Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1404, I call up the bill (H.R. 8987) to amend the Justice for United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Act to authorize appropriations for catch-up payments from the United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund, 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. 8987.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Fairness for 9/11 Families Act would provide a catch-up payment to thousands of 9/11 victims, spouses, and dependents who were unfairly excluded from the U.S. Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund when it was first established in 2015.

While no amount of money can ever make up for the incalculable loss that they suffered on September 11, this legislation would ensure that they are fairly compensated for their claims against those responsible for one of our Nation's darkest days.

In 2015, Congress created the United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund to provide compensation for individuals with terrorism judgments against designated state sponsors of terrorism.

At the time, those who had received payments from the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund--primarily victims, spouses, and children-- were precluded from receiving funds from the VSSTF.

Their exclusion from the fund led to a perverse result by which other family members who were not eligible for payments under the VCF could receive compensation from the VSSTF--in some cases, substantially more than what was paid out under the VCF--while victims, spouses, and children were excluded from the fund, despite also having claims.

Congress corrected this injustice in 2019, and a year later it tasked the Government Accountability Office with calculating a lump-sum catch- up payment that would bring those who initially had been wrongly excluded from the VSSTF into parity with those individuals who had been included in the fund when it was first created.

The Fairness for 9/11 Families Act fully funds these catch-up payments, offset by funds no longer needed to implement the Paycheck Protection Program. I thank Senators Menendez and Schumer for their partnership on this legislation and for all of their efforts to provide justice and support to 9/11 families over the years.

I also thank the many victims and family members whose advocacy and determination were essential to bringing this legislation forward. Although nothing can make up for 20 years of missed birthdays, anniversaries, and memories for those who lost loved ones on September 11, I hope that these funds can provide some measure of comfort and justice to the people whose lives were changed forever that day.

As we pass this legislation, we must not forget the survivors and first responders who continue to suffer the health effects of the 9/11 attacks. As I always have, I will continue to fight to ensure that these people have the care they need. We can, and we must, look after everyone who was affected that fateful day.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the Fairness for 9/11 Families Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

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

Mr. Speaker, when our Nation was attacked on September 11, we made a commitment on that terrible day to support the victims and their families. The Fairness for 9/11 Families honors that commitment.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1396, I call up the bill (H.R. 3843) to promote antitrust enforcement and protect competition through adjusting premerger filing fees, and increasing antitrust enforcement resources, 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. 3843.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3843 is bicameral, bipartisan legislation that consists of three distinct titles, each of which would make modest, but important improvements to modernize our antitrust system and to help protect competition.

Title I of the bill updates the filing fees that merging parties pay to the Federal antitrust enforcers that review their transactions. These fees have not been updated in two decades, which has left these agencies in desperate need of more resources to complete their increasingly heavy workload.

This bill raises the fees that parties pay for large transactions and lowers the fee that parties pay for small- and medium-sized transactions, which ensures that larger deals pay their fair share.

Critically, this legislation raises revenue to support necessary antitrust enforcement while also saving taxpayers $1.4 billion over the next 5 years.

Title II of the bill requires merging parties to notify the antitrust agencies if they are subsidized by countries or entities that are strategic or economic threats to the United States.

This notification requirement gives the agencies immediate access to the information they need to assess the full competitive consequences of subsidized transactions and enables them to better protect U.S. economic interests when they review proposed mergers.

Title III of this legislation ensures that States do not have to waste precious time and taxpayer dollars when they litigate antitrust suits in Federal courts. It does this by exempting State enforcement of the Federal antitrust laws from the often time-consuming and costly multidistrict litigation process. Federal antitrust enforcement agencies are already exempt from this process, and the bill simply puts State antitrust enforcement on equal footing with the Federal Government.

Each element of this legislation enjoys bicameral, bipartisan support. Titles I and II have already passed the House as part of the America COMPETES Act, and title III passed the Senate by unanimous consent.

Together, they would help ensure that our antitrust agencies have the resources they need to protect competition, would provide important disclosures about foreign economic adversaries, and would strengthen State enforcement of our antitrust laws.

I thank Mr. Neguse for sponsoring this important package of bipartisan legislation. I also thank Mr. Cicilline and Mr. Buck, the chair and ranking member of the Antitrust Subcommittee, for their leadership on these bills and on competition issues generally.

I urge all Members to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Madam Speaker, I must confess I am a little puzzled at some of the remarks of Mr. Johnson. He says the FTC sics the FBI on parents or whatever. The FTC has no jurisdiction over the FBI and has nothing to do with them. The FTC is part of--never mind.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see that Mr. McClintock's argument is against all antitrust laws. Consumers make choices, so what do you need antitrust laws for is essentially what he is saying.

Companies buy other companies not just for good reasons. They buy other companies to reduce the competition, and thereby enable them to charge higher monopolistic prices. That is why we have antitrust laws.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Jones), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with Mr. Issa. We should never have passed the Sherman Act to deal with those newfangled railroads.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck).

Mr. Speaker, we do know how the money is going to be spent. It is going to be spent on antitrust enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stanton), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, when I listen to Mr. Gohmert and Mr. Jordan, I am really amazed that every single Republican Senator voted for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time each side has remaining.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Rhode Island an additional 30 seconds.

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

Madam Speaker, I find it amazing that the gentleman from Ohio would argue we shouldn't give appropriations to the Department of Justice. Congress votes appropriations for every department, and if you think the Department of Justice is not being run properly, well, there is a Presidential election coming up. That is the purpose of elections.

At the present time, the American people 2 years ago elected Joe Biden President and Kamala Harris Vice President, and the President appointed the Secretary of Justice and the chairman of the FTC, both of whom I think are doing an excellent job. But it is a matter of debate which can be decided in the next Presidential election.

To argue that we should starve agencies of the United States Government so that they cannot do the job for which Congress passed statutes mandating them to do the job is absurd.

All that the increase in fees does is update, because the last increase of fees was I don't know how many years ago, and there has been inflation. We need the enforcement against the large Big Tech companies because, as Mr. Jordan already earlier acknowledged, they represent a threat. I think he thinks they represent a different threat from the one I think they represent, but everybody agrees they represent a threat and that their power must be properly supervised by proper enforcement of the antitrust laws.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), who is a member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, this bicameral and bipartisan legislation is supported by a broad coalition of labor, consumer, and public interest groups.

As the Biden-Harris administration noted in its Statement of Administration Policy on this bill, H.R. 3843 would advance its ``critical mission'' to ``combat the excessive concentration of industry, the abuses of market power, and the harmful effects of monopoly and monopsony.''

Every single United States Senator--every Democrat, every Republican--agrees with this. It is only in this House that there are some people who, for unfathomable reasons, disagree.

Madam Speaker, this bill is squarely in the tradition of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the Celler-Kefauver Act, and it should be passed.

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3843, the ``Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act of 2021,'' a bill to ensure fair treatment of small- and medium-sized businesses that are engaged in a merger.

This bill enhances fairness by incentivizing mergers between small and medium-sized enterprises while simultaneously disincentivizing monopolization from larger corporations.

Small and medium-sized enterprises, also known as SMEs, are integral to the U.S. economy. According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, over the past decade, SMEs have created approximately two-thirds of new private sector jobs, greatly expanding the job market and providing new financial opportunities for hardworking families and individuals.

However, current merger filing fees have impeded businesses that are looking to merge because steep fees may be unaffordable for these SMEs.

Meanwhile, large corporations benefit from disproportionately smaller merging fees that enable them to dominate marketplaces by absorbing smaller companies.'

This bill intends to modify and expand the schedule by establishing graduated merger filing fees and requiring that such fees are adjusted each year based on the Consumer Price Index.

