Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1224, I call up the bill (H.R. 6538) to create an Active Shooter Alert Communications Network, 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 include extraneous material on H.R. 6538.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6538, the Active Shooter Alert Act, is bipartisan legislation that would improve the tools available to law enforcement as they respond to the disturbingly frequent threat of active shooters faced by our communities.

Far too many of our cities have experienced the threat of an active shooter situation. Since we last voted on this very bill--only a few weeks ago--Highland Park became the most recent city to face the terror of a mass shooting, following Buffalo, Uvalde, and so many others.

In 2021, the FBI designated 61 situations as active shooter incidents, a more than 50 percent increase compared to 2020, and nearly double the number of such incidents just 4 years ago.

These incidents require law enforcement to make challenging decisions about how best to keep the public safe, including when and how to inform the public as a situation unfolds. FEMA, the FCC, and wireless providers already have a system in place to send time-sensitive, location-targeted alerts for weather emergencies, AMBER Alerts for child abduction cases, and other public safety emergencies.

This bill simply enables law enforcement to use this system for active shooter alerts, giving them an additional tool to save lives. It is bipartisan legislation and should be completely uncontroversial.

Indeed, our colleagues overwhelmingly supported this legislation when we last voted on it, but the opposition of a few Members prevented it from garnering the two-thirds support it needed to pass under suspension of the rules. Those Members in opposition have made absurd claims about the bill--instead of examining what it actually does--but we won't take the bait.

Instead, we are listening to our law enforcement and first responders who have called for this legislation. Today, we are taking action to save lives when tragedy strikes. We will continue to do much more to actually prevent these tragedies, but the least we can do is to improve the tools we give law enforcement to respond to a crisis. That is what this bill does.

H.R. 6538, the Active Shooter Alert Act, directs the attorney general to appoint a coordinator to work with Federal, State, local, and Tribal Governments to better use our existing emergency alert system for active shooter situations.

It directs the coordinator to establish an advisory panel, comprised of law enforcement officers who have responded to active shooter incidents, along with other public safety and emergency response experts.

The coordinator is also directed to establish best practices for using emergency alerts for active shooter incidents, to promote the adoption of those best practices, and to report to Congress on the effectiveness of these alerts. This bipartisan legislation is endorsed by a broad range of Federal, State, and local law enforcement organizations.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Cicilline for his work in developing this important legislation, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting it once again, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee and sponsor of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say that if the theater across street were on fire, I would like to know about it. Fires spread.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), one of the sponsors of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from South Carolina (Ms. Mace).

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

There is a reason that this bipartisan legislation is endorsed by the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the National Association of Police Organizations, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Policing Institute, the National Sheriffs' Association, the National District Attorneys Association, and several State and local law enforcement organizations.

When tragedy strikes--and unfortunately we know that it will strike again--we want our law enforcement and first responders to have all the tools they need to keep our communities safe. We want our people to have the warnings that they need, just as with the AMBER Alert system.

I urge my colleagues to stand with law enforcement and to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1204, I call up the bill (S. 2938) to designate the United States Courthouse and Federal Building located at 111 North Adams Street in Tallahassee, Florida, as the ``Joseph Woodrow Hatchett United States Courthouse and Federal Building'', and for other purposes, with the Senate amendments to the House amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on S. 2938.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not comment on the decision of the Supreme Court, just minutes ago, to revoke the constitutional right to abortion, a right that millions of Americans have relied upon for half a century.

Worse, Justice Thomas has indicated that this is merely the beginning of a radical, rightwing effort to roll back other rights, including the right to contraception, the right to marry whomever we choose, and the fundamental right to privacy.

We should observe that the same Justices telling us today that questions about reproductive rights must be left to the States, told us just yesterday that the States cannot be trusted to regulate modern firearms, weapons that were never dreamed of by the Framers of the Second Amendment. History will prove these activists wrong on both counts.

But today, Mr. Speaker, we take a historic first step toward ending the epidemic of gun violence in this Nation, the only developed Nation with this problem.

We come to this moment after the tragic loss of so many innocent lives: 10 African Americans in Buffalo, targeted because of their race; 19 young students and 2 teachers in Uvalde, just a few days short of their summer vacations; scores more lost in other mass shootings too numerous to mention; and over 100 more Americans killed every day in gun violence that never makes the headlines.

No piece of legislation can ever bring these lives back. No legislation can make their families or their communities whole. But we can act to keep others from facing the same trauma they have endured.

A few weeks ago, I was proud to bring forth the Protecting Our Kids Act,

which took a bipartisan and comprehensive approach to ending gun violence. I am pleased that the Senate incorporated portions of that bill into their own legislation.

I wish there was more. I wish we could say we were doing everything we could to prevent another parent from losing their child to gun violence, but I am proud to be making an important start today.

This cannot be the last step, but we also cannot let another day go by without taking action to make our communities safer and to keep even one more family whole.

Recently, I have turned to a particular teaching in the Talmud:

Whoever takes one life, it is as if he kills the entire

world; and whoever saves one life, it is as if he saves the

entire world.

This legislation includes provisions that will save many lives. Like the Protecting Our Kids Act, it includes funding to implement extreme risk protection laws and the prohibition on straw purchasing. It also strengthens background checks for those under 21, makes more sellers responsible for conducting background checks, takes steps to address the boyfriend loophole, and provides significant funding for programs that will make our communities safer.

Today, we will send legislation to the President's desk, for the first time in decades, that will make progress toward ending the scourge of gun violence.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, 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 1 minute to the distinguished 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 yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the previous speaker refers to using guns to protect tyranny, he is talking--whether he realizes it or not-- about stopping tyranny by turning those weapons against American troops.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), who is the chairman of the Gun Violence Task Force.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

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

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. Kelly).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Jersey (Ms. Sherrill).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke), from the great Empire State.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the difference between this country and other countries is only that in this country do we have mass shootings and mass murders of children. No other country has them.

We know from the experience in New Jersey, as Ms. Sherrill told us, that when we pass strong gun control legislation, we can greatly reduce the number of children and adults shot.

We hear from the other side of the aisle, ``No, we don't want to do that.'' They are right: This legislation is the beginning.

