American Rescue Plan and the transformative support it provides. Because paygo requirements cannot be changed in reconciliation bills, we knew from the outset that this additional legislative fix was needed to avert painful and indiscriminate cuts to Medicare, farm supports, and other programs.

The language of H.R. 1868 should look familiar. Over the past year, Congress has enacted multiple COVID relief packages to address the crises facing the American people and our economy. Each time, we excluded these bills from statutory paygo calculations because of the dire impact sequestration would have on our Nation's seniors, students, farmers, and others.

Today's bill will ensure the American Rescue Plan is treated the same as these previous relief measures and treated the same as the last reconciliation bill passed by Congress. That was in 2017, when Republicans used reconciliation to pass the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Following the bill's passage without Democratic support in either the House or Senate, Republicans proposed this same legislative fix, albeit buried in a problematic continuing resolution. Enough House and Senate Democrats joined Republicans to prevent harmful across-the-board cuts to critical programs I mentioned, even though we opposed the short-term CR and the massive tax giveaways to the wealthy.

This time the situation is flipped, but the same nonetheless. House Republicans opposed the American Rescue Plan. I don't understand their position. This bill is supported by more than 70 percent of Americans and will directly benefit far more. But that is the choice they made. Either way, a statutory legislative fix for paygo is now needed and, historically, that has been enacted with little dispute.

Even in the wake of contentious legislation, Congress has come together to prevent sequestration and to protect Medicare, farm support programs, social services, resources for students and individuals with disabilities, and other programs Americans rely on. This time should be no different.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, and also a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the gentleman from Virginia that in 2017 when Republicans passed an almost identical amount of tax cuts, 83 percent of which went to the top 1 percent and major corporations, Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor: Sequestration has never happened, will not happen now, and will never happen. His words were prophetic because it is not going to happen today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Craig), a distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott), who is the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Georgia an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta), who is a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the gentleman from Mississippi, along with all the other Members of this body, that his citizens will receive, in total, $900 million from just the $1,400 checks. That is the average that every congressional district is going to receive, and I hope that at some point they will realize the benefits of that injection of capital into an economy that is struggling.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), who is a distinguished member of the Education and Labor Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Bustos), a distinguished member of the Committee on Agriculture and Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the last couple of months have been an incredibly busy time. The work that was done on the American Rescue Plan, from start to finish, was extraordinary, and we owe our staffs an enormous debt of gratitude, and not just the Budget Committee staff, but the staff of the 12 committees that also contributed to the drafting of the American Rescue Plan.

I would like to take this time to read the names of the Budget Committee staff who pulled all-nighters, all-weekenders, and went way beyond the call of duty in doing the work on the American Rescue Plan:

Erika Appel, Ellen Balis, Samantha Carter, Edward Etzkorn, Jose Guillen, Jocelyn Harris, Emily King, Sarah Lee, Sheila McDowell, Diana Meredith, Leyla Mocan, Kimberly Overbeek, Barbara Pike, Katie Raymond, Scott Russell, Laura Santos, Raquel Spencer, Greg Waring, Alexandra Weinroth, Christie Wentworth, Jennifer Wheelock, Sam Wice, Ted Zegers, and Grady Stevens. I want to thank all of them personally for their work on behalf of the House.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say this: You know, we have heard a lot of newly found concern about the deficit and the debt today. We heard it during the debates. This is the same party that drove up the deficit 3 years ago, 4 years ago now, with a $2 trillion tax cut, most of which benefitted the wealthiest Americans, and, according to virtually everyone who has looked at it, didn't even come close to paying for itself.

What we have done in the American Rescue Plan is give an incredible boost to the American people, the American people who need the boost most. Not one dollar in the American Rescue Plan goes to the top 1 percent of Americans. The vast majority goes to middle- and lower- income people struggling to get by.

I am kind of amused when people talk about their States being cheated. The gentleman from Georgia talked about how Georgia was cheated. Under the American Rescue Plan, Georgia gets over $8 billion, twice as much as Georgia got under the CARES Act. That doesn't even count all of the money that is going to the Georgia citizens.

As I said, in every congressional district in this country, on average, the people, the citizens we represent, will get $900 million, every congressional district.

My friend from Missouri talked about his family of four. I know his math is better than this, but a family of four doesn't get $1,400, as he mentioned. A family of four gets $1,400 times four, which is $5,600, and then two children, depending on their ages, get at least $3,000 each. So that family of four is going to get $11,000 out of this bill.