To ensure a fair market for the public, the Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act of 2021 adjusts the fees made during the merger process based on the aggregate total amount of the merger, considering the adjusted price at the beginning of the fiscal year.

The Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act of 2021 intends to directly solve this issue by amending the aggregate total brackets utilized to determine the filing fee of the merger, where larger aggregate totals incur greater fees.

This legislation would amend the merger fees by decreasing them from $45,000 to $30,000 for the first bracket. The criteria to qualify for this bracket are also adjusted. The bracket qualification has been increased to include aggregate total amounts of up to $161,500,000 from the previous value of $100,000,000.

Similar adjustments are made to the next two brackets, decreasing the meger fee for companies in the second bracket from $125,000 to $100,000 and decreasing the fee of the third, and formerly highest, bracket from $280,000 to $250,000.

Finally, the bill will add a fourth, fifth, and sixth bracket for the largest companies which have aggregate total amounts that exceed $1,000,000,000, $2,000,000,000, and $5,000,000,000 respectively. In this way, larger mergers are less incentivized as they must pay a larger fee than before.

According to Texas Economic Development, the state of Texas is home to 3 million small businesses. Texas is home to diverse and numerous small businesses committed to technological discovery and economic stimulation, ranging from scientific development to agriculture and forestry.

Allowing SMEs to thrive without the extra pressures of merger fees is integral to safeguarding the economic freedoms these businesses need in order to grow and compete against large corporations who seek to dominate and monopolize the marketplace.

Overall, these changes accomplish two goals in promoting a fair marketplace for small- and medium-sized companies.

First, the adjusted merger fee has been decreased for smaller firms, and the qualifying aggregate total has been increased, which encourages mergers among medium-sized companies. By decreasing the fees required for mergers, medium-sized businesses will have more financial resources to reallocate towards developing their workforce, acquiring needed materials, and reinvesting.

Second, this bill hopes to discourage mergers between larger businesses by establishing larger brackets such that businesses whose aggregate total accounting for more than $1,000,000,000, $2,000,000,000, and $5,000,000,000 will not be grouped together. These businesses will be required to pay a larger fee, ideally discouraging monopoly formations.

Additionally, this bill seeks to provide oversight of foreign transactions that may potentially influence the U.S. market. Merging companies must disclose any subsidies received from foreign economic competitors.

The Merger Filing Fee Act of 2021 promotes mergers between medium- sized businesses by adjusting the fee for merging based on the 2022 fiscal year, while also disincentivizing larger-sized businesses from forming monopolies by creating higher brackets with greater fees.

A fair marketplace can be fostered through the implementation of this bill, encouraging small and medium-sized businesses to look for growth opportunities and mitigate extra pressures added by foreign economic imbalances.

Madam{ Speaker, I urge my fellow Congressmembers to support this bill dedicated to ensuring a fair marketplace for ambitious and innovative American companies by eliminating cost hurdles and establishing fairness in relation to large corporations.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1377, I call up the bill (H.R. 6448) to direct the Director of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services of the Department of Justice to carry out a grant program to provide assistance to police departments with fewer than 200 law enforcement officers, 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. 6448.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6448, the Invest to Protect Act, is bipartisan legislation to bolster law enforcement agencies' ability to address staffing shortages and improve community safety through de-escalation training and mental health resources.

Let me be clear, Democrats have always stood for equitable funding for law enforcement. Contrary to what some of my colleagues might say, the issue of violent crime is not a red State or blue State issue. The rise in violent crime affects every community across the country.

Democrats also know that public safety and respect for civil rights can coexist. Building healthy and strong communities does not require us to choose between our rights and our safety.

This legislation would establish a grant program focused on improving recruitment and retention of officers and providing additional training and access to mental health resources for small law enforcement agencies.

When police departments are unable to recruit, retain, and adequately resource qualified officers, communities suffer a clear threat to public safety. These officer staffing shortages can cause longer wait times for emergency calls, fewer crimes cleared, and more overworked officers, which can threaten both officer health and the quality of life in our communities.

This bill seeks to address these challenges by providing additional Federal resources to small agencies to recruit and retain qualified officers, as well as provide additional training and support for these agencies.

I thank Representative Josh Gottheimer for his leadership on this issue and for introducing this important legislation along with his bipartisan cosponsors.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer), the sponsor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Spanberger).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am astonished that Mr. Fitzgerald would admit that the Republicans want to defund the police by 75 percent. That is what he just said. After all the Republican rhetoric about the Democrats wanting to defund the police--which, of course, is not true-- Mr. Fitzgerald just got up and told us the Republicans want to defund the police by 75 percent.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill would bolster law enforcement across the country and improve public safety. I think it is telling that people like Mr. Rutherford on the Republican side of the aisle helped craft this bill with people like Mr. Gottheimer on this side of the aisle.

On the other hand, there are, obviously, a lot of Republicans like Mr. Jordan who want to defund the police or at least defund small town America police by opposing this bill.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support small town America and to support policing in small town America by supporting this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1377, I call up the bill (H.R. 4118) to authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to build safer, thriving communities, and save lives, by investing in effective community-based violence reduction initiatives, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4118.

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

Mr. Speaker, our Nation is experiencing an epidemic of violence, particularly gun violence, that is ravaging communities large and small across the United States. Research shows that

violence begets more violence. It is a vicious cycle.

H.R. 4118, the Break the Cycle of Violence Act, would provide grant funding for community violence intervention programs and youth workforce development programs to help prevent gun violence and other violent crimes, and to provide critical support services to people and communities who are in dire need of help.

In addition to saving countless lives, it would also save billions of dollars. It is estimated that gun violence costs this Nation a staggering $280 billion every single year.

This legislation would help establish evidence-based community violence intervention, or CVI programs, staffed by specialists with ties to their communities. These programs connect people at risk of committing violence, and those at risk of being victimized by violence, with intensive counseling and support services.

Because we know that access to job training, apprenticeship, and other workforce development programs are effective tools in reducing community violence, the bill would also support workforce development programs for youth in communities that are disproportionately impacted by violence.

Experience tells us that these programs work, reducing rates of homicide and other gun violence by as much as 50 percent. We must invest in these remarkably effective programs so that we can finally break the cycle of violence, which has shattered so many communities.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Steve Horsford for introducing this important legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I didn't know that the Federal Government funding police was against the Republican Party position.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford), the sponsor of this legislation.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Jordan apparently isn't listening. This is a package of bills. The last bill, which

he opposed, appropriated money for police. This bill complements it by appropriating money for antiviolence intervention.

Mr. Speaker, our communities have seen enough violence and bloodshed. The Break the Cycle of Violence Act gives us the opportunity to prevent violence before it starts and to provide critical support to our most impacted communities.

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, pursuant to House Resolution 1377, I call up the bill (H.R. 5768) to direct the Attorney General to establish a grant program to establish, create, and administer the violent incident clearance and technology investigative method, 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. 5768.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5768, the VICTIM Act of 2022, is bipartisan legislation that would help law enforcement improve clearance rates for homicides, rapes, sexual assaults, kidnappings, and nonfatal shootings.

As communities continue to face increased gun violence and violent crime, this bill is a vital step toward improving public safety.

Again, let me be clear: Democrats have always stood for equitable funding for law enforcement. In fact, Democratic-led cities and States have consistently funded law enforcement at much higher per capita rates than Republican-led cities, while also recognizing the need for law enforcement accountability and improving public trust.

To address the challenges our law enforcement agencies are facing, this bill would provide funding and support for agencies to hire and train detectives and investigators to improve case clearance rates.

