Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 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.

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. 4003.

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

Mr. Speaker, S. 4003, the Law Enforcement De-Escalation Training Act of 2022, is bipartisan legislation that would improve training for law enforcement officers, including using alternatives to force and de- escalation tactics. It also includes training and support for officers working with mental health professionals and crisis intervention teams.

This bill would empower police and the mental health professionals working with them to link individuals to services in their community.

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 will 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 improves public safety by developing and implementing evidence-based de-escalation training for law enforcement officers. I thank Senator Cornyn for introducing the bill and 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 4 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 myself the balance of my time to close.

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

I cannot imagine how anybody can think this will somehow increase crime. Senator Cornyn, who is not known to be soft on crime, is the major Senate sponsor.

I urge all Members 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. 3846) to reauthorize the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program, and for other purposes, as amended.

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. 3846.

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

Mr. Speaker, S. 3846, the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Reauthorization Act of 2022, is bipartisan legislation that would reauthorize and make necessary improvements to the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program, or JMHCP, within the Department of Justice.

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, communities across the country have grappled with worsened mental health. There continues to be a need to adequately address the mental health needs of our communities and to redirect people in crisis away from the criminal justice system and into the healthcare system.

State and local governments use JMHCP grants for critical services to address the mental health needs of their communities, including by establishing diversion programs, creating or expanding community-based treatment programs, supporting the development of curricula for police academies and orientations, and providing in-jail treatment and transitional services.

Additionally, grant funds are used to train law enforcement on identifying and improving their responses to people experiencing a mental health crisis. This program, which was first created in 2004, was reauthorized in 2008 and again in 2016 with bipartisan support.

S. 3846 will make needed improvements to the grant program by strengthening support for mental health courts and crisis intervention teams; supporting diversion programming and training for State and local prosecutors; strengthen support for co-responder teams; and supporting the integration of the national suicide prevention and mental health crisis hotline system into the existing public safety system.

This bill will also increase allowable uses for grant funds to include suicide prevention in jails and clarify that crisis intervention teams can be placed in 911 call centers.

This bipartisan bill improves the efficacy of the JMHCP grant program and is supported by a wide range of stakeholders, including the Addiction Policy Forum, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, Major County Sheriffs of America, National Alliance on Mental Illness, and many others.

I thank Senator Cornyn for introducing the bill and Congressman Bobby Scott for introducing the House version of this important legislation. 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 gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

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

Mr. Speaker, the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program funds a variety of essential services to support the mental health needs of communities across the country and redirect people in crisis away from the criminal justice system and into the healthcare system.

This legislation would reauthorize and strengthen this important program so that it can continue to serve those in need of its services.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 3115) to remove the 4-year sunset from the Pro bono Work to Empower and Represent Act of 2018.

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. 3115.

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

Mr. Speaker, nearly 25 percent of women suffer from domestic violence at some point in their lives. Domestic violence and related offenses destroy lives and shatter families. Among the many challenges that victims face is a lack of legal representation when seeking assistance from the court system.

According to the National Network to End Domestic Violence, in just one day in September 2014, domestic violence assistance programs received more than 10,000 requests for services, including legal representation, that were not met. The effect of this lack of representation is devastating. Research has shown that 83 percent of victims represented by counsel were able to obtain protective orders, while only 32 percent of unrepresented victims were able to do so.

That is why in 2018, Congress stepped in by enacting the POWER Act, which requires the chief judge of every judicial district to hold an annual public event, in partnership with a State, local, Tribal, or domestic violence service provider or volunteer attorney project, in promoting pro bono legal services as a critical way to empower survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. The act also requires that events be held every 2 years in areas with high numbers of Native Americans and Alaska Natives, with a focus on addressing the specific issues facing Native populations.

We recognize that pro bono legal assistance would not only provide critical representation in court, but it would also help provide survivors with access to services such as emergency shelter, transportation, and childcare. We also recognize that legal summits mandated by the act would raise awareness of the horrors of domestic violence and sexual assault while inspiring others to devote their efforts to helping survivors in their communities.

In addition to providing for these pro bono programs, the 2018 act requires the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to report to Congress about each public event conducted in the previous fiscal year.

The programs authorized under the original POWER Act have been extremely successful. In 2021, 73 pro bono legal summits were held across the Nation, reaching more than 11,000 attorneys. In the years since we passed the POWER Act, we have amassed an army of thousands of lawyers who are helping survivors, including children, get out of dangerous situations, giving them a measure of justice and a ray of hope.

