Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank Arya Hariharan for her service to the House Judiciary Committee and to honor her unwavering commitment to a vision of America that is safer, freer, and more just.

Arya's early career prepared her well for her time on the Committee. She attended American University, where she played Division I varsity women's soccer and received a Presidential Merit Scholarship. She also graduated from the William & Mary School of Law, where she was the executive editor of the Environmental Law & Policy Review and the founding editor of the Business Law Review. After passing the bar, she worked for several nonprofit organizations dedicated to education and economic mobility, access to the justice system, and environmental preservation.

Arya came to Capitol Hill in 2015 and served as Representative Hank Johnson's Legislative Director and Senior Legislative Counsel. In that role, she managed Mr. Johnson's policy agenda and prepared him for his work on the House Judiciary, House Armed Services, and House Transportation and Infrastructure Committees. In those early years on the Hill, she also began to develop a reputation as a fiercely loyal friend and counsel--protecting her coworkers and her Member from any threat, willing to take on any challenge in service of the larger cause.

In 2017, as we settled in for what would be a years-long fight with an Administration that would challenge the Congress on a daily basis, the Democratic staff of the House Judiciary Committee had an opportunity to bring in some help. There was really only one choice. Arya joined us that year as Democratic Oversight Counsel--and perhaps it was only then that the battle was well and truly joined.

In her position as Oversight Counsel and, later, as Chief Oversight Counsel, Arya oversaw our response to a rogue and often lawless Presidency, crafting our reaction to each new instance of abuse, obstruction, and public corruption. She helped to hold a sitting Attorney General in contempt of Congress. She was instrumental in the first and second impeachments of President Donald J. Trump. Throughout those long, difficult years, Arya could almost always be found in the heart of the fight, managing the staff, preparing the Members for battle, and holding us all to the highest possible standards. Arya never, ever enters our hearing room unprepared.

Arya's competence and confidence have been key assets to the Committee. Her oversight team has helped to prepare the ground for hearings on almost every topic we cover. She has worked on domestic and foreign surveillance, domestic terrorism, sexual violence, gun violence, hate crimes, and cybersecurity, just to name a few of the many subjects she has handled in her time with us. She has helped to prepare nearly every sensitive witness to appear before the Committee in the past 5 years. Her ability to tell a story through a congressional hearing is unparalleled.

Mr. Speaker, if you had only seen Arya locked in argument with an uncooperative witness or firmly correcting a staffer from across the aisle for some breach of protocol, you might be forgiven for thinking that Arya has an edge. And, make no mistake, she is one of the toughest people to sit in the counsel's chair in the two-century history of our Committee. But what you might miss, if you only saw her in the heat of battle, is a person deeply respected by the Members of this body and beloved by her friends and colleagues. There is no one I would rather have by my side in a fight than Arya Hariharan.

Arya is leaving us for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she will advance their oversight agenda. We thank Arya for her tireless service to the House Judiciary Committee, and we advise Senator Durbin to keep the candy drawer well stocked for the late nights ahead.

Madam Speaker, what is one of the first things that Republicans do when they take over the House?

They shaft the taxpayers and increase the budget deficit by $114 billion a year.

By seeking to roll back the 87,000 additional personnel for the IRS, which is intended to replace a 20 percent reduction in head count in anticipated retirements, they guarantee that taxpayers will have to wait weeks for their phone calls to the IRS to be returned.

They guarantee that the budget deficit will be increased by $114 billion for lack of audits of tax-avoiding multimillionaires.

Shaft the taxpayers and increase the budget deficit by $114 billion. Great work, GOP.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this woefully incomplete resolution.

I will begin by saying that I condemn violence in all its forms, including the threats, vandalism, and property destruction described in H. Con. Res. 3. I would also like to reiterate my condemnation of the attempted murder of Supreme Court Justice Brett

Kavanaugh. That should go without saying.

I am grateful that no one appears to have been physically injured in the vandalism incidents described in the resolution, and that law enforcement took Justice Kavanaugh's would-be assassin into custody before he could complete an act of violence.

In a democracy, violence is never the answer in a political dispute, and it should be roundly condemned in all its forms.

This resolution, however, is a transparent partisan ploy that is a woefully and unacceptably inadequate condemnation of violence. It comes in the context of extremist MAGA Republicans' effort to enact a total ban on abortion at both the State and Federal levels. In what appears to be a glaring omission to H. Con. Res. 3, my Republican colleagues refused to condemn the long, documented history of violence, murder, and mayhem perpetrated by anti-abortion extremists against abortion providers and their patients.

According to the National Abortion Federation, since 1977 anti- abortion extremists have been responsible for 11 murders, 42 bombings, 196 arsons, 491 assaults, and thousands of incidents of criminal activities directed at patients, providers, and volunteers.

Sadly, these incidents have increased dramatically in recent years. In 2021, abortion providers faced a 600 percent increase in stalking incidents, a 450 percent increase in clinic blockades, a 163 percent increase in reports of hoax devices or suspicious packages, a 129 percent increase in invasions, and a 128 percent increase in assault and battery compared to previous years.

In some cases, violence against abortion providers has had deadly consequences. For example, in November 2015 a gunman murdered three people and injured nine others when he opened fire with an assault- style rifle at a Planned Parenthood health center in Colorado Springs.

In January 2021, a gunman attacked a Planned Parenthood clinic in Knoxville, Tennessee, and later that year, the same clinic was burned to the ground by arsonists.

Regardless of your position on abortion rights, Madam Speaker, it is important that we condemn all acts of violence, regardless of who is the ultimate target. I am concerned that by refusing to condemn violence against providers, this resolution will inadvertently send a signal to anti-abortion extremists that violence against abortion providers is justified by the vandalism described in the resolution.