Low clearance rates not only prevent victims from accessing justice, but they also damage the public's trust in law enforcement. By investing in the personnel and technology needed to solve cases of homicide and other serious crimes, agencies can help build public confidence and improve community safety.

In providing State, local, and Tribal agencies with additional resources, the VICTIM Act will equip agencies to better respond to and investigate these serious crimes, bringing justice for victims and keeping our communities safe.

I thank Representative Val Demings and her bipartisan cosponsors for their leadership on this issue and for introducing this important legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings), the sponsor of this legislation and a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the VICTIM Act is bipartisan legislation that would increase public safety and improve law enforcement practices. The rise in violent crime affects every community across the country, not just Democratic communities.

But we also know that public safety and respect for civil rights can coexist. Building healthy and strong communities does not require us to choose between our rights and our safety.

I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings) for introducing this important legislation, which is supported by a wide range of law enforcement associations.

Mr. Speaker, 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. 3103) to amend title 18, United States Code, to eliminate the statute of limitations for the filing of a civil claim for any person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of section 1589, 1590, 1591, 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of such title.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 3103.

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

Mr. Speaker, S. 3103, the Eliminating Limits to Justice for Child Sex Abuse Victims Act of 2022 is bipartisan legislation that would ensure that survivors of child sex abuse are not barred by a statute of limitations when seeking civil damages in court.

Data suggests that 86 percent of child sexual abuse goes unreported. Also common is delayed disclosure, or the tendency of survivors of child sexual abuse to wait many years before disclosing abuse to others.

This is because survivors of sexual abuse often take a long time to process their trauma, and many survivors who were abused as a child may not even recognize the abuse they suffered until much later in life.

Unfortunately, because survivors of child sexual abuse often delay reporting, any statute of limitations may prevent survivors from accessing justice and seeking damages in civil court.

The current Federal civil remedy statute for victims of child sexual abuse includes a statute of limitations requiring all claims to be filed within 10 years of the injury or not later than 10 years after the victim turns 18 years old.

These statutes of limitation can serve to protect the abusers and enable them to continue to exploit their power by allowing victims' claims to expire.

This bill will enable survivors who are victims of Federal child sex abuse offenses, including aggravated sexual abuse, sex trafficking, human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual exploitation, to seek civil damages in Federal court regardless of the amount of time that has passed since the abuse.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross) for joining Senator Durbin in introducing this important legislation and recognizing that the challenges survivors face in reporting the trauma they have experienced should not bar them from accessing justice in the courts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross), the sponsor of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, S. 3103 is bipartisan legislation that would ensure that survivors of child sex abuse are not barred by a statute of limitations when seeking justice in the courts.

This bill recognizes that many victims of child sexual abuse delay reporting the trauma they have experienced. Therefore, it will enable survivors who are victims of more than a dozen Federal sex abuse offenses to seek civil damages in Federal court regardless of the time that has passed since the abuse.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members 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. 4785) to extend by 19 days the authorization for the special assessment for the Domestic Trafficking Victims' Fund.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 4785.

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

Mr. Speaker, S. 4785 is bipartisan legislation that would extend until September 30 of this year, 2022, the mandatory special assessment of $5,000 imposed on those convicted of certain offenses involving sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or human trafficking.

Human trafficking is a multi-billion-dollar criminal industry that denies freedom to 24.9 million people around the world and generates more than $150 billion annually in illicit profits. It is a reprehensible crime that touches communities across the country--from major cities to suburban enclaves and rural back roads--and can cause devastating, sometimes irreparable harm to victims who fall prey to cunning traffickers.

The fight against human trafficking requires a comprehensive, multidisciplinary strategy that includes prosecution of traffickers so that they cannot harm again, protection of victims through services to increase safety and treat trauma, and prevention efforts to alleviate social vulnerabilities to exploitation.

From providing immediate, emergency care when victims are identified to long-term care that helps survivors recover from their victimization, victim assistance is vital to the Federal anti- trafficking strategy and efforts to combat sexual abuse and exploitation as well as child pornography, which continue to be a threat to our children and other vulnerable persons.

The Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, commonly referred to as the JVTA, requires Federal sentencing judges to impose a special assessment of $5,000 on those convicted of Federal crimes involving sexual abuse, child pornography, sexual exploitation, or human trafficking.

The fees collected from the special assessment are transferred to the Domestic Trafficking Victims' Fund and used to fund and enhance vital services and programming that assist victims and survivors who have been abused, exploited, and/or trafficked.

This past Sunday, the provision that requires judges to impose the special assessment expired, which necessitates the passage of this extension until the end of the fiscal year when it can be renewed as part of other ongoing legislation to fund the government.

Congress must do all we can to ensure that resources are available to support the needs of victims and survivors of human trafficking, sexual abuse, and sexual exploitation, who often have complex needs requiring a broader array of trauma-focused services and treatment.

Although we are considering the bill as introduced by Senators Klobuchar and Cornyn, I must also thank Representative Karen Bass for her work to introduce the House companion, H.R. 8684, and for her continued dedication to helping victims and survivors of human trafficking, sexual abuse, and sexual exploitation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support the extension of the $5,000 special assessment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

S. 4785 is bipartisan legislation that would extend the $5,000 special assessment that provides funding to help victims and survivors of sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, child pornography, and human trafficking, through services, programming, and treatment tailored to their specific needs.

Each of us should make every effort to support programs that help rescue survivors of these reprehensible crimes and provide them with the resources they need to become whole again, while also holding perpetrators accountable for the harms they cause.

I urge all my colleagues to support S. 4785, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New York, the Honorable Patrick Ryan, be permitted to take the oath of office today.

His certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to his election.

Madam Speaker, as the dean of the New York delegation, I have the distinct honor to rise today to introduce the new Member of the House of Representatives from New York's 19th Congressional District, Representative Patrick Ryan.

Representative Ryan is a fifth generation New Yorker who was born and raised in Kingston, New York. After graduating from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, he served our Nation as an Army intelligence officer and deployed for two combat tours in Iraq.

Returning to New York as a decorated veteran, Congressman Ryan went on to become a successful small business owner before returning to public service as the County Executive of Ulster County.

As County Executive, Representative Ryan has been shown to be a dedicated public servant, and I know he does not take his new role lightly.

As the dean of the delegation, I know I speak on behalf of the entire delegation when I say that Representative Ryan will be a wonderful colleague whose experience, entrepreneurial leadership, and history of devoted service to our country will help this Chamber navigate the challenges of our times.

I am now honored, Madam Speaker, to yield to a fellow New Yorker (Mr. Ryan).

Madam Speaker, today, I rise in strong support of the Inflation Reduction Act--landmark legislation that will have a lasting impact on our planet and help lower costs for Americans in New York City and across our country. From lowering prescription drug prices and health care costs for working families to including the most significant climate investment in our nation's history, the Inflation Reduction Act includes policies I have long fought for.

With this legislation, our nation can finally rise to the seriousness of the moment in our fight against climate change by making the large- scale investments needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2030, lower energy costs for families, and create millions of good-paying clean energy jobs across our country.

I am thrilled that with this legislation, our government will finally be able to negotiate the prices of some of our nation's costliest prescription drugs--drugs that have been on the market for years and reap billions of dollars in sales from Medicare alone. I am proud that the Inflation Reduction Act will bring down health care costs for over 3.7 million New Yorkers and will result in enormous savings for taxpayers.

With the passage of this bill, Democrats are showing American families that our federal government can deliver for the people, not just special corporate interests.

I look forward to voting to pass this historic legislation.

Mr. DAVID Scott of Georgia. Madam Speaker, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 before us today makes historic investments in climate change mitigation, our critical forestry and conservation programs, rural communities, and energy and biofuels infrastructure.