The talk about future generations, I love that. You know, I am sure that when the national debt reached $1 billion under Abraham Lincoln, there were people saying: ``Wow, we are laying an incredible burden on our grandchildren.'' When it reached $1 trillion under Ronald Reagan, I am sure there were people saying the same thing. And when it gets to $50 trillion, as it probably will in the next couple of decades, people will be saying the same thing.

We have been accumulating debt for our entire history, and yet no one has ever been asked to pay for that debt, and no one ever will.

So all in all, we are very proud of the American Rescue Plan. The American people love the American Rescue Plan. This fix, which we ask for today, is something that, again, is just what the Republicans asked to do in 2017. It is a routine measure. Nobody wants to cut Medicare to providers and certainly benefits to our citizens. I am sure we will have a bipartisan vote on this today, and I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1868.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman very much for yielding, and I rise in support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 1868, an act to prevent direct across-the-board spending cuts, which would include protecting Medicare.

Madam Speaker, one of the happiest days of my life as a Member of the United States Congress--and I have passed many legislative initiatives--is the passing of the American Rescue Act. Just in the time that I was in the district in the work recess, I was able to see the smiles of so many--such as our Federally qualified health clinics getting almost 50 million to provide vaccinations to well-deserved communities--smiling faces about the American Rescue Act.

And so the reason why this is an important initiative is because it retains language included by Congress in the CARES Act and subsequent legislation to address the COVID-19 pandemic.

Medicare plans and providers are receiving payment rates at approximately 2 percent higher than what they otherwise could have received during this time. The pause in the operability of the sequestration was slated to expire on March 31, 2021, but H.R. 1868 extended the suspension to December 30, 2021. We do not want any cuts from Medicare, and Democrats will not have any cuts in Medicare.

The Senate amendment to that legislation reduced that time to the end of the fiscal year 2021--September 30--but I know that even though it has been reduced to that, we will extend it because we will not have any cuts. I believe the American Rescue Plan was desperately needed-- $20 billion in vaccinations; contact tracing and testing; billions of dollars for our schools and our teachers; dollars that would help ensure that our unemployment is extended, and the $1,400. Vaccines in the arms; money in people's pocket.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for yielding.

Madam Speaker, the American Rescue Plan will bring $16.7 billion to the State of Texas. The lion's share of $3.3 billion will come directly to the city of Houston and Harris County.

I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for allowing me to offer a motion to instruct that indicated that we would not stop direct funding from going to our local jurisdictions, which we fought. And every time I see my mayor and local officials, they are smiling for that direct funding--$1.4 billion to smaller jurisdictions like Jacinto City and the Houston Independent School District getting millions of dollars.

Madam Speaker, this particular amendment is important because Democrats don't cut Medicare. We are standing here today to make sure that nothing happens to our seniors and Medicare.

Madam Speaker, I support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary, on Homeland Security, on the Budget, and as the Member of Congress for a congressional district that has experienced the worst of the COVID-19 as a public health emergency and economic catastrophe, I rise in support of Senate Amendment to H.R. 1868.

I do so because this legislation retains language included by Congress in the CARES Act and subsequent legislation to address the COVID-19 pandemic, Medicare plans and providers are receiving payment rates that are approximately 2 percent higher than what they otherwise would have received during this time.

This pause in the operability of sequestration was slated to expire on March 31, 2021, but H.R. 1868 extended the suspension through December 31, 2021; the Senate Amendment to that legislation reduced that time to the end of fiscal year 2021, or September 30, 2021.

It is very disappointing that the provision in H.R. 1868 passed by House excluding the budgetary effects of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, from the scorecards established by the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Act of 2010 and preventing across-the-board cuts to numerous direct spending programs were not included in the amendment passed by the Senate.

But as a member of the Budget Committee, I will be working tirelessly with Chairman Yarmuth and my colleagues to ensure that Congress designates as an emergency or otherwise excludes from the PAYGO scorecard the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 to avert sequestration.

Madam Speaker, Congress has never permitted sequestration to affect the Medicare trust fund and it certainly will not allow it now, just when help is arriving under the American Rescue Plan Act to put shots in arms, money in pockets, kids in school, and workers back on the job.

It is worthwhile to explain why the American Rescue Plan Act is the most transformative legislation in more than a half century and easily justifies exclusion from sequestration.

H.R. 1319, the American Rescue Plan Act, is a landmark, life-saving legislation that will provide urgently-needed resources to defeat the virus, put vaccines in people's arms, money into families' pockets, children safely back into classrooms, and people back to work.

With tens of millions of Americans infected, more than half a million lives lost, over 18 million Americans unemployed and millions more hungry and food and housing insecure, thanks to the work of congressional Democrats in the House and Senate and the Biden administration, at long last the people of the United States and my home state of Texas can be assured that ``Help Is On The Way.''