This legislation is not perfect. It is a bipartisan compromise. It is not nearly what we should do. It is not nearly what the House did, but it is a beginning. It is a beginning in saving lives in this country.

Anyone who stands in its way is standing in the way of saving lives in this country. I will not allow myself or anyone I associate with to stand in the way of saving lives, many lives.

Again, I remind you, this is the only country that has it, and it is not because we have more mentally ill than other countries. It is because we do not have the gun control laws that other countries do.

Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to vote for this bill as a good beginning, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise to thank Jordan Dashow for his service to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Jordan received his bachelor's degree from Tufts University and began his career in public policy as a Legislative Assistant with the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism. After a further three years of civil and human rights advocacy as a Federal Policy Manager with the Human Rights Campaign, Jordan joined the Judiciary Committee as a Professional Staff Member in 2019.

Jordan supported the full committee's senior staff and me directly. As part of my administrative team, Jordan innovated and systematized many areas of personnel management. Over time, Jordan's duties grew to include helping me prepare for the weekly meeting of Committee Chairs. He contributed to countless projects with keen research, writing, and policy analysis.

Jordan also worked closely with the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. Building on his past experience with the legislation as an advocate, Jordan contributed significantly to our work on the Equality Act which passed the House both in the previous Congress and this Congress. Jordan also supported the Subcommittee's efforts on reproductive rights issues, church and state issues, and anti-Muslim and anti-Asian discrimination issues. Reflecting our high regard for his work, Jordan assisted Counsel in preparing Committee Members for the markup of the PRESS Act and wrote the initial draft of the committee report for the CROWN Act.

Finally, Jordan played an integral role in the growth and development of our Committee internship program, an essential source of substantive support for myself and the Committee staff. As a coordinator of the program, Jordan successfully advocated for interns to receive pay, well before that became the norm, and managed professional development programming such as detailed orientations and our weekly Intern Speaker Series. Furthermore, Jordan always worked to ensure that my commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion was reflected in our intern hiring practices and culture. He is already remembered as a determined advocate and committed mentor by the many classes of interns that he shepherded through our Committee, and I am grateful to Jordan for helping make our internship program one of the strongest on Capitol Hill.

For three years, I have been fortunate to count Jordan among my staff. I, and the American people, have greatly benefited from his passion for public service, his intellect, and his commitment to excellence. Jordan has all the qualities of an excellent staffer and the clear potential to be a great lawyer when he graduates from Georgetown Law in the coming years. We will greatly miss Jordan as he embarks on the next chapter of his career on Capitol Hill.

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1153, I call up the bill (H.R. 2377) to authorize the issuance of extreme risk protection orders, 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 H.R. 2377.

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

Madam Speaker, over the past several weeks, we have watched in horror as gun violence has touched communities across the country and dozens of people, young and old, have lost their lives. The details of each case may differ, each tragic in its own way, but there is one theme that comes up most often; someone deeply troubled, experiencing some sort of crisis, had easy access to firearms. And all too often, the warning signs were clear, but nothing was done to keep guns out of their hands before it was too late.

H.R. 2377, the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, provides a sensible means by which someone who is exhibiting dangerous behavior can be prevented from possessing or purchasing firearms before tragedy strikes.

This legislation, introduced by Representative Lucy McBath, authorizes Federal courts to issue an extreme risk protection order, or ERPO, temporarily removing firearms from a person in crisis and preventing them from purchasing firearms. This only occurs after the court determines that there is evidence demonstrating that the person poses an imminent danger of injuring himself, herself, or others.

The bill also includes legislation by Representative Salud Carbajal, which provides funding to States to enact ERPO statutes of their own.

We know that extreme risk laws save lives. We have witnessed their effectiveness in State after State, beginning in 2016, when California passed the first such law. Since then, 18 other States and the District of Columbia have enacted similar laws.

An analysis of the first 3 years of California's extreme risk law found

that these orders were used for 58 mass shooting threats, including six in which a minor threatened to target a school.

These orders were also used in response to 82 threats of suicide, and they worked. No suicides occurred among individuals who were subject to the orders.

Federal courts have long been bastions of due process and, accordingly, this legislation includes strong due process provisions that strike the appropriate balance between protecting the rights of the gun owner and ensuring community safety. Every court that has reviewed laws similar to this bill has found that the procedural safeguards are sufficient.

And as then-Seventh Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett wrote, ``History is consistent with common sense: It demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns.''

Madam Speaker, the Constitution does not require us to wait until lives are lost.

As we address the scourge of gun violence, a blight that killed 45,000 Americans in 2020 alone, let us remember that there are no perfect solutions. We are painfully aware that we cannot do enough to save every life, and there is no one answer that will solve this problem.

But we do know that taking guns out of the hands of people who pose a danger to themselves or others would save countless lives. This legislation would take meaningful steps to prevent gun violence tragedies in our communities while, at the same time, protecting the due process of rights of those individuals in crisis.

I thank Representatives McBath and Carbajal for their leadership on this issue. I urge all Members to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath), the sponsor of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an extra 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a June 7, 2022, Washington Post article titled ``No, red-flag gun laws don't violate due process rights.''

[From the Washington Post]

No, Red-Flag Gun Laws Don't Violate Due Process Rights

such laws, also known as `extreme-risk protection orders,' are popular and are embraced by some republican politicians. but some gun-rights

activists say they violate the fifth and fourteenth amendments.

(Perspective by Joseph Blocher and Jake Charles, June 7, 2022)

``Red flag'' laws, which allow guns to be temporarily taken

from people who pose a risk of harm to themselves or others,

are one of the few gun-safety regulations that currently have

bipartisan support. ``Tm generally inclined to think some

kind of red-flag law is a good idea,'' Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)

said last week, after the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas.

Key senators have told reporters it's possible an agreement

could be reached this week on legislation that would include

a provision incentivizing more states to pass such laws.

There is strong popular support for red-flag laws--also

known as extreme-risk laws--in both parties, and more than a

dozen states have adopted them in the past few years alone

(bringing the total to 19 plus the District of Columbia).

Social science research suggests that they work, most

strikingly in preventing gun suicides.