This package makes important investments in our oversubscribed farm bill conservation programs. By expanding participation in these programs and providing increased technical assistance funding, farmers will more readily be able to employ proven conservation practices on their land, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and sequester carbon. I have always believed that agriculture should be the tip of the spear in addressing the harmful effects of climate change. This legislation helps make that a reality.

My colleagues may complain about the steps we had to take to ensure this additional funding for our farm bill conservation programs, I would note that our colleagues on the other side have similarly extended the authorization of farm bill authorizations, but in those cases, it was to cut funding from them. In this exercise, we are including additional funding, which will be beneficial as we look to writing the 2023 Farm Bill.

Major investments in forestry will also help to combat climate change, reduce risk of catastrophic wildfire, and ensure that our public and private lands have the tools they need to continue to serve as our largest carbon sinks. In addition to the carbon benefits, this bill helps restore forest ecosystems, improve watershed health, and enhance wildlife habitat by providing much needed funding. Additionally, the forestry provisions of the bill will help bring rural prosperity to many parts of our Nation by ensuring that we are developing new, innovative, wood products, and by making sure that underserved communities can benefit from emerging climate mitigation markets. This bill makes sure that urban communities have access to forestry programs by providing needed funding for Urban and Community Forestry. Expanding the tree canopy in urban areas is one of the cheapest and most effective ways to address temperature impacts and air quality issues, and I'm sorry some of my colleagues don't recognize that.

The Inflation Reduction Act's investments in rural communities, energy, and biofuels will help lower energy bills, increase the efficiency of energy systems, and provide opportunities for farmers and small business owners to employ emission reducing technology in their operations. Increasing energy efficiency is good for their bottom lines and good for the climate. This legislation also provides significant support for rural electric cooperatives as they transition to renewable and zero emission energy systems, and it also increases access to clean biofuels across the nation.

This bill provides expedited relief to direct and guaranteed farm loan borrowers at risk of losing their farming operations. It also allows USDA to help farmers and ranchers who have suffered discrimination in Farm Service Agency farm loan programs. It requires USDA to use one or more nongovernmental entities to help provide this assistance.

Lastly, it builds upon the American Rescue Plan efforts to increase access to capital and land for our beginning and underserved producers by expanding access to technical assistance, financial training, cooperative development, and assistance to address heirs' property issues. And part of this effort includes bolstering the capacity at our 1890 and 1994 Land Grant, Insular Area, and other Minority-Serving Institutions in the areas of research, education and extension.

I want to thank the Members of the Agriculture Committee for their hard work on this legislation. And I also want to thank the Agriculture Committee staff who have dedicated many hours over the last year to helping see this legislation through to its passage today.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1302, I call up the bill (H.R. 1808) to regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, 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. 1808.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, we take another step to advance historic gun violence prevention legislation. H.R. 1808, the Assault Weapons Ban Act of 2022, restores and updates the prior assault weapons ban that kept weapons of war out of our communities for a decade before Republicans opposed its renewal.

As we have learned all too well in recent years, assault weapons, especially when combined with high-capacity magazines, are the weapon of choice for mass shootings. These military-style weapons are designed to kill the most people in the shortest amount of time. Quite simply, there is no place for them in our streets.

In 1994, we banned these killing machines, and countless lives were saved. But that ban was allowed to lapse 10 years later. Since then, we have seen the predictable results: Mass shootings have increased exponentially in our public spaces. Schools, movie theaters, supermarkets, houses of worship, parades, you name it, have all become vulnerable to attack.

Uvalde, Parkland, Tree of Life Synagogue. How many more mass shootings must we endure? When will we learn?

Well, I hope we are starting to learn today. I hope we are starting to learn today indeed.

The Assault Weapons Ban Act would prohibit the sale, manufacture, transfer, or possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large- capacity ammunition feeding devices. At the same time, it grandfathers existing semiautomatic assault weapons and contains numerous protections for law enforcement and responsible gun owners, including hunters, gun collectors, farmers, sports shooters, and those who use firearms for self-defense.

It is important to consider today's debate in the context of our other efforts to address the violence plaguing our communities.

Time and again, Democrats have advanced responsible gun safety legislation, only to face Republican opposition.

We have advanced legislation to conduct background checks for all gun sales, to close the Charleston loophole, to close the boyfriend loophole, and to keep guns away from those who are a danger to themselves or others.

We advanced my bill, the Protecting our Kids Act, and we sent the President the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which was signed into law and will save lives. These proposals were opposed by all but a few of our Republican colleagues.

Today, they have another chance to take the action needed to make our communities safer. Will they stand with us? Will they show that they have learned? Or will they stand with an industry that right now is promoting a weapon to civilians that is powerful enough to shoot through bulletproof vests?

Will our Republican colleagues choose to defend the weapons of choice for mass murderers and those who seek to target law enforcement? Or will they choose to defend Americans who simply want to go to school, to go shopping, to march in a parade, or to go to a movie theater without the fear of having a target on their back? It is an easy choice for me.

I thank Congressman Cicilline for his leadership on this important legislation, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), the sponsor of this bill and a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

Fact: Contrary to Mr. Roy, this bill takes away nobody's weapons because existing weapons are grandfathered in if he would only read the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, contrary to Mr. Roy, I include in the Record a report from Third Way titled ``The Red State Murder Problem''.

[From Third Way, Mar.15, 2022]

The Red State Murder Problem

(By Kylie Murdock and Jim Kessler)

Every news outlet from FOX to CNN to The New York Times to

local newspapers has a story with attention-grabbing

headlines like ``US cities hit all-time murder records.'' Fox

News and Republicans have jumped on this and framed it as a

``Democrat'' problem. They blame it on Democrat's ``soft-on-

crime'' approach and have even referred to a New York

District Attorney's approach as ``hug-a-thug.'' Many news

stories outside of Fox have also purported that police reform

is responsible for this rise in murder and have pointed to

cities like New York and Los Angeles.

There is a measure of truth to these stories. The US saw an

alarming 30% increase in murder in 2020. While 2021 data is

not yet complete, murder was on the rise again this past

year. Some ``blue'' cities, like Chicago, Baltimore, and

Philadelphia, have seen real and persistent increases in

homicides. These cities--along with others like Los Angeles,

New York, and Minneapolis--are also in places with wall-to-

wall media coverage and national media interest.

But there is a large piece of the homicide story that is

missing and calls into question the veracity of the right-

wing obsession over homicides in Democratic cities: murder

rates are far higher in Trump-voting red states than Biden-

voting blue states. And sometimes, murder rates are highest

in cities with Republican mayors.

For example, Jacksonville, a city with a Republican mayor,

had 128 more murders in 2020 than San Francisco, a city with

a Democrat mayor, despite their comparable populations. In

fact, the homicide rate in Speaker Nancy Pelosi's San

Francisco was half that of House Republican Leader Kevin

McCarthy's Bakersfield, a city with a Republican mayor that

overwhelmingly voted for Trump. Yet there is barely a

whisper, let alone an outcry, over the stunning levels of

murders in these and other places.

We collected 2019 and 2020 murder data from all 50 states.

(Comprehensive 2021 data is not yet available.) We pulled the

data from yearly crime reports released by state governments,

specifically the Departments of Justice and Safety. For

states that didn't issue state crime reports, we pulled data

from reputable local news sources. To allow for comparison,

we calculated the state's per capita murder rate, the number

of murders per 100,000 residents, and categorized states by

their presidential vote in the 2020 election, resulting in an

even 25-25 split.