But as effective as they have been, the programs created and authorized by the 2018 POWER Act are set to sunset at the end of this year. Meanwhile, the crisis of domestic and sexual violence continues.

S. 3115, the POWER 2.0 Act, would ensure the continuation of the critical programs we enacted in 2018 by removing the sunset date for these programs, helping to deliver essential legal services and to bring hope and healing to many more survivors across the country. We have already planted the seeds, and by removing the 4-year sunset provision from the original POWER Act, we will allow these pivotal programs to continue to grow and thrive, helping more and more survivors every year.

I thank Senator Dan Sullivan for introducing this important and time- sensitive legislation and the gentlewoman from Alaska (Ms. Peltola) for leading the House version of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alaska (Mrs. Peltola), the House sponsor of the bill and a worthy successor to our late colleague, Don Young.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are an untold number of victims of domestic and sexual violence in this country, including young children, who are without legal recourse to escape their abusers, to protect themselves and their families, and to obtain the services they need to rebuild their lives.

The POWER Act has started the hard work of incentivizing and encouraging thousands of lawyers to provide pro bono legal services to the victims and survivors that are most in need. But we need more attorneys to join the cause.

By removing the sunset date from the POWER Act, S. 3115 will allow us to continue and expand the critical programs we created in 2018, while ensuring that there is no gap in access to services for those who need them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5455) to amend the First Step Act of 2018 to permit defendants convicted of certain offenses to be eligible for reduced sentences, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 5455.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5455, which would clarify that the retroactivity provision of section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018 is available to all offenders who were sentenced for a crack offense before the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 became effective, including individuals convicted of offenses involving small quantities of crack.

After decades of unfair sentences that swept too broadly, most often applied to low-level dealers and impacted minorities disproportionately, Congress has worked to right some of the wrongs of the misguided war on drugs, often on a bipartisan basis. This legislation continues that important effort.

In 1986, in response to a surge in the use of crack cocaine and several high-profile cocaine-related deaths, Congress passed the Anti- Drug Abuse Act, which created mandatory minimum penalties for drug offenses and introduced a 100-1 sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses.

This meant that a person who distributed 5 grams of crack cocaine received the same 5-year mandatory minimum sentence as a person who distributed 500 grams of powder cocaine, and the person who distributed 50 grams of crack cocaine received the same 10-year mandatory minimum sentence as the person who distributed 5,000 grams of powder cocaine.

It soon became evident that this sentencing disparity had also created a significant racial disparity. Four years after Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, the average Federal sentence for African-American defendants was 49 percent higher than the average for White defendants.

In 2010, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act, which did not eliminate the disparity but which significantly reduced the ratio from 100-1 to 18-1. Unfortunately, that legislation applied only to pending and future cases, leaving thousands of inmates without a path to petition for relief.

In 2018, the bipartisan First Step Act made the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive if an inmate received ``a sentence for a covered offense,'' as defined in section 404 of the Act, providing a pathway to relief for some but not all individuals affected by the sentencing disparity.

Three years later, after roughly 4,000 motions for sentence reductions had been granted, the Supreme Court, in Terry v. United States, limited the availability of sentence reductions under the Fair Sentencing Act, contrary to the intent of Congress.

Based on a narrow reading of the meaning of ``covered offense,'' the Court held that individuals convicted of crack offenses are only eligible for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act if their convictions triggered mandatory minimum penalties.

That means that individuals like Mr. Terry, who possessed less than 4 grams

of crack, are unable to seek sentence reductions, while individuals convicted of sentences involving much larger quantities of crack can seek a sentence reduction, and many have already done so, which is simply absurd and unfair.

The First Step Act was meant to make retroactive sentencing relief available to all individuals sentenced for crack cocaine offenses before the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 took effect.

As Justice Sotomayor's concurring opinion in Terry reminds us, Congress has numerous tools to correct this injustice, and H.R. 5455, the Terry Technical Correction Act, is one of these tools.

The bill provides a new, expanded definition of ``covered offense'' that includes a list of drug offenses in the criminal code that do not trigger mandatory minimum sentences.

The bill also ensures that no person seeking a sentencing reduction under section 404 will be barred from filing a new petition on the grounds that a judge had previously denied relief based on a determination that the offense of conviction was not a ``covered offense'' under the meaning provided in the First Step Act.