If this inadequate resolution could potentially fan the flames of political discord, what purpose then does it serve?

The only purpose I can infer is that it is intended to placate the extreme elements of the anti-abortion movement while this Republican majority figures out how to pass a total nationwide ban on abortion.

Let me be clear: Democrats stand with the majority of the American public and will oppose such a radical position.

H. Con. Res. 3 is nothing more than a partisan political ploy designed to advance an extreme anti-abortion agenda and is not a serious effort to condemn political violence. Indeed, it may have the opposite effect on the American public because it purposely fails to condemn the thousands of threats, violent incidents, and attacks that abortion providers and patients have endured for decades at the hands of anti-abortion extremists.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the resolution condemns violence at pro- life clinics but not at pro-choice clinics. That says it all.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Small Business Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frost), for whom I think this is his first speech on the floor.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

Madam Speaker, if House Republicans were serious about condemning violence surrounding the debate on abortion, the resolution would be clear in condemning all acts of violence, lest we give tacit acquiescence to extremist anti-abortion violence and against abortion providers. This resolution does not do that at all.

Undoubtedly, my Republican colleagues will attempt to portray any opposition to this partisan resolution as proof of Democrats' so-called extreme position on abortion, but the American public is not so easily fooled.

They will recognize this resolution for what it is, a transparent political exercise intended to lay the groundwork for MAGA Republicans' plans for a total nationwide ban on abortion.

Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 26, the so-called Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

Despite what its supporters would have us believe, this legislation would do nothing to enhance protections or the quality of healthcare if an infant is born after an attempted abortion. What it would do, however, is directly interfere with a doctor's medical judgment and dictate a medical standard of care that may not be appropriate in all circumstances, which could, in fact, put infants' lives at greater risk.

Finally, by beginning this new Congress with a bill to restrict women's healthcare nationwide, House Republicans have made clear that they will not stop until they reach their ultimate goal, a nationwide ban on abortion.

It has always been the law that healthcare providers cannot deliberately harm newborn infants and that they must exercise reasonable care in their treatment of such infants. The bill's implication that providers who perform abortions routinely act in a callous or a criminal manner that would result in an infant's death, or that a provider who performs an abortion somehow cannot be trusted to take adequate measures to save a living baby's life, is insulting and untrue.

In opposing this bill, I do not oppose, in any way, proper medical treatment for newborn infants, whatever the circumstances of their birth, but determining the proper treatment is for medical professionals to decide, not politicians in Congress.

When I supported the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act in 2002, my reasoning, and the reasoning of my pro-choice colleagues, was simple: Killing an infant who is born alive, either by an act of omission or commission, is infanticide. It was, is, and always should be against the law, and we saw no harm in reaffirming that fact.

That law passed Congress with bipartisan support precisely because it was harmless, even if it was also useless since it did not change the preexisting law in any way because, after all, murder is murder in every State.

The bill specifically just reiterated existing law in florid language and did nothing to interfere with doctors' medical judgment or to cause needless harm.

Unfortunately, the bill before us today puts children's lives and health at risk. It requires doctors to immediately ensure transportation and admission of the infant to a hospital in all cases, with no regard as to whether doing so is actually in the best interest of the child's health and well-being.

This mandate effectively overrides the careful case-by-case exercise of professional medical judgment by healthcare providers and replaces it with a blanket rule enforceable with criminal penalties. It may be, after all, in a given case, that it is more beneficial to the infant's health to be treated on the spot and not rushed to a hospital immediately.

Such a ham-fisted approach fails to consider the fact that, in many cases, it may be safer and more conducive to the infant's health to care for the infant where it was born rather than transporting it many miles away to a hospital.

This bill assumes that Congress knows better, and it imposes a new obligation on providers that, rather than saving lives, puts infants at risk.

Perhaps, if this bill had gone through regular order, we could have avoided this unfortunate situation. There has never been a committee markup or a hearing on this bill, not in this Congress or in any previous Congress.

I would have welcomed the opportunity to hear from expert witnesses on best practices and standards of care for infants. Members could have offered amendments and perfected the bill to ensure that it achieves our common goal of providing the best, most medically appropriate care to infants and their mothers.

I am disappointed, but not surprised, that my colleagues rushed this bill to the floor when there is no evidence at all that doctors currently are failing to provide an appropriate level of care and when a chorus of provider groups oppose this bill.

Sadly, rather than protecting infants, my Republican colleagues are putting them at greater risk in the service of politics. Indeed, by bringing this bill straight to the floor as one of the first measures to be considered by the 118th Congress, Republicans and the most extreme elements of the anti-abortion movement have signaled their determination to enact a nationwide ban on abortion.

I cannot support H.R. 26 because it mandates a particular course of treatment, the immediate transport to a hospital, which may not be appropriate and may be medically dangerous in certain cases. In doing so, it abandons the practice of considering the best medical interest of infants and their mothers.

Republicans have made clear where they stand about a woman's right to control her body. Make no mistake: This bill is another step in their plan to criminalize abortion nationwide.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this ill-conceived legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the distinguished minority leader of the House.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel).

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

Madam Speaker, Mr. Scalise and every other Republican who has spoken on this bill is simply wrong on the facts. It is illegal and always has been illegal in every State and then Federal law to kill an infant born alive. It is illegal and always has been illegal not to provide that infant with appropriate medical care.

Just to make sure that no one had any doubts of that, we passed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act with bipartisan support in 2002.

The problem with this bill is not that it provides any new protections for infants. The problem with this bill is that it endangers some infants by stating that that infant must immediately be brought to the hospital where, depending on the circumstances, that may be the right thing to do for the health and survival of that infant or it may not.

That is the problem with this bill.