So what prevents their wider adoption, including at the

federal level? Some gun-rights advocates and their allies in

Congress say they violate the due process clauses of the

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. ``Depriving citizens of

Life, Liberty, or Property, without Due Process, is a clear

violation of our Constitution,'' Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.)

tweeted last week. ``Every member of Congress swears an oath

to `support and defend' the Constitution. Voting for, or

introducing, Red Flag Laws is a blatant violation of that

oath.''

But such criticisms are off base. Politicians considering

red-flag laws, whether in Congress or state legislatures,

should do so based on an accurate understanding of what the

Constitution requires. It indeed guarantees ``due process of

law'' whenever the government seeks to deprive a person of

``life, liberty, or property.'' But the basic design of

existing extreme-risk laws is fully consistent with

constitutional commands, as we showed in a recent law review

article.

In the states where they exist, here's how red-flag laws

work: A limited set of people--law enforcement officers,

family or household members, and sometimes others--can

petition a judge to issue an ``extreme-risk protection

order'' (ERPO) requiring a person to temporarily surrender

his or her firearms and refrain from acquiring new ones.

Depending on the state, the burden of proof the petitioner

must meet (to establish that the gun owner indeed presents a

risk) varies from ``probable cause'' to ``clear and

convincing'' evidence. If the petition is successful, the

court can enter a short-term emergency ERPO, usually lasting

two weeks or less. In many cases, that's all that is needed--

the crisis can be averted. A longer-term ERPO can only be

entered after a full hearing at which the petitioner again

bears the burden of proof, usually at a higher threshold, and

at which the gun owner can contest the order.

If there is a constitutional flaw in this basic structure,

it has apparently escaped notice of the entire United States

judiciary: Courts have unanimously rejected Second Amendment

and due process challenges to ERPO laws, and for good reason.

Perhaps surprisingly, the Second Amendment has not been the

focus of the constitutional complaints. That's because even

ardent Second Amendment defenders like Justice Amy Coney

Barrett recognize that ``legislatures have the power to

prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns''--as Barrett

wrote in 2019 case, when she was a judge on the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Courts reviewing extreme-

risk laws have upheld them on that very basis. In 2016, for

example, a Connecticut appellate court relied on U.S. Supreme

Court precedent in holding that Connecticut's statute ``does

not implicate the second amendment, as it does not restrict

the right oflawabiding, responsible citizens to use arms in

defense of their homes.''

The crux of the political debate has therefore focused on

due process--although due-process challenges to red-flag laws

have fared no better. Nor should they have. A prime complaint

about red-flag laws is that they allow an order to issue

before the gun owner has an opportunity to contest the

evidence, but the Supreme Court has long recognized that

there are ``extraordinary situations where some valid

governmental interest is at stake that justifies postponing

the hearing until after the event,'' as Justice John Marshall

Harlan II wrote in a 1971 case. Examples include restraining

orders filed by one domestic partner against another, civil

commitments for mental illness and the temporary removal of

children from parental custody in emergency situations (for

instance, when there are credible allegations of abuse). In

situations like these, delaying urgent action until after a

full hearing can lead to catastrophic outcomes.

Given that the Constitution allows emergency action to

temporarily remove a person's child before a full hearing,

it's hard to argue that it prohibits emergency action to

temporarily remove a person's guns. Quite simply, the

Constitution does not require society to wait until the

trigger is pulled.

Though they vary in their particulars, existing extreme-

risk laws contain several important procedural safeguards

that the Supreme Court has recognized help to forestall abuse

and ensure due process. They impose the burden on the

petitioner to convince an independent third party; they

guarantee active judicial oversight and provide a prompt

hearing focusing on the degree of risk; and many states

provide specific criminal penalties for filing false or

harassing extreme-risk petitions (in addition to existing

punishments for perjury).

Understanding constitutional requirements is important not

only for lawyers and judges, but for those debating gun

regulation in public discourse. Time and again, arguments

based on misunderstandings of the Constitution have been used

to derail reasonable gun regulation. After Sandy Hook, for

example, an overwhelming majority of Americans wanted to

expand the existing system of background checks for gun

sales. Of the minority opposed--some strongly so--the most

common reason was that doing so would violate the Second

Amendment, yet that position has no support in legal

doctrine.

We should not once again make the mistake of blaming the

Constitution for inaction on gun laws. The structure of

extreme-risk laws is entirely consistent with not only the

Second Amendment but also the consitutional guarantee of due

process.

Madam Speaker, I want to excoriate as absolute nonsense, pernicious nonsense, what we just heard from Mr. Johnson, from Mrs. Lesko, and what I presume we will hear for the rest of the debate on this bill.

Red flag laws are in effect in 19 States and the District of Columbia. Every court that has considered them has found them constitutional. Every court has said that they meet the requirements of procedural due process--every single court.

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

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

Republican speakers obviously have more regard for their politics and for the National Rifle Association than they do for the lives of our children. We see that every moment here, when they keep repeating the words that this is unconstitutional, when courts in 18 States and the District of Columbia have found them constitutional, and Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, on the 7th Circuit, said: History is consistent with common sense. It demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns.

So I don't think we should hear lectures on Democrats don't care about due process. We do. We also care about children's lives.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), chairman of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force.

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

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

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on each side?

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, extreme risk laws save lives, it is that simple. Ultimately, that is what this debate should be about--saving lives. This legislation strikes a proper balance between protecting the due process rights of people in crisis and preventing tragedy by ensuring that those who pose an imminent danger to themselves or others do not have access to firearms.

Madam Speaker, this debate has been surreal. Every court that has considered the question has concluded that red flag laws afford proper due process and are constitutional. We already know that extreme risk laws work, but less than half the States have those laws in effect.

Madam Speaker, let us pass this legislation today, so we can bring access to this life-savings tool nationwide. We know it is not enough. We know we need all the provisions of the bill we passed yesterday, and we should bring back the assault weapons ban. But what we cannot do should not block us from doing what we can do. We can save thousands of lives annually, so let us begin.

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1153, I call up the bill (H.R. 7910) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for an increased age limit on the purchase of certain firearms, prevent gun trafficking, modernize the prohibition on untraceable firearms, encourage the safe storage of firearms, and for other purposes, 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 H.R. 7910.