In simple terms this life-saving and life-enhancing legislation puts vaccines in arms, puts money in people's pockets, puts children safely back in school, and it will put workers back in jobs.

1. Put Vaccines in Arms: The plan will mount a national vaccination program that includes setting up community vaccination sites nationwide and addressing disparities facing communities of color. It will also take complementary measures to combat the virus, including scaling up testing and tracing, addressing shortages of personal protective equipment and other critical supplies, investing in high-quality treatments, and addressing health care disparities.

2. Put Money in People's Pockets: The plan finishes the job on the President's promise to provide $2,000 in direct assistance to households across America with checks of $1,400 per person, following the $600 down payment enacted in December. The plan will also provide direct housing assistance, nutrition assistance for 40 million Americans, expand access to safe and reliable child care and affordable health care, extend unemployment insurance so that 18 million American workers can pay their bills and support 27 million children with an expanded Child Tax Credit and more than 17 million low-wage workers through an improved Earned Income Tax Credit.

3. Put Children Safely Back in School: The plan delivers $170 billion for education and $45 billion for childcare providers. This includes a $130 billion investment in K-12 school re-opening and making up for lost time in the classroom, with funds that can be used for such things as reducing class sizes, modifying spaces so that students and teachers can socially distance, improving ventilation, implementing more mitigation measures, providing personal protective equipment and providing summer school or other support for students that help make up lost learning time this year. The plan also provides more than $40 billion for higher education.

Here is what the American Rescue Plan Act means for the State of Texas, Houston, and Harris County.

An estimated $16.7 billion will come to the State of Texas.

The lion's share of $3.3 billion will come directly to the City of Houston, and Harris County will receive a similar share of $5.667 billion, thanks to a provision in the law I helped secure that created the Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund and appropriated $45.57 billion.

$1.4 billion in direct payments is allocated to smaller jurisdiction like Jacinto City.

Houston Independent School District can expect to receive close to $100 million ($993,198 million to be more precise).

The law specifically allows this funding to be used:

1. To respond to the pandemic or its negative economic impacts, including assistance to households, small businesses, and nonprofits, or aid to impacted industries such as tourism, travel, and hospitality;

2. For premium pay to eligible workers performing essential work (as determined by each

recipient government) during the pandemic, providing up to $13 per hour above regular wages;

3. For the provision of government services to the extent of the reduction in revenue due to the pandemic (relative to revenues collected in the most recent full fiscal year); and

4. To make necessary investments in water, sewer, or broadband infrastructure.

In addition to these funds, Texas will receive $100 million out of the newly created $10 billion Coronavirus Capital Projects Fund for ``critical capital projects directly enabling work, education, and health monitoring, including remote options, in response to the public health emergency with respect to the Coronavirus Disease.

Now all that is well and good but let me tell you what the American Rescue Plan Act means for a hard-working and hard-pressed single mother of two children making a modest income:

Madam Speaker, the most recent Marist poll found that 7 in 10 Americans, including nearly half who identify as pro-choice, want significant restrictions on abortion. Yet, the ERA as written will be used in an aggressive litigation strategy to nullify those restrictions, including the Hyde amendment, waiting periods, parental involvement, women's right-to-know laws, conscience rights, and the late-term abortion bans like the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

NARAL Pro-Choice America has said: ``The ERA would reinforce the constitutional right to abortion'' and ``require judges to strike down anti-abortion laws.''

The National Organization for Women said: ``An ERA--properly interpreted--could negate the hundreds of laws that have passed restricting access to abortion.''

Abortion activists, Madam Speaker, successfully litigated using State ERAs in both New Mexico and Connecticut to compel taxpayers to pay for abortion on demand.

Last year, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke on the legal impermissibility of extending the deadline for ratification and said she ``would like it to start over.'' I couldn't agree more.

Madam Speaker, two leaders of the National Organization for Women (NOW) wrote: ``During the 1972 ERA ratification campaign, several prominent women's leaders denied that an ERA would apply to abortion . . .''.

Ever since, pro-abortion leaders have largely ignored, trivialized, or denied the fact that

activists plan to aggressively use the federal ERA as currently written in a litigation strategy to overturn all pro-life laws and policies including restrictions supported by huge majorities of Americans. According to the most recent Marist poll (January 2021):

7 in 10 Americans including nearly half who identify as pro-choice want significant restrictions on abortion,

58 percent of all Americans oppose using tax dollars for abortion,

55 percent want to ban abortion after 20 weeks,

70 percent of Americans oppose abortion if the child will be born with Down Syndrome,

80 percent of Americans believe that laws can protect both a pregnant woman and the life of her unborn child.