It directs and mandates a certain medical care which may not be appropriate, and which may even endanger the life of an infant in certain circumstances. That is why we oppose this bill. It is not because we don't think that babies born alive must be saved, but because we do think that babies born alive must be saved.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Scholten).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

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

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

I will end this debate by reiterating the point I made at the beginning: This legislation would do nothing to enhance protections or the quality of healthcare if an infant is born after an attempted abortion.

It has always been against the law to intentionally kill or harm a newborn infant, whatever the circumstances of its birth. It has always been against the law not to afford such an infant appropriate medical care. The bill does nothing new to protect infants.

The bill, however, is not harmless. Rather, if enacted, it could place the lives and health of newborn infants at risk. The bill directly interferes with a doctor's medical judgment and dictates a medical standard of care, namely, immediate transport to a hospital, that may not be appropriate in the particular circumstances.

That is why a broad coalition of healthcare provider groups, joined by a wide range of additional health, civil rights, and women's rights groups, strongly opposes this bill.

We should listen to these healthcare professionals. We should support keeping babies alive, which is what the Republicans say they want to do, but yet, they have this legislation that would endanger babies' lives by dictating a standard of care that may not be appropriate in certain situations. We should listen to these healthcare professionals.

This legislation is just another step in the Republicans' plan to criminalize abortion nationwide. The House must reject this seriously flawed bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution, which appears designed to launch a dangerous and unprecedented attack on our law enforcement agencies.

Last week, Americans across the country watched the Republican Party melt down the moment it encountered its first test. For days, the extremist wing of the party held the rest of their caucus hostage as they demanded a steep price for their support. Today, we have the first of their many demands on display, an open-ended investigation into whatever conspiracy theories may be headlining the rightwing echo chamber at the moment, with unchecked authority to undermine ongoing criminal and intelligence investigations.

For example, the select committee can use its expansive authorities to protect Donald Trump, those who perpetrated fake elector schemes to overturn the 2020 Presidential election, insurrectionists facing trials for their crimes, and other domestic terrorists.

It aims to undermine the safeguards of our democracy and to embolden MAGA extremists who would rather see our institutions fail than to see Democrats and President Biden succeed.

Make no mistake, the destroy democracy subcommittee will enable the House Republicans to interfere with the free operation of businesses they do not like, to inhibit the fight against domestic terrorism, and to settle political scores on behalf of Donald Trump.

The Judiciary Committee has serious work to do. But rather than trying to solve the problems of the American people, this new subcommittee will expend untold time and money undermining our Nation's law enforcement agencies, our justice system and our intelligence community, all for a political stunt catering to the extremist wing of the Republican Party.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this resolution, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of my longtime constituent Robert Simko, a true renaissance man and a beloved member of the Lower Manhattan community.

Mr. Simko, co-founder of Lower Manhattan's long-running local news outlet The Broadsheet, passed away on November 10, 2022 at the age of 68 after a years-long battle with a cancer that has been linked to exposure to toxic dust that hung over Manhattan in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks.

An accomplished photographer, publisher, musician, mechanic and watchmaker, Mr. Simko was an admired figure in the Battery Park City Community and a beloved husband, father, brother and uncle.

Born in 1954 in Bayonne, New Jersey, to John, a bus driver, and Florence, a nurse, Robert was the middle child of 5 siblings. He took up the accordion at a young age and later the piano.

In college, he developed 2 other passions that lasted the rest of his life--photography and working on cars. After transferring from Rutgers University to the Rhode Island School of Design, he studied photography under Aaron Siskind and other leading photographers.

Following his graduation, Mr. Simko moved to New York City, settling 1st in Tribeca and then in Battery Park City at the brand-new Gateway Plaza, when it was surrounded by empty fields and Brookfield Place was under construction.

Mr. Simko started working in New York as an assistant to photographers Arnold Newman and Burt Glinn, cataloging and printing their portraits of world leaders and celebrities.

In the 1980s, Mr. Simko was recruited by Clay Felker to work as a photographer at Adweek magazine, where he began both his career in journalism and a lifelong partnership with a reporter named Alison.

He and Alison married in 1987. Their daughter Lucy was born in 1989 and their son Theo was born in 1997. That same year, Mr. and Mrs. Simko launched The Broadsheet, initially titled The Battery Park City Broadsheet. Since 1997, the Broadsheet has continued to cover Lower Manhattan in print, on its website, and as the 5-day-a-week Broadsheet Daily.

A success from its 1st issue, the Broadsheet quickly became a fixture of the community and build a voice for the budding neighborhood. Mr. Simko's commitment to his beloved neighborhood and Lower Manhattan was legible in every edition.

When the terrorist attacks on September 11th shook the world, our city, and his neighborhood, Mr. Simko stayed until late afternoon to capture the second plane's fireball, the burning towers, and the ash- covered neighborhood following the towers' collapse. He, his wife Alison, and his team felt a sense of mission to quickly resume publication and write about conditions in the aftermath and the future of the community.

When delivery workers were unable to enter Battery Park City, Mr. and Mrs. Simko personally delivered the Broadsheet to neighborhood lobbies. Residents cried when they saw the 1st issue after September 11th and, to this day, remember the Broadsheet as confirmation that the neighborhood would be okay.

Tragically, Mr. Simko's cancer was linked to his exposure to environmental toxins during and after the attacks. The toll of the toxins and the subsequent illnesses they wrought to not only those who worked on the pile but also residents in my district like Mr. Simko who returned to their homes, cleaned up and revitalized this neighborhood laid bare the need for the Federal Government to provide survivors with quality health care and financial support. I was proud that after over a decade of fighting we passed the James Zadruga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 and its reauthorization in 2015, and we created and fully funded the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund for survivors and responders.