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

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

Madam Speaker, our Nation has been through trying times these last few weeks as we have tried to process the mass shootings in Buffalo, Uvalde, Tulsa, and all too many other cities. Just this past weekend, we learned of yet another horrific incident in Philadelphia and yet more carnage in Tennessee, Arizona, Virginia, and South Carolina. And those are just the stories we saw in the news.

Day after day, we see more lives lost to gun violence in our schools, on our streets, in our houses of worship, and in our homes, touching every region of the country. And we hear the urgent calls from our constituents crying out for us to take action. Today, we heed that call.

H.R. 7910, the Protecting Our Kids Act, is comprehensive legislation to address the scourge of gun violence, a blight that killed nearly 45,000 Americans in 2020 alone.

It builds on the work of several of our colleagues, including:

Anthony Brown's Raise the Age Act, which would raise the lawful age to purchase an AR-15 styled semiautomatic assault rifle from 18 to 21 years old;

Robin Kelly's Prevent Gun Trafficking Act, which would establish new Federal offenses for gun trafficking and straw purchasing;

David Cicilline's Untraceable Firearms Act, which would ensure that ghost guns are subject to existing Federal firearms regulations;

A trio of gun storage proposals--Rosa DeLauro's Ethan's Law, Elissa Slotkin's Safe Guns, Safe Kids Act, and Sheila Jackson Lee's Kimberly Vaughan Firearms Safe Storage Act--which would establish storage regulations that keep guns out of the hands of children and award grants for firearm storage assistance programs;

Dina Titus' Closing the Bump Stock Loophole Act, which would build on existing regulations banning the manufacture, sale, or possession of bump stocks for civilian use;

And Ted Deutch's Keep Americans Safe Act, which would ban the sale, manufacture, and illegal possession of gun magazines that hold more than 15 rounds of ammunition.

I thank each of them for their contributions to this bill and for making this country safer for all Americans.

Madam Speaker, all of us in this Chamber were shaken by the images of parents in Uvalde standing in line to match their DNA to the remains of their 9- and 10-year-old children, parents who should be picking up their children from school right now but who, instead, are picking up the pieces of their lives shattered by this unimaginable loss.

But the question today is: Who among us will have the courage to do something about it? Who will be able to tell mothers and fathers that their children need not go to school in a fortress just to keep them safe? Who will be able to tell children that they did all they could today to ensure that their parents will return safely from the supermarket or their office or an evening out? Who will be able to tell their constituents that they stood with them and not with the gun lobby?

Americans are watching. They are begging us to protect them and their loved ones from gun violence. Who among us will answer their call?

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this Protecting Our Kids Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a cosponsor of the bill and the chairman of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article dated May 31, 2022, from The New York Times titled ``California has America's Toughest Gun Laws, and They Work.''

[From the New York Times, May 31, 2022]

California Has America's Toughest Gun Laws, and They Work

(By Shawn Hubler)

The grotesque toll of gun violence is again being debated

in Congress. As Luis Ferre-Sadurni and I reported over the

long weekend, states are not holding their breath.

Particularly this state: In ways that have tended to be

underreported, California has significantly lowered gun

deaths, Dr. Garen J. Wintemute, an emergency room doctor and

longtime firearm violence researcher, told me this week.

``For the last 20, maybe even 25 years--except for the two

years of the pandemic, which have increased homicides and

suicides across the country--our rates of firearm violence

have trended downward,'' said Dr. Wintemute, who directs the

Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of

California, Davis, Medical Center in Sacramento. ``And this

has been at a time when most of the rates in the rest of the

country have gone up.''

California's rate of firearm mortality is among the

nation's lowest, with 8.5 gun deaths per 100,000 people in

2020, compared with 13.7 per 100,000 nationally and 14.2 per

100,000 in Texas, the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention has reported. And Californians are about 25

percent less likely to die in mass shootings, compared with

residents of other states, according to a recent Public

Policy Institute of California analysis.

I asked Dr. Wintemute how California is different. Here's a

lightly edited excerpt from our conversation, which took

place on Memorial Day after his emergency room shift:

Just a couple of weeks ago, California had a mass shooting.

By what measures are our policies a success?

You have to look at it on a population basis. We do have

more mass shootings in California, but we're also by far the

largest state. I looked a while ago at the rates of firearm

violence across the 21st century--homicide and suicide

together--and the rest of the country was up, but

California's rates were so far down that the average was

flat.

We always hear that nothing works, that even California's

strict gun laws are ineffective.

That's because we evaluate policies one at a time, in

isolation. The results for one policy might be mixed or even

negative. But what California has done over a number of

decades has been to enact a whole bundle of policies that I

think work in synergy, to measurable effect.

It sounds like the ``Swiss cheese model'' public health

experts have used to address Covid.

Yes. The idea is to prevent the holes in the policies from

lining up. But if we rank the states, California's rate of

firearm violence ranks 29th out of 50 states for homicides

and 44th for suicides.

Can you share some examples?

California has done a lot to prevent high-risk people from

purchasing firearms. We've broadened the criteria for keeping

guns out of the hands of people who pose a danger to

themselves or others due to mental illness. If you're

convicted of a violent misdemeanor in California, you can't

have a gun for the next 10 years; that offense has to be a

felony in most states.

We require background checks, and not just from licensed

retailers; in most states, purchases from private parties

require no background checks or record keeping of any kind.

We have a system, that we're evaluating now, for getting guns

back from ``prohibited persons''--people who have been

convicted of violent crimes or who are facing domestic

violence restraining orders. And we enforce these policies,

unlike a lot of other states.

What else?

In the early 1990s, cheap handguns--``Saturday Night

Specials''--were almost entirely manufactured around Los

Angeles. It was a few companies making upward of 800,000

cheap handguns a year. So the state imposed standards for

design and safety. One of the companies has since gone to

Nevada. The rest went belly-up and no one else has come in to

fill the gap.

What about gaps?

Every time California sets a new standard, the gun industry

tries to outwit it. Unregulated ghost guns have become

immensely popular here, precisely because we're such a

tightly regulated market. And the state program to recover

guns from prohibited people has never had the level of

funding it needs to do the whole job--there are only about 40

trained agents for the whole state and a backlog of at least

10,000 people whose guns need to be taken.