We found that murder rates are, on average, 40% higher in

the 25 states Donald Trump won in the last presidential

election compared to those that voted for Joe Biden. In

addition, murder rates in many of these red states dwarf

those in blue states like New York, California, and

Massachusetts. And finally, many of the states with the worst

murder rates--like Mississippi, Kentucky, Alabama, South

Carolina, and Arkansas--are ones that few would describe as

urban. Only 2 of America's top 100 cities in population are

located in these high murder rate states. And not a single

one of the top 10 murder states registers in the top 15 for

population density.

Whether one does or does not blame Republican leaders for

high murder rates, it seems that Republican officeholders do

a better job of blaming Democrats for lethal crime than

actually reducing lethal crime.

If you're tuned in to the media, you'd think murder is

rocketing skyward in New York, California, Illinois. But

those states don't even crack the top ten.

In fact, the top per capita murder rate states in 2020 were

mostly those far from massive urban centers and Democratic

mayors and governors. Eight of the top ten worst murder rate

states voted for Trump in 2020. None of those eight has

supported a Democrat for president since 1996.

The chart below shows the top 10 murder rate states in

2020. Mississippi had the highest homicide rate at 20.50

murders per 100,000 residents, followed by Louisiana at

15.79, Kentucky at 14.32, Alabama at 14.2, and Missouri at

14. The national average was 6.5 per 100,000 residents, but

the top five states had rates more than twice that high.

These red states are not generating ``murder is out of

control'' national headlines. They seem to generate no

headlines at all. The rest of the top ten were filled out by

South Carolina, New Mexico, Georgia, Arkansas, and

Tennessee--all states rarely talked about in breathless media

reports about rampant crime in Democratic strongholds.

Notably, New Mexico and Georgia were the only Biden-voting

states in the top ten, and they ranked seventh and eighth,

respectively.

Five of the largest Biden-voting states by population, and

those often in the news when it comes to crime, had much

lower murder rates. New York at 4.11 per 100,000 residents,

California at 5.59, and New Jersey at 3.70 were each well

below the national average. Pennsylvania (7.22) and Illinois

(9.20) were higher than the national average. But

Mississippi's murder rate was nearly 400% higher than New

York's, more than 250% higher than California's, and about

120% higher than Illinois's. In fact, the five states with

the highest murder rates, all Trump-voting states, had rates

at least 240% higher than New York's murder rate and at least

150% higher than California's, the homes to some of the

largest cities featured prominently in the ``crime is out of

control'' narrative.

Beyond the top 10, we looked at the 2020 murder rates in

the 25 states that voted for Donald Trump and compared it

with the murder rates in the 25 states that voted for Joe

Biden. The 8.20 murders per 100,000 residents rate in Trump

states was 40% higher than the 5.78 murders per 100,000

residents in Biden states. These Biden-voting states include

the ``crime-is-out-of-control'' cities of Los Angeles, New

York City, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, Portland,

Baltimore, and Minneapolis, among other large cities.

Among the 50 states, murder rates were often well above the

national average in many Republican-controlled states and

cities. Jacksonville with 176 homicides and a murder rate

(19.776) more than three times that of New York City (5.94)

has a Republican mayor. Tulsa (19.64) and Oklahoma City

(11.16) have Republican mayors in a Republican state and have

murder rates that dwarf that of Los Angeles (6.74).

Lexington's Republican mayor saw record homicides in 2020 and

2021, with a murder rate (10.61) nearly twice that of New

York City. Bakersfield (11.91) and Fresno (14.09) each have

Republican mayors and murder rates far higher than either San

Francisco or Los Angeles.

Of course, some cities controlled by Democrats have

alarming murder rates, like Chicago (28.49) and Houston

(17.32). But we hear about these and other Democrat-run

cities all the time. We aren't getting the whole picture.

In 2020, murder rates increased nearly everywhere. But they

increased more in Trump-voting states than Biden-voting

states, albeit slightly. The average increase in murder rate

across all Trump-voting states was 32.2% compared to 30.8% in

Biden-voting states.

Three out of the five states with the highest murder rates

in 2020--Mississippi, Missouri, and Alabama--didn't have

reliable 2019 data available, so they weren't included in

this analysis.

Three of the five states with the largest increase in

murder rate were Trump-voting Wyoming at 91.7%, South Dakota

at 69%, and Nebraska at 59.1%. These states are decidedly

rural and do not conform to the chaos-in-the-city meme that

has overtaken the crime debate. Biden-voting Wisconsin came

in at the number three spot at 63.2% and Minnesota came in

fifth at 58.1%. Out of the top ten states, six were Trump-

voting states--with the additional three being Kentucky, West

Virginia, and Kansas. The remaining states in the top ten

were Delaware and Washington. Only one of the top ten states

in murder rate increases, Delaware, was among the top twenty

in population density.

Again, California, New York, and Illinois aren't in the top

ten. California's murder rate increase was 31.1%, or about

the national average. Both New York (45.8%) and Illinois

(38.2%) were above the national average.

The current narrative around crime and murder is convenient

and wrong. Whether you're watching CNN or Fox News, or

getting news online or from a traditional newspaper, you

would think that the increase in murder is a phenomenon found

mostly in liberal cities. Many have tried attributing this

increase to Democratic policies, specifically police reform.

Republican lawmakers and ad makers have contributed to this

narrative through clever messaging and strategies.

But the data clearly paint a different story. The increase

in murders is not a liberal cities problem but a national

problem. Murder rates are actually higher in Republican,

Trump-voting states that haven't even flirted with ideas like

defund the police. Eight of the ten most lawless, high-murder

states are not only Trump-voting states, but GOP bastions for

the last quarter of a century. A more accurate conclusion

from the data is that Republicans do a far better job blaming

others for high murder rates than actually reducing high

murder rates.

We sought 2019 and 2020 murder data from all 50 states. Our

primary source was the annual crime reports released by state

governments, more specifically from their Departments of

Justice or Public Safety. We chose state data because we

found it's more comprehensive than FBI data which is often

compiled later. For example, ``the FBI estimated crime

statistics for Mississippi are based on data received from

113 of 251 law enforcement agencies in the state that year.''

37 states had crime reports for the years 2019 and 2020:

Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut,

Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky,

Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North

Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey,

Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South

Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia,

Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. For the remaining states

we pulled data from published public sources: Alabama--US

News, Georgia--US News, Hawaii--The Center Square, Indiana--

Hartford City News

Times, Louisiana--US News, Maryland--Ocean City Today,

Mississippi--US News, Missouri--US News, New Mexico--US News,

Ohio--Axios, Oregon--KOIN, Vermont--WCAX, West Virginia--The

Center Square. In seven states, the public sources only

provided murder per capita rates, so using the rates and

census population data, we estimated the number of murders in

that state. Data and sources are attached above.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter of endorsement of the assault weapons ban from the Major Cities Chiefs Association, a professional organization of law enforcement executives representing the largest cities in the United States.

Major Cities Chiefs Association,

July 20, 2022.

Hon. Jerrold Nadler,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Jim Jordan,

Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Nadler and Ranking Member Jordan: I write on

behalf of the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA), a

professional organization of law enforcement executives

representing the largest cities in the United States and

Canada. Thank you for including H.R. 1808, the Assault

Weapons Ban of 2022, in today's markup. The MCCA was proud to

endorse this legislation when it was introduced earlier this

Congress.

The MCCA has long advocated for sensible firearms and gun

safety policies. In 2018, the Association adopted a Firearms

Violence Policy that consists of several common-sense

reforms, including banning assault weapons and high-capacity

magazines. Many law enforcement officials have closely

studied assault weapons and firearms with high-capacity

magazines and determined they have no reasonable sporting or

hunting purpose.

Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines also represent

a significant threat to law enforcement officers responding

to violent crimes. For example, the suspect who murdered NYPD

Officers Jason Rivera and Wilbert Mora in January 2022 used a

firearm with a high-capacity magazine that allowed his gun to

hold 40 additional rounds. Earlier this month, Detroit PD

Officer Loren Michael Courts was killed by a suspect with an

AK-47-style pistol that would have been banned under H.R.

1808.

The MCCA encourages all Members of the Committee to support

the Assault Weapons Ban of 2022 and report it favorably

during today's markup.

Sincerely,

Jeri Williams,

Chief, Phoenix Police Department,

President, Major Cities Chiefs Association.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a report from the Violence Policy Center entitled, ``Target: Law Enforcement, Assault Weapons in the News.''

Section One

Introduction: Background on Assault Weapons and Federal Attempts at

Their Regulation

Assault weapons. Semiautomatic assault weapons are civilian

versions of automatic military assault rifles like the AK-47

and the M-16. The civilian guns look the same as their

military brethren because they are identical functionally,

except for one feature: military assault rifles are machine

guns. A machine gun fires continuously as long as its trigger

is held back--until it runs out of ammunition. Civilian

assault rifles, in contrast, are semi-automatic weapons. The

trigger of a semiautomatic weapon must be pulled back

separately for each round fired. Because federal law has

banned the sale of new machine guns to civilians since 1986

and heavily regulates sales to civilians of older model

machine guns, there is virtually no civilian market for

military assault weapons. Nonetheless, civilian semiautomatic

assault weapons have proven every bit as deadly as their

military counterparts.

Regulation of assault weapons. The regulation of

semiautomatic assault weapons has been a contentious subject

for more than two decades.

In the 1980s foreign manufacturers (principally China)

began dumping semiautomatic versions of the Soviet-designed

AK-47 military assault rifle--a ubiquitous staple of the

world-wide small arms trade--onto the U.S. civilian firearms

market. Colt Industries, a domestic manufacturer, was also

marketing the AR-15, a semiautomatic version of its M-16

machine gun, the standard U.S. military infantry rifle. The

gun industry introduced these semiautomatic versions of

military assault weapons in order to create and exploit new

civilian markets. More particularly, the industry found in

assault weapons a product to compensate for a slump in

handgun sales. Importers and manufacturers rushed copycats

and new models to market. By the end of the decade, a roster

of semiautomatic assault weapons had become household words,

boosted into daily language as much by their glamorization in

entertainment media as by their deadly toll on America's

streets. These guns included, among others, assault pistols

like the MAC-10, MAC-11, and TEC-9, the Ruger Mini-14 rifle,

and several versions of the Israeli Military Industries UZI.

No comprehensive statistics were available about the misuse

of the hundreds of thousands of assault weapons pouring onto

the Nation's streets. But by 1988 police departments and

other law enforcement agencies were often on the receiving

end of assault weapons firepower. Many of them demanded that

the federal government take action to stringently control or

ban semiautomatic assault weapons. In February 1988, for

example, Prince George's County (Maryland) Police Chief

Michael J. Flaherty stated, ``The real issue is the safety of

our officers.'' Holding up a TEC-9 assault pistol, he added,

``It's not used for hunting, and it's not used for sporting

events. In my opinion, they should not be sold in the United

States.''

In 1989 the federal government took a modest regulatory

step. At the urging of William J. Bennett, the director of

the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President

George H. W. Bush, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms (ATF) barred the import of a handful of specific

models, including AK-type and UZI assault rifles. The move

was based on a federal statute that effectively limits the

import of firearms to those that are ``generally recognized

as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting

purposes.'' This ``sporting purposes'' test does not apply to

domestically manufactured firearms, however. Law enforcement

officials quickly complained that the putative ban did not

reach many of the most dangerous weapons they faced,

including semiautomatic assault pistols made in the United

States (e.g., the MAC-10, MAC-11, and TEC-9, among others).

Although the Bush Administration claimed to have been

conducting a wide review with the goal of further regulation,

strong opposition by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and

the firearms industry squelched any further regulatory moves

by the Administration. Within a year, Bennett announced

himself opposed to any further regulation, declaring his

opposition at a February 1990 Senate hearing, stating, ``I

don't know a damn thing about guns!''

In 1994, President William J. Clinton signed the 1994

federal assault weapons ``ban.'' The law defined assault

weapons in two different ways--by a list of specific firearm

types, and by a generic description. Thus, the law

specifically named 19 types of guns (e.g., ``Norinco,

Mitchell and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs'') as

assault weapons covered by the putative ``ban.'' It also

generally defined as assault weapons semiautomatic firearms

that could accept a detachable magazine and had any two of a

list of specified design characteristics (e.g., bayonet

mount, folding stock). The 1994 law was deeply flawed. At the

outset it exempted millions of semiautomatic assault weapons

by ``grandfathering'' all such firearms legally owned as of

the date of enactment. For these guns, it was as if the law

had never been passed. They continued to be bought and sold,

many at gun shows where no questions are asked of prospective

buyers in nominally ``private'' sales. Moreover, some of the

design characteristics by which new production or imports

were to be defined as banned assault weapons were simply a

laundry list of superficial cosmetic features that had

nothing to do with the weapons' most deadly functional

features. The gun industry quickly and easily evaded the 1994

law by making slight, cosmetic changes to the supposedly

banned firearms. Gun manufacturers and importers soon openly

boasted of the ease with which they could circumvent the ban.

By the time the 1994 law expired (sunset) in 2004, there were

actually many more types and models of assault weapons

legally on the civilian market than before the law was

passed.

In April 1998 the Clinton Administration attempted to

staunch the flow of cosmetically redesigned foreign assault

weapons by strictly interpreting the ``sporting purposes''

test for imports. The action--taken independent of the 1994

law and intended to close the cosmetic redesign loophole for

imports--was reported to have blocked 58 types of assault

weapons, including in one swoop importation permits pending

at the time for as many as 1.6 million guns. Since this

administrative determination and action has never been

rescinded, it should have survived the expiration of the

broader 1994 assault weapons ban. However, there is

substantial evidence--including extensive gun industry

advertising--which compels the conclusion that the George W.

Bush Administration either ignored or effectively gutted

through administrative artifice the 1998 Clinton import

controls. This evidence includes the following facts.

There are numerous companies that appear to be importing

AK-47 and other assault weapons of the type clearly

prohibited by the import ban. The Russian American Armory

Company offers the Saiga rifle, an AK-47 variant that was one

of the guns specifically excluded from import under the 1998

Clinton rule. The Fabrique Nationale Herstal PS90 assault

rifle, a favorite of Mexican drug cartels, is manufactured in

Belgium and imported by the company's U.S. subsidiary, FN

USA, according to the company's catalogs and promotional

materials.

There seems to have been a substantial increase in the past

few years of assault weapons made primarily from imported

parts that skirt the import ban by incorporating a small,

minimum number of US-made parts into imported assault weapons

(27 C.F.R. Sec. 478.39 prohibits the assembly of a

semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun using more than 10

enumerated parts that are imported if the assembled firearm

is prohibited from importation under 18 USC 925(d)(3)).

ATF has further weakened the prohibition on imported

assault weapons by placing certain extremely problematic

assault rifles on the ``curios or relics'' list. Inclusion on

the ``curios or relics'' list makes a shotgun or rifle

automatically eligible for importation (18 USC

Sec. 925(e)(1)). The most problematic of these are certain

SKS assault rifles manufactured in Yugoslavia and Albania.

The SKS type assault rifle is the ``rifle most commonly

encountered by law enforcement'' according to ATF and is

frequently used to kill police officers. The Clinton

Administration specifically banned SKSs from China and Russia

from import through trade agreements because they are so

frequently involved in crime.