Mr. Simko is survived by his wife Alison, and their children Lucy and Theo, who continue to further his legacy through their continued dedication to the community, its culture and the Broadsheet.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to honor Robert Simko and his significant contributions to Lower Manhattan. Even in our darkest days, Mr. Simko was a beacon of light, who captured countless moments and helped weave our community together. He touched the lives of thousands of his readers and neighbors, and his legacy will be felt for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 7) to make a technical amendment to the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 7.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 7, which would amend the Violence Against Women Act to ensure that Native Hawaiian women can access the benefits and support included in the critical Violence Against Women Act.

According to the National Institute of Justice, more than 1.5 million American Indian and Alaska Native women have experienced violence in their lifetime, while women in these communities experience significantly higher levels of sexual violence and stalking.

Since its introduction in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act has provided billions of dollars of grant funding to address the needs of those who have survived domestic violence, sexual assault, sex trafficking, dating violence, and other crimes against women.

One of VAWA's major grant programs, the Services, Training, Officers, and Prosecutors grants, commonly known as STOP grants, provides funding for eligible Native organizations to help combat sexual violence and support victims and survivors. However, due to an error in drafting language, which was first made known to Congress and the Department of Justice in 2016, Native Hawaiian organizations have been unable to access this funding to serve Native Hawaiian victims and survivors.

Specifically, Native Hawaiian organizations are able to apply for STOP grant funding, but they cannot use those funds to actually serve the Native Hawaiian community. As a result of this drafting oversight, Native Hawaiian women are denied access to these critical resources, which are meant to encourage the development and improvement of effective victim advocacy and services in cases involving violent crimes against women and to strengthen services to victims.

S. 7 would amend the act to include specific references to Native Hawaiians and Native Hawaiian communities and organizations. This simple fix would make certain that all victims and survivors of domestic and sexual violence, including Native Hawaiian women, are able to access the services and support they need to rebuild their lives.

I thank Senator Mazie Hirono for introducing this modest but important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for nearly three decades, the Violence Against Women Act has provided critical funding to organizations that support victims and survivors of gender-based violence. However, Native Hawaiian women, who experience disproportionately high levels of sexual violence, have been excluded from accessing these much-needed resources.

S. 7 would allow Native Hawaiian victims and survivors to receive the support they need and would allow Native Hawaiian organizations to increase their efforts to combat sexual violence.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 2991) to establish a Department of Homeland Security Center for Countering Human Trafficking, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 2991.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2991, which would codify the Center for Countering Human Trafficking within the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency of the Department of Homeland Security; require the center to develop a strategy to improve the effectiveness of its programs; and transfer the Department's national trafficking awareness Blue Campaign to the center.

Human trafficking is a multibillion-dollar criminal industry that exists in cities, suburbs, and rural towns and denies freedom to nearly 25 million people around the world.

Although some populations are more vulnerable than others, trafficking is a constant threat to the health and safety of victims of all ages, genders, nationalities, and backgrounds, while posing a grave danger to public health and safety, as well as national and global security.

In 2020, the National Human Trafficking Hotline identified more than 16,000 victims of human trafficking, who likely represent only a fraction of the total number of victims.

In that same year, the Department of Homeland Security launched the Center for Countering Human Trafficking, or the CCHT, a centralized location for subject matter experts to coordinate and expand efforts to combat human trafficking. The CCHT integrates the efforts of 16 DHS offices and agencies that combat human sex trafficking and forced labor, which encompasses criminal investigations, victim assistance, identifying and reporting human trafficking, and external outreach, intelligence, and training.

Since its establishment, the CCHT has made great strides, providing critical support and analysis to criminal investigators in the field; delivering comprehensive training to domestic and international audiences; and focusing on promoting an integrated, victim-centered approach to the investigation of human trafficking.

However, because the center is not formally codified, it lacks permanence and long-term funding necessary to further strengthen its efforts.

S. 2991 would make the CCHT permanent within ICE, ensuring that the progress made in recent years can be maintained and improved upon, while also increasing coordination among other components within DHS to fight human trafficking and prevent the importation of products made using forced labor.

This legislation would allow the CCHT to fortify its permanent staffing with at least 45 employees that are special agents, criminal analysts, victim-support specialists, and other subject-matter experts dedicated to disrupting and dismantling human trafficking organizations and providing support and protection to their victims.

To promote modernization of the CCHT's information systems and operations, which support global investigations of human trafficking and forced labor in supply chains, S. 2991 would require the development of a strategy and proposal to modify systems and processes related to its mission.

Lastly, this bill would transfer to the CCHT the Blue Campaign, the national public awareness campaign designed to educate the public, law enforcement, and industry partners to recognize and respond to human trafficking, and authorize DHS to transfer any additional functions to the CCHT that combat human trafficking and the production of goods using forced labor.

Because we know that traffickers are constantly looking for new ways to exploit new victims, we must do more to fight this grave crime. That includes being responsive to change and making necessary improvements to the agencies, offices, and components put in place to investigate, disrupt, and dismantle trafficking organizations and to give aid and support to victims.

This bipartisan legislation would allow the Center for Countering Human Trafficking to continue guiding counter-human trafficking operations, protecting victims, and enhancing prevention efforts to combat human trafficking around the world.

I thank Senator Gary Peters for introducing this important legislation, as well as Representative John Katko, and the bipartisan coalition of colleagues who have worked on the House companion.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Homeland Security,

Washington, DC, December 9, 2022.

Hon. Jerrold Nadler,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Nadler: I am writing to you concerning S.

2991, the ``Countering Human Trafficking Act of 2021.'' There

are certain provisions in the legislation that fall within

the rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland

Security.

In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed

expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill,

I am willing to waive this committee's formal consideration

of the provisions that fall within its jurisdiction. I do so

with the understanding that, by waiving consideration of the

bill, the Committee on Homeland Security does not waive any

future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters

contained in the bill which fall within its rule X

jurisdiction.