While I fundamentally disagree with abortion activists who refuse to recognize an unborn child's inherent dignity, worth, and value, at least both sides now agree that the ERA as written will be used in court to promote abortion.

NARAL--Pro-Choice America said: ``The ERA would reinforce the constitutional right to abortion . . . (and) require judges to strike down anti-abortion laws . . .''.

The National Right to Life Committee states that ``the proposed federal ERA would invalidate the federal Hyde Amendment and a state restrictions on tax-funded abortions.''

As director of reproductive-justice initiatives and National Women's Law Center senior counsel Kelli Garcia said, the ERA would help create a basis to challenge abortion restrictions.''

And NOW said: ``An ERA--properly interpreted--could negate the hundreds of laws that have passed restricting access to abortion . . .''.

Those laws restricting abortion include the Hyde Amendment, waiting periods, parental involvement, women's right to know laws, conscience rights including the Weldon Amendment and any late term abortion ban like the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

Should the ERA be ratified without clarifying abortion-neutral language--to wit: ``Nothing in this Article shall be construed to grant or secure any right relating to abortion or the funding thereof''--it is absolutely clear that abortion activists will use the ERA as they have successfully used state ERAs in both New Mexico and Connecticut-- to force taxpayers to pay for abortion on demand.

By now, my colleagues know that:

The Supreme Court of New Mexico ruled in 1998 that the state was required to fund abortion based solely on the state ERA and said the law ``undoubtedly singles out . . . a gender-linked condition that is unique to women'' and, therefore, ``violates the Equal Rights Amendment.''

In like manner, the Supreme Court of Connecticut invalidated its state ban on abortion funding and wrote in 1986: ``it is therefore clear, under the Connecticut ERA, that the regulation excepting . . . abortions from the Medicaid program discriminates against women.''

Today in Pennsylvania, activists are suing to eviscerate the abortion funding restriction in that state claiming that the Hyde-type restriction violates the Pennsylvania Equal Rights Amendment.

I believe that all human beings--especially the weakest and most vulnerable including unborn baby girls and boys--deserve respect, empathy, compassion, and protection from violence.

Madam Speaker, last year, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke on the legal impermissibility of extending the deadline for ratification and that she ``would like it to start over''.

According to Vox, Justice Ginsburg said, There's too much controversy about latecomers, plus, a number of states have withdrawn their ratification. So, if you count a latecomer on the plus side, how can you disregard states that said 'we've changed our minds?' ''

Five states--Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, Tennessee, and South Dakota-- voted to ratify the ERA but later rescinded that ratification.

I strongly believe in equal rights for women. I've introduced the ERA with the abortion-neutral language I mentioned a moment ago.

Over the course of many years, I have consistently sponsored and promoted women's rights legislation to ensure equal pay for equal work including most recently, the Paycheck Fairness Act.

In the struggle against wage discrimination, I voted in favor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

To help ensure that women are not disadvantaged in their careers because of time taken to attend to their families, I was an early and strong advocate of multiple legislative initiatives to provide family medical leave--including the groundbreaking bill that became law, the Family and Medical Leave Act.

I voted to ensure that women's rights are protected in higher education by strongly supporting Title IX.

I have supported legislation to amend pension and tax policies that negatively impact women, and I supported numerous bills to establish certain rights for sexual assault survivors including the Survivors' Bill of Rights which is now law.

Since the mid-1990s, I have led the effort to end the barbaric practice of human trafficking, a human rights abuse that is an unimaginable exploitation of women and girls that thrives on greed, disrespect, and secrecy.

Twenty years ago, the U.S. Congress approved and the President signed legislation that I authored--the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000--a comprehensive whole-of-government initiative to combat sex and labor trafficking in the United States and around the world.

The Violence Against Women Act (See Division B) was reauthorized and significantly expanded by my law. Last Congress, I cosponsored the Violence Against Women Extension Act of 2019.

In 2019, I authored another bill that was signed into law-my fifth major law on human trafficking--The Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Act.

After a young college student from my district, Samantha Josephson, was brutally murdered by the driver of what she thought was her Uber ride, I introduced Sami's Law which passed the House--but never got a vote in the Senate--to make the ride share industry safer for all. In recent months, it has been shocking to learn that thousands of women who use Lyft or Uber have been sexually assaulted and some have been murdered. I reintroduced Sami's Law in February.

Yesterday, it was reported that another woman was sexually assaulted in Ft. Lauderdale by an ``off-duty'' Uber driver.

Ensuring equal rights for women and serious protections against violence requires laws, policies, and spending priorities to achieve those noble and necessary goals--without putting unborn baby girls and boys at risk of death.