Overall, what could the rest of the country learn from

California?

The lower the prevalence of ownership, the lower the rate

of firearm violence--that's been one of the most robust

research findings for decades. Rates of gun ownership are

lower here, in part because of this bundle of state measures.

In the United States overall, something like 25 percent to 30

percent of individuals own guns. In California, it's about 15

percent to 18 percent.

Madam Speaker, the evidence doesn't lie. California's rate of firearm mortality is among the Nation's lowest, with 8.5 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 2020, compared with 13.7 per 100,000 nationally and 14.2 per 100,000 in Texas. Gun safety laws work. It is that simple.

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

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

Madam Speaker, how much time remains on each side.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath), a member of the Judiciary Committee who knows the tragedy of gun violence personally.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown).

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Manning).

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 10 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a May 27, 2022, piece from CNN titled ``States with weaker gun laws have higher rates of firearm related homicides and suicides, study finds.''

[From CNN, May 27, 2022]

States With Weaker Gun Laws Have Higher Rates of Firearm Related

Homicides and Suicides, Study Finds

(By Emma Tucker and Priya Krishnakumar)

A new study published Thursday by a leading non-profit

organization that focuses on gun violence prevention found

that there is a direct correlation in states with weaker gun

laws and higher rates of gun deaths, including homicides,

suicides and accidental killings.

The study by Everytown for Gun Safety determined that

California had the strongest gun laws in the country. Hawaii

topped the list with the lowest rate of gun deaths in the

country while Mississippi led the country with both the

weakest gun laws and highest rate of gun deaths.

``What this project does, is show what we've been saying

for years: Gun laws save lives,'' said Nick Suplina, senior

vice president of law and policy at Everytown for Gun Safety

Support Fund. ``We think this is going to be a really

important tool for lawmakers, reporters and advocates that

have been looking for the kind of visual tool that can make

that case clearly.''

To compile its list, the group used data from the Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention, looked at each state's

rate of gun deaths in 2020 and compared those rates with 50

policies that they say are scientifically proven to be

effective in preventing gun violence, Suplina said.

The research team then weighed the list of gun safety

policies based on their efficacy, ranked each state on its

implementation of those policies and compared that score with

the rates of gun deaths in each state, he said.

The CDC's data includes homicides, accidental killings and

suicides committed by guns. According to the CDC, over 45,000

people in the United States were killed with a firearm in

2020--more than half died by suicide.

The analysis, first reported by CNN, put California at the

top of the list for gun law strength--a composite score of

84.5 out of 100, with one of the lowest rates of gun deaths

per 100,000 residents, at 8.5 out of 30 and below the

national average of 13.6. Hawaii has the lowest rate of gun

deaths in the country with the second strongest gun law

score. It also has the lowest rate of gun ownership, with

firearms in 9 percent of households, the data shows.

As state legislatures begin to convene for their 2022

legislative sessions, lawmakers will consider a breadth of

bills that either loosen or expand gun protections across

various states.

``I have seen firsthand in California that the work we have

done to strengthen gun laws has been both life-saving and

effective,'' said Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA). chair of the

House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force. ``Gun laws work,

and we need them across the board to ensure that felons,

domestic abusers, and those with mental health issues can't

simply go to the next state over to circumvent the very laws

meant to keep guns out of their hands.''

CNN has reached out to the National Rifle Association (NRA)

to comment on the research, but it declined to do so before

seeing the data.

Mississippi has the weakest gun laws with a score of 3 out

of 100 and has the highest rate of gun deaths per 100,000

residents--28.6 out of 30, the research shows.

Massachusetts has adopted 37 of the 50 policies and has the

second-lowest rate of

gun deaths, while Missouri has only eight of the gun safety

policies and the fourth highest rate of gun deaths in the US.

Louisiana and Wyoming are among the top five states with the

highest gun deaths and the weakest gun safety laws.

``Lawmakers in the states at the bottom can't pretend to be

ignorant about the importance of gun laws after looking at

this report,'' said Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand

Action, which has been fighting for gun safety measures since

the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Connecticut

that killed 20 children and six educators.

Mother and activist DeAndra Dycus said the gun violence

problem in Indianapolis is ``tearing our community apart.''

Nearly eight years ago, her 13-year-old son, DeAndre

``Dre'' Knox, was shot in the back left side of his head at a

birthday party in Indianapolis when shots were fired during a

confrontation between two boys. DeAndre, now 21, survived

after being on life support for several days, Dycus said, and

he currently lives in a facility with non-verbal quadriplegic

paralysis.

``As a mother, when I look at him, I see everything that

was taken away,'' Dycus said. ``My son was a dreamer. He was

a scholar. He was on this road to being something great.''

``But on the flip side, I see this little boy who has made

such an impact, not just on our city but our country, as it

pertains to what it looks like to survive,'' she said. ``Dre

has embodied that.''

Everytown designated a list of five foundational laws that

have proven to be the most effective in lowering gun violence

rates. These include requirements for a background check and/

or permits to purchase handguns; a permit to carry concealed

guns in public; the secure storage of firearms; the rejection

of `Stand Your Ground' laws; and the enactment of `extreme

risk' laws that temporarily remove a person's access to

firearms when there is evidence that they pose a serious risk

to themselves or others, according to Everytown.

Last year, several conservative states--such as Texas,

Iowa, Tennessee, Montana, Utah and Wyoming--passed

legislation allowing some form of permitless carry as

President Joe Biden pushed forward executive actions to

address gun violence following several high-profile mass

shootings.

In Texas, the controversial ``constitutional carry''

legislation went into effect in September that allows most

Texans who legally own a firearm to carry it openly in public

without obtaining a permit or training.

Supporters of the bill have argued that by removing the

licensing requirement they are removing an ``artificial

barrier'' to residents' right to bear arms under the

Constitution and ensuring more Texans have access to ``the

protection of themselves or their families'' in public. But

law enforcement officials and experts have expressed concerns

that the open carrying of firearms makes it more difficult

for police to quell violence.

``As we've seen gun extremism continue to rise in this

country, we've also seen people who open carry start out at

marches and rallies and then show up in elected officials'

homes, in polling places, statehouses and then on January 6th

at the US Capitol,'' Watts said.