Please place this letter in the Congressional Record during

consideration of S. 2991

on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative spirit in

which you have worked regarding this matter and others

between our respective committees.

Sincerely,

Bennie G. Thompson,

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

Mr. Speaker, S. 2991 would not only provide permanency, increased coordination, and modernization to the Center for Countering Human Trafficking and the Department of Homeland Security, this bill would also promote growth within the center and bolster victim-centered counter human trafficking efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 2899) to require the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to address deficiencies and make necessary upgrades to the security camera and radio systems of the Bureau of Prisons to ensure the health and safety of employees and inmates.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 2899.

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

Mr. Speaker, S. 2899, the Prison Camera Reform Act of 2021, is bipartisan legislation that would require the Bureau of Prisons to evaluate the security camera, land-mobile radio, and public address systems in use at the BOP institutions, submit to Congress a report on any deficiencies, and implement a plan for needed improvements.

In 2016, the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General issued a report on deficiencies within BOP camera systems. The report found that camera deficiencies affected the ability to secure prosecutions of staff and incarcerated individuals in cases involving introduction of contraband in BOP facilities and adversely affected the availability of critical evidence to support administrative or disciplinary action against staff and incarcerated individuals.

Following that report, BOP took some action to improve the camera systems. However, their efforts have proved insufficient. A follow-up OIG memo in 2021 found that of the over 24,000 cameras across all BOP institutions, 86 percent, more than 20,000, are still analog or utilize old technology. Analog cameras produce poor-quality video, have limited coverage, and contribute to dangerous or unsafe areas within BOP institutions.

A fully digital camera system would produce improved video quality and coverage, enhanced search capabilities, and expand video storage periods of between 60 and 120 days. These capabilities would improve the BOP's threat assessments, monitoring, and contraband interdictions.

Improving BOP camera systems will create safer institutions for both correctional staff and incarcerated individuals.

Tragic cases of officer assaults against individuals while incarcerated often rely on camera footage as evidence, but outdated technology makes holding these officers accountable even more difficult.

This bill would require the BOP to investigate and address deficiencies in the camera and radio systems across all institutions. The BOP would also be required to implement all needed improvements within 3 years and to submit annual progress reports. The significant oversight mechanisms within this legislation will enable Congress to hold the BOP accountable and ensure that all deficiencies are addressed within the specified time period.

Security camera systems within prisons are critical for protecting the safety, well-being, and civil rights of both incarcerated people and prison employees.

This bipartisan measure would require the BOP to investigate and address these critical safety concerns and ensure that the improvements will, in fact, be made by including significant congressional oversight.

I thank Representatives Keller, McBath, and Trone, as well as Senator Ossoff, for introducing this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the lack of adequate camera systems puts the safety of both incarcerated individuals and correctional officers and staff at risk.

The Prison Camera Reform Act of 2021 is bipartisan legislation that takes an important step toward making much-needed improvements.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 5230) to increase accessibility to the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System, to facilitate data sharing between such system and the National Crime Information Center database of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on S. 5230.

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

Every year in this country over 600,000 Americans go missing. While many of the missing are fortunate to be found alive and well, tens of thousands of individuals remain missing for more than 1 year, what many agencies consider to be cold cases.

It is also estimated that 4,400 unidentified bodies are recovered each year, with approximately 1,000 of those remaining unidentified, also becoming cold cases.

The families of those who go missing are forced to endure crushing uncertainty, not knowing what happened to their loved ones or if they will ever return. But they also face systemic challenges in helping law enforcement locate the missing or match them to unidentified remains so that they can at least have some semblance of closure.

The Help Find the Missing Act, or Billy's Law, is bipartisan legislation that will help address this crisis by closing loopholes in our Nation's missing person databases by streamlining the reporting process and ensuring that law enforcement databases are more comprehensive and accessible.

The bill is named after Billy Smolinski of Waterbury, Connecticut, who went missing in 2004 at the age of 31, and whose family ran into countless obstacles as they attempted to help law enforcement in the search, including that Federal law does not mandate the reporting of missing adults or unidentified bodies.

This problem is compounded by the fact that local law enforcement agencies, medical examiners, and coroners often lack the resources and training to report these cases to the appropriate national authorities. When cases of missing persons or unidentified remains are reported, the number of separate and uncoordinated Federal,

State, and local databases makes it extremely difficult to find the missing or match them with recovered remains.

Billy's Law will address these challenges by authorizing and ensuring funding for the Department of Justice to continue to maintain the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System, or NamUs, which is the national clearinghouse and resource center for missing, unidentified, and unclaimed persons. It provides an online database that is accessible to law enforcement and the public, and to which the public can contribute.

NamUs also provides free forensic services to aid in the identification of missing persons and unidentified remains; investigative support to law enforcement agencies; technical assistance to families of missing persons; and its subject matter experts train State and local service providers to support individuals and families impacted by the disappearance of a loved one.

Critically, Billy's Law would require data sharing between NamUs and the FBI's National Crime Information Center, or NCIC, in order to create more comprehensive databases of missing persons and unidentified remains and streamline the reporting process for State, local, and Tribal law enforcement. It would also amend current law to require that missing children be reported to NamUs as well as to NCIC, and it would require the reporting of information on every unidentified deceased person, regardless of age.

In addition, the bill would require the Attorney General to issue guidelines and best practices to law enforcement, medical examiners, and coroners on handling cases involving missing persons or unidentified remains.

We must do everything possible to ensure that we have a comprehensive and coordinated missing persons reporting and investigation system that works so that we can provide resolution to the families of those whose loved ones disappear.