I thank Crime Subcommittee Chairwoman Jackson Lee, Representatives Cicilline, Jeffries, Owens, Massie, and Delegate Holmes Norton for introducing this important bipartisan bill. I urge all of my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5455, the Terry Technical Correction Act, is a straightforward bipartisan bill that advances our efforts to make our criminal justice system more fair. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise along with my colleague, Rep. Henry C. Johnson, Chair of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, to thank Matthew Robinson for his service to the Committee on the Judiciary,

Matthew came to the Committee after first entering public service as a Judiciary Clerk for Senator Russ Feingold, and then spending five years at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Don LLP. Matthew received his B.A. from Yale University and his J.D. from the New York University School of Law.

Matthew first joined the Committee in 2019 as a Counsel for the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet. For three years in this position, he played a critical role in reforming our courts system. Matthew spearheaded a courts agenda to promote transparency and accountability in the ``Third Branch'' of government with the goal of strengthening and supporting the rule of law and equal justice. Matthew also helped manage hearings that addressed the need for ethics reforms. Building off these hearings, he assisted in leading the passage of the Courthouse Ethics and Transparency Act, which became law in May 2022, Matthew also helped in the introduction of a comprehensive set of reforms for the Supreme Court in the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusai, and Transparency Act.

Matthew continued his dedication to reform in several additional efforts to create a courts system that truly works for all Americans. Matthew developed two hearings that highlighted the critical need for stronger workplace protections for courts employees, which led to the introduction of the Judiciary Accountability Act. He also worked on investigations on the state of the judiciary's information technology systems, and on the passage of the Open Courts Act, a bill aimed at overhauling the judiciary's electronic case management systems and making court records free to the public.

In addition to this portfolio, Matthew was always willing to go above and beyond by helping other efforts. In particular, he assisted the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law on bankruptcy matters, as well as on its 16-month investigation into the state of competition in the digital economy that focused on the challenges presented by the dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google. Lastly, Matthew worked diligently on the first impeachment of former President Donald J. Trump, including assisting in the compilation of the Committee's Report. Recognized for his dedicated service, Matthew was named as Senior Counsel to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet in February 2022.

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

While we are sad to see Matthew go and he will certainly be missed, we are happy that he will continue to serve the public interest as senior counsel for oversight at the U.S. Department of Education.

We thank Matthew Robinson for his service to the Committee and wish him the best of luck with this new chapter.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1464, I call up the bill (S. 4524) to limit the judicial enforceability of predispute nondisclosure and nondisparagement contract clauses relating to disputes involving sexual assault and sexual harassment, 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. 4524.

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

Madam Speaker, S. 4524, the Speak Out Act, empowers survivors of sexual misconduct by prohibiting the use of nondisclosure and nondisparagement clauses that serve to silence survivors who entered into agreements containing those clauses before a dispute arises.

Often buried in the fine print of contracts of adhesion that workers and consumers sign every day to secure employment, goods, or services, these confidentiality clauses have contributed to the culture of silence in cases involving sexual misconduct. As such, they have routinely enabled sexual predators to evade accountability.

The confidential nature of these clauses makes it extremely difficult to fully diagnose the scope of this problem. Nevertheless, experts estimate that more than one-third of workers in the United States are required to sign a nondisclosure agreement in their employment contracts.

This is particularly concerning because of the rampant nature of sexual abuse in the workplace. An estimated 81 percent of women and 43 percent of men will experience sexual harassment in their lifetimes, and more than half of all women report being subjected to unwanted sexual activity while in the workplace.

But these appalling numbers do not even tell the full story. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found that the vast majority of survivors simply never report incidents of sexual harassment or sexual assault.

Today, we will take an important step toward fixing this problem by banning the enforcement of nondisclosure and nondisparagement clauses agreed to before a sexual harassment or sexual assault dispute arises. For the purpose of this bill, a dispute arises when a person chooses to exercise their legal rights by asserting a claim of sexual harassment or sexual assault in some official context, such as by complaining to a government agency or by filing a lawsuit.

This legislation continues Congress' important work to protect the rights of survivors to come forward and hold perpetrators accountable for abuse.