There are examples of firearms being imported that seem to

clearly fall outside of the ``sporting purposes'' test

articulated in 925(d)(3). For example, J&G Sales advertises

``Romanian AK Pistol[s]'' along with Romanian and Hungarian

AK-47 assault rifles.

For all practical purposes, it thus appears that the

federal government has abandoned all attempts to regulate

commerce in assault weapons into and within the United

States. As a result, an unknown but certainly substantial

number of foreign assault weapons poured into the United

States during the Bush Administration and continue to under

the Obama Administration. This is in addition to the enormous

number of firearms exempted from, or manufactured in easy

evasion of, the 1994 law. The only meaningful attempts at

regulating this flood of killing machines exist at the state

level. One outstanding example is California's assault

weapons ban, which has been hammered into an effective ban

after the now-predictable gun industry attempts to evade the

intent of the original law. Even California's law, however,

is undermined by the lack of a strong and effective federal

ban, allowing for out-of-state assault weapons to be

illegally trafficked into the state.

The current study. This study is a snapshot of the effect

of America's laissez-faire policy toward assault weapons.

Based on reports of assault weapons in the news over a two-

year span, it makes clear that assault weapons are frequently

used in crime and confiscated from criminals. Moreover, it

demonstrates that the number of incidents in which law

enforcement officers are reported to have been confronted

with assault weapons rose dramatically in the two-year period

monitored.

Section Two

Sources for This Analysis

The dearth of data. Firearms enjoy the dubious distinction

of being the only consumer product not subject to federal

public health and safety regulation. Moreover, there is no

national database tracking deaths and injuries from specific

types and models of firearms. And only the most rudimentary,

summary information is collected at any level about criminal

use of firearms. As a result, public policy analysts,

legislators, and public health and safety administrators must

make do with crude data and anecdotal analysis. This is

neither an accident nor a product of inattention. It is the

deliberate result of a coldly calculated long-term policy of

strangling information about guns and their public health

effects designed by the National Rifle Association and its

major client, the gun industry, and implemented by an all-

too-pliant Congress. The firearms industry and gun lobby know

that if as much data were available to the public about death

and injury resulting from firearms as is available about, for

example tires, toys, or Tacoma pick-up trucks, the gun lobby

would lose the public debate.

The Tiahrt Amendment. A blatant and crucial example of this

iron curtain surrounding information about the carnage and

criminality caused by firearms is a federal spending

prohibition known as the ``Tiahrt Amendment.''

For the past six fiscal years (2004 through 2010),

legislation making appropriations for ATF has contained

language severely restricting release of information about

guns traced to crime scenes contained in the agency's

Firearms Tracing System database. This restriction has become

known as the ``Tiahrt Amendment,'' after its principal

sponsor, Representative Todd Tiahrt of Kansas.

For many years, crime gun tracing data was publicly

available under the provisions of the Freedom of Information

Act (FOIA). It was an imperfect but extraordinarily useful

surrogate for a badly needed, but nonexistent, national

firearms and public health database and tracking system.

Crime gun tracing data was routinely used by city officials

and law enforcement agencies to determine the sources of

illegally trafficked firearms and to identify corrupt gun

dealers and the types of guns most often traced to crime. The

``Tiahrt Amendment'' cut off even this basic data. It

prohibits ATF from releasing any data contained in the

database, except in a limited fashion to individual law

enforcement agencies. There is also a prohibition on use of

the data in civil litigation.

Proponents of the ``Tiahrt'' restrictions claim that the

release of tracing data could interfere with ongoing law

enforcement investigations. However, prior to implementation

of the ``Tiahrt Amendment'' exemptions to the FOIA enabled

ATF to withhold any information that could interfere with law

enforcement investigations. The FOIA explicitly protects from

disclosure any information that would interfere with

enforcement or reveal confidential information. Moreover, ATF

compilations of tracing data (e.g., top 10 crime guns) bore

no conceivable relation to the compromise of any

investigation. The ``Tiahrt Amendment'' simply represents an

unwarranted and cynical restriction on public access to

information, enacted in the interest of protecting the gun

industry and acquiesced to by a Congress frightened by the

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

MR. HIGGINS of New York. Mr. Speaker, no technology advances more quickly in our society than the technology of killing. Every day, weapons of mass destruction are being made and manipulated to kill more people more quickly.

In Buffalo, New York, May 14, one shooter, a racist shooter, went into a supermarket on Jefferson Avenue and shot 13 people, killing 10 of them. The shooting started and was completed in 2 minutes and 3 seconds; one shooter.

I often heard it said that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. There was a good guy with a gun in the store that day that was working security; a retired 30-year-veteran of the Buffalo Police Department. But he was helpless because he was outgunned by the bad guy with the gun who had an assault rifle.

I thank Mr. Cicilline for his leadership on this issue, for his thoughtful approach to this, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

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

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

The previous speaker on the Republican side said that citizens must be able to meet the government with equal arms. The United States Government has hydrogen bombs. Does he think that every citizen ought to have a hydrogen bomb?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that assault weapons are the weapon of choice for mass shooters and those who target law enforcement. They are designed for ruthless efficiency, killing the most people in the shortest amount of time.

The gentleman from Ohio is right, I did say in the committee, ``Spare us the BS.'' I meant the Republican BS about the Constitution, about the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment is designed not to allow people to fight the government.

Do they want to take up arms against American troops? Is that what they say?

That is what they say. You saw what that did with the insurrection we had recently, and that was a mild case.

No, the Second Amendment is designed to allow for a well-regulated militia, which is to say in our day the National Guard.

The assault weapons ban would take the weapons of war off our streets and save countless lives, and that is why it is supported by all associations of police, the American Federation of Teachers, the American College of Physicians, the American Public Health Association, the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the Major Cities Chiefs Association. They know what they are doing.

The assault weapons ban would take these weapons of war off our streets. It would prevent more of the Uvaldes, more of the Parklands, more of the Tree of Life synagogues.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of Amendment 159, which would increase and decreases funding from the Office of the DOI Secretary by $4,000,000. The intent of Amendment 159 is to increase the funding of the DOI's 9/11 Memorial Act Grant Program for FY2023 from $4 million to $8 million.

Authorized by Congress with the passing of the bipartisan 9/11 Memorial Act in 2018 and signed into law in 2019, the program provides funding for the operation, security, and maintenance of a memorial commemorating the victims of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and United Flight 93 on September 11, 2001, and the victims of the attack on the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993. Awardees are selected for their extraordinary commitment to honoring the lives lost on 9/11, and those who risked their own lives to save others.

We have endeavored, as a Nation, to ensure that the 9/11 Memorials continue to stand as places of reflection and remembrance for every American. Every generation should know the tragic events of that Tuesday morning and the heroism of those who rushed back to the burning Pentagon and onto the pile at Ground Zero to put out fires, search for survivors, clear debris, and rebuild for months and years. The funding provided by the 9/11 Memorial Act Grant Program is critical to ensuring that memorials--like the acre-wide reflecting pools in the footprint of the Twin Towers in New York and the solemn benches marking each life lost on the grounds of the Pentagon--continue to provide sacred and inspiring spots accessible to millions of visitors for decades to come.

I urge my colleagues to vote Yea on Bipartisan En Bloc 7 and final passage of H.R. 8294.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1232, 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, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days 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, H.R. 8404 the Respect for Marriage Act would reaffirm that marriage equality is, and must remain, the law of the land.

Over the past several decades, millions of LGBTQ people in loving and supportive relationships have married and formed families, particularly after the Supreme Court ruled, in Obergefell v. Hodges, that the Constitution protects marriage equality.