According to Watts, the shooting in a Michigan high school

in December that killed four students is a ``textbook

example'' of why laws that require the secure storage of

firearms are essential to gun safety.

The alleged gunman in that shooting, 15-year-old Ethan

Crumbley, is accused of fatally shooting four classmates and

wounding several others on November 30. His parents were

charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter in the

same incident. All three have pleaded not guilty.

Prosecutors allege that James Crumbley, the father of the

suspected shooter, bought the gun used in the shooting four

days earlier. The incident prompted outrage over Ethan's

alleged accessibility to the gun, arguing that the shooting

could have been prevented.

Only 23 states currently have some semblance of a secure

storage requirement, Watts said.

Last year, Everytown successfully worked to pass secure

storage laws in Maine, Colorado, and Oregon, among others,

according to Watts.

During this year's legislative session, Watts said the

organization will work with lawmakers in hopes of passing

such laws in at least 14 states. States such as California,

Michigan and New Jersey are working on first-of-its kind

legislation that requires parents to be notified about secure

storage.

Everytown's research shows that 21 of the country's states

have rejected Stand Your Ground laws, which allow individuals

to use deadly force in public as self-defense even if they

can safely walk away from the situation.

Despite strong gun laws, some states still feel the effects

of being close to a state with more lax regulations. For

example, Illinois has the sixth-strongest gun safety laws in

the country, but its neighboring state of Indiana has much

weaker gun laws, Suplina says.

According to Suplina, this could explain why such a high

number of guns purchased in Indiana have ended up in Chicago.

Last year, the U.S. Department of Justice charged six

Indianapolis residents related to the straw purchasing of

firearms. Prosecutors said more than 20 of the guns were

recovered in Chicago after being used in violent crimes,

including murder.

Gun violence overall has risen during the pandemic. More

than two-thirds of the country's 40 most populous cities saw

more homicides last year than in 2020, and most of them were

a result of gun violence, according to a CNN analysis of

police department data. For many cities, the elevated rates

of homicide continued into 2021.

While experts say the reasons for the rise in homicides are

varied, murders are increasingly carried out with guns. The

increase in gun violence was underscored in the FBI's 2020

Uniform Crime Report, which stated that about 77 percent of

reported murders in 2020 were committed with a gun, up from

74 percent in 2019. The agency reported that the number of

homicides increased by nearly 30 percent from 2019, the

largest single-year jump the agency has recorded. There is no

federal database of gun sales, but other independent surveys

have found that gun sales have soared during the Covid-19

pandemic.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Ms. Sherrill).

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

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time each side has remaining?

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).

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

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

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

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

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

Too many cities in this country have become a shorthand for mass shooting: Newtown, San Bernardino, Charleston, Las Vegas, Parkland, Santa Fe, El Paso, Buffalo, Uvalde. The list goes on.

How many more communities must be visited by tragedy before we take action?

How many more parents need to bury their own children because an 18- year old with an AR-15 assault rifle stormed into their school?

How many more children must grow up without a parent because a high- capacity magazine allowed a shooter to spray dozens of bullets through a supermarket?

Let today be the day that we begin to end this cycle of gun violence and we take meaningful action to protect our communities and, most of all, to protect our kids.

You know, the Republicans tell us that we want to defund the police. We

don't want to defund the police. President Biden just said the other day we want to fund the police.

They want to defund the police. They want to disarm the police. What chance does a policeman, with a regular service revolver, have against someone with an AR-15 assault rifle? None at all.

They want to make sure that our police have no chance at all to resist the dishonest people who use weapons of war because weapons of war overwhelm whatever any policeman may have. That is the problem here.

The problem here is that they want to defund--or I shouldn't say defund. They want to disarm our police, compared to the crooks and the murderers who have the weapons of war which can outweigh the service revolvers that any police officer will have.

So we want to protect the police officers. We want them to not be outgunned by the murderers. That is where we are. That is what this bill does. That is perhaps why they are afraid of this bill.

But we must pass this bill to save our police officers, to save our communities, to save our children.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1124, I call up the bill (H.R. 350) to authorize dedicated domestic terrorism offices within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to analyze and monitor domestic terrorist activity and require the Federal Government to take steps to prevent domestic terrorism 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. 350.

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

Mr. Speaker, in 2018, a gunman shot and killed 11 worshippers attending Shabbat services at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. In 2019, another gunman shot and killed 22 shoppers at an El Paso Walmart. Over the weekend, yet another assailant allegedly shot and killed 10 people at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York.

These are tragedies. I could cite many others. I could spend my time here today talking about the scourge of gun violence, or the dramatic rise in the number of hate crimes, or the obvious consequences of the hate-filled rhetoric that fills our airways and has, sadly, been adopted by some of our colleagues.

Instead, I will use my time to point out what these three cases have in common: The gunman in each case was a White man, each angry about so-called replacement theory, each traveling some distance to target a minority community, each hoping to terrorize that community through mass murder.

This is not right. This is not normal. This is not consistent with who we are as a country. We must act. H.R. 350, the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act, which sits before us today, is the least we can do to signal our opposition to white nationalism and this rising menace of organized intolerance.

H.R. 350 creates three offices--one each within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the FBI--to monitor and investigate cases of domestic terrorism.

These newly created offices would issue joint biannual reports to Congress assessing the state of domestic terrorism threats, with a specific focus on white supremacists, and would be required to focus their resources based on the data collected and the most significant threats.

Recent white supremacist attacks have reminded minority communities across the country of a dark history we have not yet escaped. These include the murder of six people of Asian descent at spas in Atlanta last summer, five Jewish Americans being held hostage in their Texas synagogue, numerous bomb threats phoned into historically Black colleges and universities last February, and, of course, the violence in Buffalo just days ago.

Because every part of the country deserves a responsive, well-trained response to this kind of violence, H.R. 350 also requires DOJ and DHS to provide training and resources to assist State and local law enforcement agencies in understanding, detecting, and deterring acts of domestic terrorism and violent white supremacy.

And because there should be no confusion that we are targeting criminal activity, as opposed to the legitimate religious or political activity of most citizens, the bill also includes an explicit protection for First Amendment rights and other constitutionally protected activity.