I thank Senator Chris Murphy for his yearslong effort to pass Billy's Law, and I thank Representative Jahana Hayes for introducing the House companion bill.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes), a sponsor of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, the families and loved ones of those who have gone missing spend every day desperately searching for answers and for help. Billy's Law provides critical tools to help them find answers, coordinating our Nation's multiple missing persons databases, increasing reporting requirements, and providing training and resources to the myriad agencies that investigate these cases, while supporting the victims' families.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of this crucial bipartisan legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1518, I call up the bill (S. 4003) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to provide for training on alternatives to use of force, de-escalation, and mental and behavioral health and suicidal crises, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on S. 4003.

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

Madam Speaker, S. 4003, the Law Enforcement De-Escalation Training Act of 2022, is bipartisan legislation that would improve training for law enforcement officers, including training on using alternatives to force and de-escalation tactics.

This bill was previously brought to the floor under suspension of the rules, but it failed to garner the necessary two-thirds majority support. I was disappointed to see some of my Republican colleagues continue to lead efforts to withhold desperately needed training resources from law enforcement officers.

I am hopeful that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may have had more time to consider the significance and importance of passing this critical legislation to not only improve policing practices through increased training, but also to make our communities safer by ensuring individuals in crisis receive the help they need.

Law enforcement officers are often the first responders to individuals in crisis. While we have worked to develop and implement non-law enforcement crisis response services, there continues to be a need to train and equip law enforcement officers to de-escalate interactions and divert individuals to appropriate mental and behavioral health services.

Additionally, there is a need to provide officers and crisis response teams the tools they need to understand and respond to individuals with disabilities. One study found that disabled individuals make up one- third to one-half of all people killed by law enforcement officers.

Reforms to law enforcement, including de-escalation training, both improve public safety and reduce crime. A study of the Louisville, Kentucky, police department found that de-escalation training reduced use-of-force incidents by 28 percent and community member injuries by 26 percent. Officer injuries were reduced by an even larger margin of 36 percent.

S. 4003 would require the Department of Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services to consult with a broad range of stakeholders in developing the training curriculum, including law enforcement and behavioral health groups, as well as civil rights and civil liberties groups and associations that represent individuals with disabilities.

This bill also requires the National Institute of Justice and the Government Accountability Office to evaluate the implementation of the program and the effect of the training to ensure that the curricula have a tangible impact on law enforcement encounters with people in crisis and to identify possible changes that would further improve outcomes.

This bipartisan bill has broad support from law enforcement, mental health, and community advocacy groups, and would improve public safety by developing and implementing evidence-based de-escalation training for law enforcement officers.

I thank Senator Cornyn for introducing this bill and former Congresswoman Karen Bass for leading the House version of this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters in support of this legislation from the Louisiana Sheriffs' Association, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the National Fraternal Order of Police, the American Conservative Union, the American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare, the American Association for Psychoanalysis and Clinical Social Work, the American Association of Psychiatric Pharmacists, the American Association of Health and Disability, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, the American Group Psychotherapy Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the Anxiety and Depression Association of America, the Association for Ambulatory Behavioral Healthcare, the Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder, Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, the Maternal Mental Health Leadership Alliance, the Meadows Mental Health Policy Institute, NAADAC, the Association for Addiction Professionals, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the National Alliance to Advance Adolescent Health, the National Association for Children's Behavioral Health, the National Board for Certified Counselors, the National Council for Mental Wellbeing, the National Eating Disorders Association, the National Federation of Families, and National Network of Depression Centers, Catholic Charities USA, Catholic Prison Ministry Coalition, the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Center for Public Justice, the Jesuit Conference Office of Justice and Ecology, the National Association of Evangelicals, the National Latino Evangelical Coalition, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Coalition, and the Prison Fellowship.

Louisiana Sheriffs' Association,

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, October 19, 2022.

Hon. Steve Scalise,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Honorable Steve Scalise: On behalf of Louisiana's 64

sheriffs and the over 14,000 deputies they serve, I am

writing you today to express our strong support for the bi-

partisan Law Enforcement De-Escalation Training Act which

passed the Senate by Unanimous Consent on August 1, 2022.

This legislation seeks to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and

Safe Streets Act of 1968 to provide for training on

alternatives to use of force, including de-escalation and

mental and behavioral health and suicidal crises training.

As you know, Louisiana currently has a population of

approximately 4.52 million people. According to the most

recent Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration Behavioral Health Barometer, close to 5.6

percent of adults (253,120) in our state live with serious

mental health conditions such as schizophrenia, bipolar

disorder, and major depression. During 2017-2019, the annual

average prevalence of past-year serious thoughts of suicide

was 4.4 percent. Yet, only 39.5 percent of adults with mental

illness in Louisiana receive any form of treatment from

either the public system or private providers. The remaining

60.5 percent receive no mental health treatment. Furthermore,

according to Mental Health America, Louisiana is ranked 35th

out of the 50 states and Washington D.C. for providing access

to mental health services.

Despite our sheriffs best efforts to train our deputies in

incident response that includes deescalation, problem

solving, and mental health awareness, we are asking

Louisiana's law enforcement community to compensate for an

overworked mental and behavioral health system. If we are

going to ensure more citizens who are in need of mental

healthcare receive such care when they encounter a deputy, we

need to ensure our deputies have the tools and training to

help facilitate this transition to care. This is why the Law

Enforcement De-Escalation Training Act is so important.

For the first time, the Law Enforcement De-Escalation

Training Act would provide federal support for Louisiana's

sheriff offices to adopt de-escalation training to respond

more effectively to people suffering with a mental or

behavioral crises. It would require the Attorney General to

develop de-escalation training curricula, authorize annual

grant funding for training, evaluate implementation to

improve trainings and outcomes and foster greater

collaboration with community mental and behavioral support

centers. The legislation also enjoys the support ofthe

National Sheriffs' Association, the Major Country Sheriff's

Association, the National Criminal Justice Association along

with the National Association for Rural Mental Health, The

Anxiety and Depression Association of America, and the

Meadows Mental Health Policy Institute.