Earlier this year, on a bipartisan basis, we enacted H.R. 4445, which empowered survivors to decide whether they resolve their disputes in court or through arbitration. That bill was an example of how Congress can and should function. We worked together, across the aisle, to identify a problem, establish a bipartisan solution to that problem, and pass legislation to restore the rights of millions of Americans to their day in court.

The Speak Out Act is an opportunity for us to work together once again to end the oppressive culture of silence hiding sexual misconduct, promote transparency and accountability, and make the workplace safer for everyone.

This legislation has already passed the Senate unanimously, and it is supported by a broad coalition of public interest organizations, including the American Association for Justice, the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, RALIANCE, The Army of Survivors, the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and the National Coalition Against Sexual Assault.

I thank our colleagues, Representatives Frankel, Buck, Cicilline, Jayapal, Griffith, Bustos, and Owens for their leadership on this issue.

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

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

I only wish this bill did what the gentleman from Ohio says it does. By his logic, we should never have passed the Americans with Disabilities Act. We should have left it with the States. That obviously didn't work.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel), the sponsor of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Madam Speaker, this bill goes so far; the gentleman from North Carolina tells us, this bill goes too far. It goes so far, in fact, that every Republican Member of the Senate voted for it. What a bunch of radicals.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Washington.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Correa), a member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Manning).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Bustos).

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

Madam Speaker, some have argued that the bill is not necessary because the courts may already choose not to enforce NDAs in certain cases. But this argument overlooks the reality that this scattershot approach to forced NDAs in sexual assault cases leaves survivors uncertain of their ability to tell their own stories without fear of reprisal, and it continues to allow NDAs to be used as an intimidation tactic by powerful corporations and abusers or as a coercive requirement for employment or everyday services.

Without a clear message from Congress that forced NDAs will no longer be enforceable in court, forced NDAs in employment and consumer contracts are likely to continue to have a chilling effect on survivors speaking out.

These contracts of silence limit the ability of millions of Americans to come forward in the first place. They contain sweeping prohibitions against any future negative statements about an employer. Standard language in these terms limit a survivor's ability to communicate by virtually any means, regardless of the truthfulness of the communication, in perpetuity.

In many cases, confidentiality clauses cover the existence of an NDA itself, meaning that even discussing the fact that one is bound by an NDA could constitute a violation of a contract.

There are cases in which survivors choose to waive their right to speak about their case. But that is a decision for survivors to make for themselves based on the circumstances, not something that should be forced upon them by their abusers or their enablers.

Last year, in a hearing that none of us will forget, the Judiciary Committee heard from four survivors of shocking workplace sexual harassment and assault. As they explained, after enduring horrific abuse at the hands of their perpetrators, confidential clauses in routine contracts prevented them from reporting and publicly disclosing their abuse.

The Speak Out Act ends this outrageous practice once and for all. Importantly, it does not prevent survivors from voluntarily entering into settlement agreements that include NDAs. Instead, it simply clarifies that these clauses cannot be enforced unless a survivor chooses to agree to the clause after the dispute arises.

The Biden-Harris administration has issued a statement strongly supporting this legislation, noting that: ``Prohibiting the use of predispute NDAs and nondisparagement clauses will increase access to justice and make the workplace safer for everyone.''

The United States Senate has unanimously passed this legislation.

I have heard the argument from some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that we should leave this to the States and that the national legislation impinges on States' rights somehow. This is from the same people who urge a national ban on abortion.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to send this critical message to the President's desk, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered to be the first sponsor of H.R. 4130, a bill originally introduced by Representative Ted Deutch of Florida, for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

Madam Speaker, I rise--along with David Cicilline, Chair of the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law-- to thank Phillip Berenbroick for his service to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Phillip came to the Committee after serving as Policy Director at Public Knowledge. Prior to that, Phillip was the Policy Director at the Internet Freedom Business Alliance, and an attorney at Hogan Lovells US LLP, among other roles. Phillip received his B.A. from Tufts University and his J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

Phillip joined the Committee in 2020 as Counsel to our Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law. For over two years, he played a critical role in advancing the Subcommittee's priorities. As Counsel, Phillip helped develop a breadth of legislation addressing key issues, from tackling the rise and abuse of market power online, to modernizing the Administrative Procedure Act, to supporting local newspapers and broadcasters during the pandemic. His commitment to protecting American consumers and workers was further reflected in his work conducting oversight of federal agencies, as well as investigating mergers that raise significant antitrust concerns.