This legislation is a bipartisan solution to a serious and documented problem facing our country. I thank Representative Brad Schneider for all of his work in introducing it. The House stood together last Congress to pass this legislation in a bipartisan fashion. I urge my colleagues to do so once again, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the Anti-Defamation League reported after a study last year that 80 percent of racist violence was from white supremacists--80 percent. Mr. Jordan should take heed of that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider), the sponsor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I don't understand how you can look at the devastation in Buffalo and the manifesto left behind by the terrorist and not take this issue seriously.

I now yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the whip.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues across the aisle seem to want to talk about everything but the subject matter of this bill, domestic terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Manning), to talk about domestic terrorism.

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, the problem is not that the Republican Party is racist, except the Republican Party won't call out the racists in its midst. They won't call the insurrection on January 6 of last year what it is: an insurrection. They call it legitimate public discourse.

It is not legitimate public discourse when police officers are attacked, when the Members of this House are attacked, when the Members of the Senate are attacked. That is domestic terrorism.

Madam Speaker, too many Americans have felt the pain and horror of domestic terrorism striking in their communities. Many of these attacks are fueled by white supremacy and hatred targeted at racial and ethnic minorities. We cannot bury our heads in the sand and pretend that this problem does not exist. We must confront this challenge head on.

That is why I strongly support the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act, which would identify the greatest domestic terror threats and would concentrate law enforcement resources to addressing those threats.

I appreciated the Republicans supporting this last year. Why they won't support this--because they decided that terrorism doesn't have to be addressed--I don't know. That is terrible.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Tom Goodkind, a true renaissance man and a beloved member of the Lower Manhattan community.

Mr. Goodkind, who passed away from a chronic degenerative illness in February 2019 at the age of 65, will be honored by the Church Street School for Music and Art for his contributions to the school and community on April 8, 2022.

An accountant by training, he moved to the Financial District in the late '80s and quickly became active in the Battery Park City community, Manhattan Community Board 1 (on which he served for decades) and local political clubs. Mr. Goodkind was a fierce advocate for expanding and retaining affordable housing in Lower Manhattan and produced comprehensive reports on rent stabilization and the neighborhood's affordable housing supply as the chair of Manhattan Community Board 1's Housing Task Force. He also advocated for the 5 World Trade Center site to include a fair number of affordable units, with set-asides for creative artists and September 11th survivors and responders.

In addition to his dedication for community activism, his passion for music was a guiding force throughout his life. Mr. Goodkind had stints as a punk rocker and a music venue promoter before co-founding the acclaimed band The Washington Squares, a neo-folk trio that received a Grammy nomination. After the September 11th terrorist attacks, Mr. Goodkind looked to the healing power of music to help rebuild Lower Manhattan. He founded and conducted the TriBattery Pops, the first NYC downtown all-volunteer community band in a century, that became an ever-present, animated staple at local community events. Mr. Goodkind remained an ardent supporter of local institutions that celebrated musical arts and strived to share the joy of music with New Yorkers and beyond.

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

Mr. Goodkind is survived by his wife Jill, and daughters Olivia and Nicole who continue to further his legacy through their advocacy work for affordable housing, September llth survivor issues and support for the arts.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to honor Tom Goodkind and his significant impacts on music and the lives of residents in Lower Manhattan that will be felt for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1017, I call up the bill (H.R. 3617) to decriminalize and deschedule cannabis, to provide for reinvestment in certain persons adversely impacted by the War on Drugs, to provide for expungement of certain cannabis offenses, 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. 3617.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3617, the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act, or the MORE Act, is long-overdue legislation that would reverse decades of failed Federal policies based on the criminalization of marijuana. It would also take steps to address the heavy toll these policies have taken across the country, particularly among communities of color.

For far too long, we have treated marijuana as a criminal justice problem, instead of as a matter of personal choice and public health. Whatever one's views are on the use of marijuana for recreational or medicinal use, the policy of arrests, prosecution, and incarceration at the Federal level has proven both unwise and unjust.

That is why the MORE Act would set a new path forward and would begin to correct some of the injustices of the last 50 years. The bill decriminalizes

marijuana at the Federal level by removing it from the Controlled Substances Act. This change applies retroactively to prior and pending convictions. It does not, however, undermine the ability of States to apply their criminal laws to marijuana or to legalize and regulate it as they see fit.

The bill also eliminates barriers to medical research, allows the VA to recommend medical marijuana to veterans living with PTSD, and it allows financial institutions to service the marijuana industry. It provides for expungement or resentencing of certain Federal marijuana arrests and convictions and supports expungement programs at the State and local levels.

In addition, the bill authorizes a sales tax on marijuana sales and directs those revenues to an Opportunity Trust Fund to support communities harmed by the war on drugs. It also establishes a wide range of grant programs to support equal access to the benefits of decriminalization.

When it comes to our immigration laws, the bill prospectively and retroactively ensures that marijuana will not be considered a controlled substance, directly mirroring the protection and relief under the criminal justice provisions of the bill. This protects individuals from the collateral consequences for marijuana activity and ensures that immigrants can participate in their State's legal cannabis industry.

In recent years, 36 States and the District of Columbia have legalized medical cannabis. Nineteen States and the District of Columbia have legalized cannabis for adult recreational use.

If States are the laboratories of democracy, it is long past time for the Federal Government to recognize that legalization has been a resounding success and that the conflict with Federal law has become untenable.

While I am proud to be the sponsor of this legislation, there are many people who are responsible for getting us to this point today. I want to thank them for their efforts.

This includes Congresswoman Barbara Lee, the mother of this movement, and Congressman Blumenauer, whose dogged persistence was critical to moving this legislation forward. Congressman Cohen has also been a long-time champion and an important voice in the movement for reform, as has Congresswoman Jackson Lee, who helped shepherd this legislation to the floor.

I also want to thank Chairman Neal, who has been a critical partner in drafting the revenue provisions in this bill and in helping move this legislation to the floor, as well as Chairman McGovern, who structured a good debate on this bill.