An estimated 2 million children are being raised by LGBTQ families today. An enormous body of research shows that stable and loving families are the foundation for children's well-being and success, and children do best when their families have the critical legal protections to care for one another.

Thankfully, marriage equality remains constitutionally protected, and there is no indication that it will be overturned in the foreseeable future. It is--and should forever be considered--settled law.

Nonetheless, the Supreme Court's recent position in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, which extinguished the constitutional right to abortion, has raised concerns among some people that other rights rooted in the constitutional right to privacy may be at risk, notwithstanding the Court's assurance that Dobbs was limited to abortion. This includes the right to marriage equality.

In fact, in a concurring opinion in Dobbs, Justice Clarence Thomas explicitly called on the Court to reconsider its decisions protecting other fundamental rights, including the right to same-sex marriage. And although Justice Thomas did not mention the right to interracial marriage, that right relies on the same constitutional doctrines as the right to same-sex marriage, and, therefore, it could be vulnerable to a legal challenge in the future as well.

Even if we accept the Court's assurance in Dobbs that its decision does not call other rights into question, Congress should provide additional reassurance that marriage equality is a

matter of settled law. All married people who are building their lives together must know that the government will respect and recognize their marriages--for all time.

The Respect for Marriage Act, which I introduced with the co-chairs of the LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus, the chairs of the Congressional Tri- Caucus, and the House Democratic Caucus chair, Hakeem Jeffries, is an updated version of the bill that I first introduced in 2009.

The first provision would repeal the odious Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA--the 1996 law that discriminates against married same-sex couples. While that law was ruled unconstitutional, it remains on the books, and it must be removed.

The bill would also enshrine marriage equality for Federal law purposes and would ensure that States give full legal effect to valid out-of-state marriages regardless of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of the individuals in the marriage.

This legislation would provide additional stability for the lives that families have built upon the foundation of our fundamental rights. Congress must pass the Respect for Marriage Act to dispel any concern or any uncertainty for families worried by the implications of the Dobbs decision. And it must pass the Respect for Marriage Act to enshrine in law the equality and liberty that our Constitution guarantees.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), the chair of the Equality Caucus and a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, much of what the prior two speakers said was absolute nonsense. Some was true.

Unfortunately, pregnancy crisis centers have been the targets of terrorism, and that is deplorable. But so have abortion clinics. They didn't mention that. Abortion clinics have also been the targets of terrorism.

The murder of Dr. Bernard Slepian comes to mind. That is equally deplorable, and we should stop both of them if we can.

The rest of what they said was nonsense.

The Supreme Court logic, the substantive due process logic by which the Court overthrew Roe v. Wade, applies equally to Obergefell, to Loving, and to Lawrence, in other words, to the right to contraception, to the right to gay marriage, and to the right to interracial marriage, for that matter.

Justice Thomas mentioned all that specifically. Yes, he said, this case doesn't involve that. We are not deciding that yet, which is the portion of his concurrence that Mr. Johnson read, but read the rest of his concurrence where he said specifically that we should overrule or reconsider Obergefell and Lawrence, which is gay marriage, which is consensual sodomy.

He didn't mention Loving, though, for some reason, which is interracial marriage. Maybe the fact that he is intermarried and so is Senator McConnell had something to do with it. But the same logic applies there, so that is not nonsense.

Note that they offered no argument against this bill at all. We didn't hear anything about the merits of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Much of what the gentleman from Texas just said was irrelevant; but he made one correct point. He said that the bill before us today codifies Obergefell. It does, and if Obergefell is not overruled by the Supreme Court, it is not necessary, but it is also not harmful.

If Obergefell is overruled by the Supreme Court, as Justice Thomas hints it might be, then passing this bill becomes vital.

And as to recognizing marriage in one State or another State, obviously, if you get married in Texas and you go to Nevada, you don't get unmarried. You can't be married in one State and not in another State.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia).

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court, in the Obergefell decision, reversed the actions of the people in those 30 or 35 States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Jones), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York, (Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the Respect for Marriage Act provides additional stability for the millions of American married couples and families that have ordered their lives around the constitutional guarantee of marriage equality. It has nothing to do with attacks on abortion clinics. It has nothing to do with attacks on so-called pregnancy crisis centers. It has to do with marriage.

This legislation repeals an unconstitutional and discriminatory statute that the Court has effectively rendered inoperative, but which remains on the books. It is time to appeal this abhorrent law and fix the mistake that Congress made a generation ago while we reinforce and cement current law.

As I pointed out before, the Obergefell decision is a decision of the Supreme Court. If that decision is not overturned, this bill is unnecessary but harmless. If that decision is overturned, this bill is crucial, and we don't know what this Court is going to do. Despite what Justice Alito said, Justice Thomas suggested that the decision on gay marriage ought to be overruled.

We have seen this Court overrule other precedent in Dobbs, so who can be confident that the Court will not overturn the Lawrence decision or, rather, the Obergefell decision? Who can be confident of that? The answer is no one.

As to the gentleman from Ohio's comment that the people in, I think he said, 33 States or whatever have decided that gay marriage should not be, and it should be up to the people of each State, that is absurd. And that is why we have one of the provisions of this bill. You can't be married in Texas and not be married in New York or vice versa. You can't lose your marriage status by crossing a State line.

This legislation is very necessary to make sure that people have the right to remain married, that gay couples have the right to get married, have the right to stay married, and that is why leading national organizations have endorsed the bill, including the ACLU,

the Equality Federation, Family Equality Council, Freedom for All Americans, GLAAD, the Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the National Black Justice Coalition, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the National Women's Law Center, and PFLAG. They know what is going on. They know what is at stake.

Mr. Speaker, this is a long overdue bill. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 8297, the Ensuring Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act.

The Supreme Court's disastrous decision in Dobbs to overturn Roe v. Wade has exacerbated what was an already dire crisis in abortion care access--one that threatens to undermine women's equality and health.

In the wake of the Dobbs decision, State legislatures across the country are moving to ban abortion outright. As if that wasn't draconian enough, some States are also passing laws targeting people who help others obtain an abortion. This includes the notorious Texas law, SB8, which permits any person to collect a $10,000 bounty by suing someone who ``aids or abets an abortion.''

Not content to strip women of their bodily autonomy and equality in their own States, some State legislatures are now contemplating efforts to inhibit the ability of women to travel out-of-state to obtain lawful healthcare, including by threatening their friends, families, or even employers with legal action.

H.R. 8297 would put State legislatures considering such laws on notice by providing additional Federal legal protections that reaffirm and enhance enforcement of the constitutional right to interstate travel, which includes travel to obtain legal healthcare services like an abortion.

This legislation is not enough. Many people, a disproportionate number from

communities of color, do not have the option of traveling across State lines because they lack the resources to bear the costs of out-of-state travel, which include the related costs of childcare, lodging, or time off from work.

That is why it is essential that we also pass H.R. 8296, the Women's Health Protection Act of 2022, which would protect the right to abortion nationwide. The House has already passed this bill, but the Senate Republicans have twice blocked its passage. This is unacceptable. We must do everything we can to ensure protection of abortion access in a post-Roe world.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on both H.R. 8297 and H.R. 8296.

But this is not enough either. We face a radical Supreme Court deliberately packed with extremists by a plot by the Federalist Society, by Mitch McConnell, and by Donald Trump to pack the Supreme Court with extremists who have no regard for our liberties and who will destroy every liberty we have if we don't do something about it. That is why Congressman Johnson, Congressman Jones, Senator Markey, and I have introduced legislation to unpack the Supreme Court by increasing the number of Justices by four.