Senator John Cornyn, one of the lead sponsors of the Law

Enforcement De-Escalation Training Act put it best when he

stated ``We ask law enforcement in our communities to wear

too many hats, including that of mental health provider, and

they often do not have enough resources or training to

provide the level of care individuals in crisis need.'' With

your support, the House of Representatives has an opportunity

to fix this, and we hope it can do so before the end of the

year.

Thank you for your continued efforts in support of

Louisiana's law enforcement community. We look forward to

working with you to ensure this critical legislation's

enactment.

Sincerely,

Michael Ranatza,

Executive Director.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Trone), the sponsor of the legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, S. 4003 is bipartisan legislation that would improve training for law enforcement officers, including training using alternatives to force and de-escalation tactics. This training will reduce use-of-force incidents and improve officer and community safety.

It passed the Senate unanimously. The most conservative Republican Senators all voted for it. I read a long list of organizations supporting it. The American Conservative Union is not a group noted for profligate Federal spending.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to have some perspective on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1510, I call up the bill (H.R. 8404) to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State regulation of marriage, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 8404.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 8404, the Respect for Marriage Act. I first introduced a version of this legislation in 2009, and I am very proud that after a long journey it will soon be headed to the President's desk and marriage equality will be enshrined in law.

The House took an important step in July when it passed the bill with the support of 47 Republican Members. Now that the Senate has passed an amended version, also with bipartisan support, it is up to us to finish the job.

I find it deeply poignant that as we prepare to bring the 117th Congress to a close, we are on the cusp of a great bipartisan moral victory in defense of a fundamental right of all Americans, a victory that will provide stability and reassurance to the millions of LGBTQ and interracial families that have come to rely on the constitutional right to marry.

The Respect for Marriage Act does three things: First, it repeals the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, which blatantly discriminates against same-sex couples, and which still officially remains on the books.

Second, it enshrines marriage equality for Federal law purposes, requiring the Federal Government to consider a person to be married if the marriage is valid in the State where it was performed.

Finally, it prohibits anyone acting under color of State law from denying full legal effect to a valid out-of-state marriage based on the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of the two individuals in the marriage.

The Senate amendment does not change any of these substantive provisions. Rather, it adds language that explicitly affirms that existing constitutional and other legal protections for religious liberty remain in effect. The Senate amendment does not create any new substantive legal rights, but rather, it clarifies that the bill does not affect the existing legal rights or benefits of religious persons or entities. It also explicitly clarifies that the bill does not require or authorize the Federal Government to recognize polygamous marriages.

It is because of this compromise--the result of the hard work of Senators Tammy Baldwin and Susan Collins--that the amended bill passed the Senate by a vote of 61-36 with 12 Republican Senators voting in support.

While marriage equality remains constitutionally protected today, we have learned in recent months that rights once thought to be fundamental and forever secure can, in fact, be taken away. Indeed, in the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization--a decision overturning nearly 50 years of precedent recognizing a constitutional right to abortion--Justice Clarence Thomas went out of his way to write a separate concurrence calling on the Court to reconsider all of its substantive due process decisions, including Obergefell v. Hodges, the decision recognizing a right to marriage equality.

In light of this concurrence, even if one accepts the Dobbs majority's assurances that the constitutional right to marriage equality is settled law, Congress must use this opportunity to provide additional reassurance to the many American families who have come to rely on this guarantee. After all, we were told that the right to abortion was settled law.

The Respect for Marriage Act cements respect for married couples, which all Americans--including those in this Congress--should support and value.

I thank the co-chairs of the LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus, the chairs of the Congressional Tri-Caucus, and incoming House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries for joining me in introducing this legislation. I also thank my chief of staff, Amy Rutkin, who helped to do so much to guide this legislation through the House.

I urge all Members to support this Senate amendment to H.R. 8404, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Allred).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Craig).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia), a member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Pappas).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crow).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Torres).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Peters).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), a member of the committee, and the soon-to-be Democratic leader.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader of the House of Representatives.

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

I have been listening to this debate on the Republican side and it is self-contradictory. On the one hand, don't worry about it. Obergefell is not threatened. It is the law of the land. The Supreme Court has decided it. There is no threat. You guys are exaggerating the threat to Obergefell.

On the other hand, this bill is catastrophic. My God, it will change things.

Well, how will it change things if Obergefell is going to keep going? This bill will threaten the institution of marriage somehow.

Really? I don't think it will threaten the institution of marriage, especially since it is irrelevant since Obergefell is going to continue. You can't argue out of both sides of your mouth.

I would also point out, as I will in my closing statement, that contrary to the fears expressed about religious liberty, almost every church group in the United States has endorsed this bill. I will read a list in my closing statement.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House.

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

The Senate amendment to the Respect for Marriage Act represents a carefully negotiated compromise that

maintains all of the bill's substantive protections for marriage equality, while affirming that the religions liberty and conscience protections available under current law remain unaffected by the bill.

For these reasons, leading national organizations have endorsed the bill as amended by the Senate, including the ACLU, GLAD, PFLAG, Human Rights Campaign, and Lambda Legal.

In addition, a broad interfaith coalition that includes the Interfaith Alliance, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church USA Office of Public Witness, the Union for Reformed Judaism, the Anti- Defamation League, the Hindu American Foundation, Muslims for Progressive Values, and the Sikh Coalition, all endorse the Senate amendment to this bill.

This is a long-overdue bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it with a big vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 7946, the Veteran Service Recognition Act.

This modest but important legislation would ensure that noncitizen Active-Duty military, veterans, and their families are treated with the dignity and respect befitting the sacrifice they have given to this country.