Phillip was essential in the Subcommittee's 16-month investigation into the state of competition in the digital economy, with a focus on the challenges presented by the dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google. As part of the small team conducting one of the most comprehensive probes into corporate power in the 21st century, Phillip brought his dedicated work ethic as the lead attorney responsible for investigating Apple. He helped review numerous internal documents and communications from the investigated firms; met with antitrust experts; and assisted with interviews of more than 240 market participants, former employees of the investigated firms, and other individuals. His work was critical to much of the Subcommittee's achievements. This included preparing Members for a hearing with the CEOs of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google, and the publication of a Report entitled ``Investigation of Competition in Digital Markets: Majority Staff Report and Recommendations,'' which the Committee on the Judiciary formally adopted in April 2021. He was also instrumental in helping to secure Committee passage of a suite of legislation to restore competition online in June 2021.

Throughout all of his work, Phillip brought his passion for a more just society and his commitment to excellence. Our Committee, Congress, and the American people greatly benefited from his service.

While we will miss Phillip greatly, we are glad he is not going far, and is continuing his career in public service as a Senior Counsel to Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey.

We thank Phillip Berenbroick for his service to the Committee and wish him the best of luck with this new chapter.

Madam Speaker, I rise along with Henry C. Johnson, Chair of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, to thank Atarah McCoy for her service to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Atarah received her bachelor's degree from Princeton University and began her career in public policy and advocacy at the Ida B. Wells Just Data Lab. Atarah first joined the Judiciary Committee as a Staff Assistant in July 2021, and in January 2022 was named Legislative Aide and Professional Staff Member for the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.

As Staff Assistant, Atarah supported the full committee's senior staff and myself directly. A core part of my administrative team, Atarah acted as assistant clerk for over 16 hearings and 6 markups. Atarah also oversaw the committee's internship program. She is remembered for being a dedicated mentor and advocate for interns, ensuring that they professionally developed in an inclusive, welcoming environment--an especially difficult task during the COVID-19 pandemic when the office was primarily remote.

Recognized for her service, Atarah was promoted to Legislative Aide and Professional Staff Member for the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet. In this role, Atarah served as clerk for all Subcommittee business, and her work was essential to the success of much of the subcommittee's activities. She managed key parts of Subcommittee hearings, including working with witnesses, drafting speeches, remarks, and draft questions, and completing subcommittee hearing reports. Atarah was also instrumental in setting up a series of meetings with patent stakeholders to facilitate a ten-year review of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Throughout all of her work, Atarah brought her commitment to public service, positive nature, and dedicated work ethic. She proved to be an excellent staffer who worked very hard on many critical but often unseen tasks with conscientiousness, professionalism, and grace. Our committee, Congress, and the American people greatly benefited from her service.

While we are sad to see Atarah go and she will certainly be missed, we are happy that she will continue to serve the public interest in her new role at a nonprofit legal organization pursuing racial justice.

We thank Atarah McCoy for her service to the committee and wish her the best of luck with this new chapter.

Madam Speaker, I rise, along with David Cicilline, Chair of the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law to thank Joe Van Wye for his service to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Joe received his bachelor's degree from Brown University and began his career in public policy as a Staff Assistant and then Legislative Correspondent for Representative David Cicilline. Joe first joined the Judiciary Committee as a Professional Staff Member, Legislative Aide, and Clerk in February 2019 for the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law.

Joe's work was essential to the success of many of the Subcommittee's activities. For three years, Joe served as clerk for all the Subcommittee's business, including Subcommittee hearing preparation and markups, as well as coordination of briefings, press conferences, and events for congressional staff and advocacy groups.

Joe also worked on legislation to end forced arbitration so that survivors of sexual assault or harassment could bring their stories out of the shadows and pursue justice in our courts. He helped lead the Subcommittee's efforts to pass the Forced Arbitration Justice Repeal Act, the Justice for Servicemembers Act, and the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Harassment Act--the last of which became law in March 2022, codifying one of the most important workplace reforms in our nation's history.

Joe was also instrumental to the Subcommittee's investigation of competition in digital markets in the 116th Congress. He was essential to the Subcommittee's collecting of more than 1.2 million documents as part of the investigation, and helped prepare the Subcommittee's 2020 report entitled ``Investigation of Competition in Digital Markets: Majority Staff Report and Recommendations.'' This report released findings and recommendations following a 16-month bipartisan investigation into the state of competition in the digital economy, with a focus on the challenges presented by the dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google. The Committee on the Judiciary held a markup and formally adopted the Report in April 2021.

Throughout all of his work, Joe brought his passion for public policy, commitment to justice and equity, and good humor. Our Committee, Congress, and the American people greatly benefited from his service.

While we are sad to see Joe go and he will certainly be missed, we are happy that he will continue to serve the public interest in his new non-profit role advocating for a fair, inclusive, and competitive food and agriculture system.

We thank Joe Van Wye for his service to the Committee and wish him the best of luck with this new chapter.

Madam Speaker, I rise, along with Zoe Lofgren, Chair of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship to thank Anthony Valdez for his service to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Anthony received his bachelor's degree and a master's in public policy from the University of Maryland. He first joined the Judiciary Committee as an intern with our Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. After nearly a year interning while in college, and a further fellowship with the committee, Anthony joined us permanently as Staff Assistant to the full committee in January 2020. That August, Anthony was named Professional Staff Member and Legislative Aide for the Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship.

As Staff Assistant, Anthony supported the full committee's senior staff and me directly. As part of my administrative team, Anthony played a leading role in our committee's seamless transition to remote and hybrid work at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. He is remembered as a committed advocate and mentor by the many interns and incoming junior staff that he helped shepherd through our committee. Anthony was also a vital member in the Committee's oversight of the Trump Administration, which included pouring through critical evidence, assisting in Member preparation, and staffing high-profile congressional hearings. Regardless of the hour, Anthony answered the call of duty and became a trusted member of the Committee's impeachment and senate trial teams.

Finally, Anthony was promoted again to serve as Professional Staff and Legislative Aide to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship. For two years Anthony served as clerk for all Immigration subcommittee business and his work was essential to the success of much of the subcommittee's activities. Substantively, Anthony was the point person on private bills and was instrumental in the passage of five private bills this Congress, H.R. 187, H.R. 680, H.R. 681, H.R. 739, and H.R. 785. He worked with counsel to prepare myself and Ms. Lofgren for the annual refugee consultation and helped us fight to raise the refugee admissions goal and increase processing. Anthony also contributed significantly to our markup of H.R. 3648, the Equal Access to Green Cards for Legal Employment Act of 2022 or the EAGLE Act of 2022.

For nearly four years, I have been fortunate to count Anthony among my team. I, and the American people, have greatly benefited from his passion for public service, his fine character, and his commitment to excellence. Through extraordinarily demanding times, Anthony was dependable and contributed substantially with diligence and good humor. We will greatly miss Anthony as he heads off to the University of Virginia School of Law, but we look forward to following his next steps in public service and the law.

We thank Anthony Valdez for his service to the Committee and wish him the best of luck with this new chapter.

Madam Speaker, I rise to thank Gabriel Barnett for his service to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Gabriel received his bachelor's degree from the University of Pennsylvania and began his career in public policy and advocacy on the Biden for President campaign as the Deputy Director for National Jewish Engagement. Gabriel first joined the Judiciary Committee as a Staff Assistant in June 2021, and in April 2022 was named Professional Staff Member to the full committee.

As Staff Assistant, Gabriel supported the full committee's senior staff and myself directly. A core part of my administrative team, Gabriel acted as assistant clerk for over 40 hearings and 12 markups and oversaw the committee's internship program. When two full committee staff left their positions, Gabriel seamlessly assumed their duties in addition to his own and worked diligently to support the Staff Director and two Deputy Staff Directors for all of their research and administrative needs.

Recognized for his dedicated service, Gabriel was promoted to Professional Staff Member for the full committee. He prepared weekly memoranda for me for House committee leadership meetings and worked with our Member Services, Communications, and Digital Directors on highlighting committee accomplishments for the 117th Congress. In addition, because of his keen expertise in Israeli foreign policy and Jewish issues, Gabriel worked closely with my staff director to make policy recommendations and meet with key stakeholders in these issue areas. Gabriel 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 of his work, Gabriel brought his commitment to public policy, a tireless work ethic, and a devoted dedication to justice for all. Our Committee, Congress, and the American people greatly benefited from his service.

While we are sad to see Gabriel go and he will certainly be missed, we are happy that he will continue to serve the public interest in his new role at the White House.

We thank Gabriel Barnett for his service to the Committee and wish him the best of luck with this new chapter.