While military service can offer an expedited pathway to naturalization, many noncitizen servicemembers leave the military without becoming a U.S. citizen because of unnecessarily burdensome requirements that they must meet.

Further, many servicemembers have family members who lack lawful status in the United States with no ability to adjust their status. As a result, while our military personnel are deployed protecting U.S. global interests and keeping our Nation safe, they must worry if their loved ones will be apprehended in an immigration raid and potentially be deported.

This legislation would address this concern and would protect our servicemembers, just as they protect us.

It would, one, establish an advisory committee to review and provide recommendations on the cases of noncitizen veterans, Active servicemembers, and their families who are placed in removal proceedings.

Two, it would direct the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense to implement the program that allows noncitizen servicemembers to file for naturalization during basic training or as early as otherwise possible.

Three, it would provide an opportunity for noncitizen veterans who have been removed or ordered removed, and who have not been convicted of serious crimes, to be considered for lawful permanent resident status.

Four, it would allow certain immediate relatives of U.S. citizen servicemembers or veterans in the United States to adjust their status and to obtain a green card as long as they are otherwise admissible.

Despite the rhetoric that we have already heard from our Republican colleagues throughout this debate, I want to make it clear that H.R. 7946 has nothing to do with the border. This legislation is about recognizing and honoring the sacrifice of our servicemembers by supporting them and their families and by giving them the opportunity to become U.S. citizens if they so desire.

I thank Chairman Takano of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, as well as Chair Zoe Lofgren of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship, for their commitment and leadership on this issue. I was honored to join them in introducing the legislation before us today.

Immigrants have served in our Armed Forces since the founding of our Nation. In return for their service and sacrifice, we promised them, and they have earned, the opportunity to become American citizens.

I hope all of my colleagues will demonstrate their commitment to our servicemembers and our veterans by supporting this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1499, I call up the bill (H.R. 6878) to address the health needs of incarcerated women related to pregnancy and childbirth, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 6878.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6878, the Pregnant Women in Custody Act, is bipartisan legislation that would help ensure that women receive the pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum care that they need while in Federal custody.

The number of women incarcerated has grown significantly in recent decades, and most women are incarcerated during their reproductive years. There are an estimated 58,000 admissions of pregnant women into jails and prisons every year.

It is vital for the health of these women and their newborns that they have access to appropriate healthcare, nutrition, and postpartum recovery support.

In addition, research shows that Black women already have a 43 percent higher risk of miscarriage than White women. Since women of color are disproportionately impacted by the criminal justice system, a lack of support and care for pregnancy and reproductive health while incarcerated can lead to increased risk of negative pregnancy outcomes.

By establishing a national standard of care for incarcerated pregnant women, as well as by prohibiting the use of restrictive housing and providing for transfers to residential reentry centers for women with high-risk pregnancies, this bill will help protect the health and safety of pregnant women and their newborns. Restrictive housing and solitary confinement have been called psychological torture, and the use of solitary confinement can further damage the physical and mental well-being of pregnant women.

In addition to setting a national standard of care, this bill also requires the Government Accountability Office to study the services and protections provided to pregnant women incarcerated at the State and local levels.

The impact of incarceration of pregnant women is complex and far- reaching. The reality of pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum recovery while incarcerated requires significant mental and physical health interventions and broader protections in order to address the trauma both mothers and newborns experience.

This bipartisan bill is supported by a broad range of organizations across the ideological spectrum, including the

American Psychological Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, Dream Corps, the Vera Institute for Justice, R Street Institute, and the American Conservative Union.

Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague, Representative Karen Bass, for her leadership on this issue and on so many criminal justice issues throughout her career in Congress. I thank her bipartisan cosponsors for introducing this important legislation with her.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel).

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6878 is bipartisan legislation that would support the health and safety of women in Federal custody by establishing a national standard of care and prohibiting the use of restrictive housing for incarcerated pregnant women.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation. I also want to take this opportunity to express my dual feelings--on the one hand, the sponsor of this legislation, Ms. Bass of California, will no

longer be with us in the next Congress, which is, on that level, unfortunate. On the other hand, the reason she won't be with us is because she is the mayor-elect of Los Angeles, and that is not unfortunate. I am very happy about that, but I have mixed feelings because we won't be seeing her here again.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise to thank Casey Lee for her service to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Casey came to the Committee after first working on AAPI civil rights and housing issues for Congressman Ted Lieu through a fellowship with APAICS. Casey received her B.A. from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).

Casey joined the Committee in 2022 as a Staff Assistant for the Full Committee. As Staff Assistant, Casey supported the full committee's senior staff and me directly. A core part of my administrative team, Casey acted as assistant clerk during hearings and markups and oversaw the committee's internship program. When other full committee administrative staff and subcommittee legislative aides/assistant clerks left their positions, Casey seamlessly assumed their duties in addition to her own and worked diligently to support the Staff Director, two Deputy Staff Directors, and multiple subcommittee counsels for all their research and administrative needs. This included helping compile the Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law subcommittee activity report for the 117th Congress and helping manage cosponsorship requests for immigration legislation.

Casey worked with our Member Services, Communications, and Digital Directors to highlight committee accomplishments for the 117th Congress and draft social media posts. She also created graphics and videos for the Respect for Marriage Act, the Assault Weapons Ban Act, and more.

Casey was also a founding member of the committee's first diversity, equity, and inclusion working group to facilitate trainings, plan initiatives, enhance our recruitment, and be a resource to other staff on diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Throughout all her work, Casey brought her tireless worth ethic and commitment to excellence. Our Committee, Congress, and the American people greatly benefited from her service.

While we are sad to see Casey go and she will certainly be missed, we are happy that she will continue to serve the public interest as a policy advisor for the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus.

We thank Casey for her service to the Committee and wish her the best of luck with this new chapter.