Madam Speaker, I rise, along with Representative Steve Cohen, Chair of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, to thank William Emmons for his service to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Will received his bachelor's degree from The College of William and Mary and began his career in public policy as a Legislative Intern for Representative Suzanne Bonamici. Will first joined the Judiciary Committee as an intern in 2018 and he returned in 2019 as Professional Staff Member for the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.

Will's work was essential to the success of much of the Constitution subcommittee's activities, including its 13 hearings on voting rights, two field hearings where he handled almost all of the logistical matters regarding transporting equipment and setting up hearing locations, and a number of other high-profile hearings like the one marking the 100th anniversary of the Tulsa race riots.

Will assisted considerably with respect to helping various counsels involved in the first impeachment of Donald Trump and he also contributed substantive work product on important and politically sensitive matters, most notably with respect to researching the background on our hearing on Congressional authority over member conduct and discipline.

Through it all, in demanding and stressful situations, he proved to be a smart, dedicated staffer who worked very hard on many critical but often unseen tasks with conscientiousness, grace, and good humor.

For nearly four years, I have been fortunate to count Will among my staff. I, and the American people, have greatly benefited from his passion for public policy, his dedication to service, and his commitment to excellence. No doubt he will be successful in his future endeavors and an asset to his future colleagues.

While we are sad to see Will go and he will certainly be missed, we are happy that he will continue to serve the public interest in his new non-profit role in New York.

We thank William Emmons for his service to the Committee and wish him the best of luck with this new chapter.

Madam Speaker, I rise, along with Representative Zoe Lofgren, Chair of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship, to thank Ami Shah for her service to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Ami came to the Committee after spending six years as Associate Counsel with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services and serving as a Peace Corps Volunteer. Before starting her career in public service, Ami received her B.A. from the University of Virginia and her J.D. from The George Washington University Law School.

Ami joined the Committee in 2019 as Counsel to our Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship. For over three years she played an indispensable role in working to reform our Immigration system and conduct meaningful oversight of the executive branch's policies. Ami's service was defined by her commitment to advancing the rights of immigrants and their families, her tireless advocacy for refugees, and her efforts to help America fix its broken immigration system and live up to its aspirational creed.

Ami engaged in critical advocacy to push for evacuations of vulnerable Afghans and oversight to ensure their stable resettlement here in the United States. She was an instrumental part of the House's work to provide benefits for Afghan parolees and relief for Afghan students. Despite our polarized political climate, Ami helped pass several bills into law, including the HOPE (Honoring Our Promises through Expedition) for Afghan SIVs Act of 2021, and the America's Children Act and the Virgin Islands Visa Waiver Act through the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2022. Ami was also heavily involved in the Committee markup of the American Families United Act and the House's passage of five private immigration bills in 2022 and the Access to Counsel Act of 2021. As part of the annual Refugee Consultation and the Committee's oversight work, Ami pressed the executive branch to raise our refugee admissions goal and increase processing and helped achieve an extension of Temporary Protected Status for Cameroon.

Throughout all of her work, Ami brought her commitment to compassion, justice and equity and her unyielding work ethic. Our Committee, Congress, and the American people greatly benefited from her service.

While we will miss Ami greatly, we are glad she is not going far, and is continuing her career in public service as Chief Immigration Counsel to Senator Durbin and the Senate Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are many good things about this CR. One of the best is that it won't shut down the government.

It is shocking to me that our Republican colleagues seem to want to shut down the government, with all of these services and necessary things it does for the people of the United States.

This CR does many good things. I want to focus on one of them, the 87,000 extra new agents to be hired for enforcement by the Internal Revenue Service. That is an excellent thing because what will they do? They will go after the rich people.

By the terms of the statute, by the terms of the CR, they cannot be used for enforcement of taxes against anybody earning less than $400,000, so we are not talking about the middle class.

The rich people in this country are cheating. They are cheating tremendously. They are cheating to the tune of tens of billions of dollars because they know they can get away with it and because there is no manpower or womanpower to enforce the law. This will give us the manpower to enforce the law.

Mr. Speaker, this will give us the manpower to enforce the law and to make sure that the rich pay their fair share, and, therefore, there can be more services for the middle class and for low- income people in this country, which is exactly what the government is for.

This is one of the best things it does. Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to vote for the CR, in particular, because of the 87,000 extra agents that the Internal Revenue Service will have to enforce taxes against rich tax cheats.