Finally, Speaker Pelosi, Whip Clyburn, and Chairman Jeffries have all been steadfast in their support of this legislation, and I want to particularly thank Majority Leader Hoyer for everything he has done to bring this bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, criminal penalties for marijuana offenses, and the resulting collateral consequences, are unjust and harmful to our society. The MORE Act comprehensively addresses these injustices, and I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would command the attention of the gentleman to the sections of the bill that deal with all the different problems he raised.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the distinguished chairman of the Democratic Caucus.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Mr. Speaker, this bill will greatly reduce crime by redefining as not crimes things that are now considered crimes. And by releasing people in jail who should not be in jail, it will produce justice and it will reduce the expenses to the public.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who has been such a great champion in the fight for this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), another great champion of this legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Carter).

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

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bentz refers to the cartels. Of course there are cartels. Of course they are making money because they have a monopoly of supply of a substance that has a great demand. If you pass this bill then those cartels will no longer have a monopoly and law enforcement expenses will go down because they will not have to enforce the marijuana laws and the marijuana prohibition laws. Nor will they have to fight the cartels, which won't be there anymore because their monopoly of supply will have been eliminated.

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

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 Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, last Congress, the House voted, on a bipartisan basis, to address this issue. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to act, so I am pleased that we are moving forward again today.

Over the past two decades, public support for legalizing marijuana has surged. States have led the way and continue to lead the way on marijuana reform, but our Federal laws have not kept pace with the obvious need for change. It is time for the Federal Government to catch up, to do what is right.

The MORE Act would treat marijuana as a public health issue rather than a criminal matter and would begin to rectify the heavy toll that criminalization has taken, particularly on communities of color and low-income communities.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to thank Kayla Hamedi for her service to the House Committee on the Judiciary and to my office.

Kayla first worked for me as an intern, serving the people of New York's 10th Congressional District, as she finished up her studies at the George Washington University, where she received her bachelor's degree. She continued to work in the federal policy field after her internship ended, working for Active Policy Solutions and Rep. Krishnamoorthi of Illinois. During this time, she also received her master's degree from the George Washington University's College of Professional Studies.

A little more than two years after her internship with my office had concluded, my staff and I excitedly welcomed Kayla back as a full-time staff member. Due to her strong work ethic and intellect, Kayla moved up several times in my office, first from Staff Assistant to Press Assistant/Legislative Correspondent and then to Legislative Assistant/ Press Assistant. In these capacities, she staffed my front office, communicated with my constituents, handled press and digital communication, and worked on several policy portfolios. Notably, she helped assist my office during my campaign to become Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee.

In November 2019, Kayla transitioned from my personal office to the Committee, where she first served as Deputy Press Secretary and was then promoted to Deputy Communications Director. Kayla joined the committee

during a particularly busy time, as we geared up for the first impeachment of President Trump and played an instrumental role in our communication work surrounding the impeachment, including helping book TV interviews, as well as the second impeachment a year later.

Kayla played an integral role in communicating to the public the work the Committee was doing for the American people. In addition to making sure every statement went out to the press as it was delivered, Kayla worked with other committees and other member offices to coordinate press releases, press conferences, and communication strategies; coordinated briefings with reporters ahead of major breaking news events; and worked with national and international reporters on a range of issues before the committee. She also worked with our chief counsels to shape and perfect their messaging prior to the start of numerous hearings and worked on communication campaigns relating to a range of judiciary issues, including but not limited to our work on voting rights, prohibiting forced arbitration for sexual harassment claims, and the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Kayla helped roll out the Staff Report on our Antitrust Subcommittee's Investigation of Competition in Digital Markets, served as our primary point of contact for all press inquiries and communication efforts for several months when we transitioned between Communication Directors, and served as our primary digital staffer when we transitioned between Digital Directors.

For more than four years, I have been fortunate to count Kayla among my staff. I, and the American people, have greatly benefited from her work ethic, intellect, and strategic thinking. Kayla is calm in even the most stressful situations, always willing to lend a hand whenever one is needed, and brings a positive energy and a good spirit to everything she does. She has played a critical role in both serving New York's 10th Congressional District and informing the American people of the work of my office and the Committee on the Judiciary. We will greatly miss Kayla as she embarks on the next chapter of her career on Capitol Hill.

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 979, I call up the bill (H.R. 2116) to prohibit discrimination based on an individual's texture or style of hair, 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 H.R. 2116.

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

Madam Speaker, the Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act, or the CROWN Act, is a critically important civil rights bill that would explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of hair texture or hairstyles commonly associated with a particular race or national origin. It would do so in areas of the law where discrimination on the basis of race or national origin is already prohibited, such as employment, education, and housing.

Although Republicans blocked passage of this bill a few weeks ago, their arguments have just as little merit now as they did then. That is why we are here again, to advance this important legislation.

Among the arguments that we heard previously was that this bill was not needed because the law already protects people from hair-based discrimination. While I agree that existing civil rights statutes, if properly read, already make such discrimination unlawful, several Federal courts have erroneously rejected this interpretation, leaving the state of the law unclear at best.

Far from being duplicative, this legislation is absolutely essential to remove any ambiguity from the law and to fix these courts' misinterpretation of Federal civil rights law.

Republicans also argued that this legislation could somehow undermine the ability of employers to maintain workplace safety standards. But nothing could be further from the truth. This bill does nothing to prohibit employers from addressing safety concerns, and the longstanding provisions under the civil rights laws that enable employers to ensure workplace safety would remain firmly in place.

Since neither of these arguments holds up to scrutiny, it is important to step back and understand why the CROWN Act is so urgently needed. According to a 2019 study conducted by the JOY Collective, Black people are ``disproportionately burdened by policies and practices in public places, including the workplace, that target, profile, or single them out for natural hairstyles,'' and other hairstyles traditionally associated with their race, like braids, locs, and twists.

This has real consequences for real people. Students have been sent home from school or told they could not walk at graduation. Employees have been told to change their hair because it violated their employer's dress code. Some people have even been denied jobs altogether because of their hairstyles.

In view of these disturbing facts, 14 States have enacted statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of an individual's natural hairstyle, in every case with bipartisan support and sometimes even with the unanimous support of both parties.

I am disappointed that we did not see such bipartisan support when we brought this bill up a few weeks ago, but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have another chance today to do the right thing. This is a matter of basic justice that demands a national solution by Congress. That is why I strongly support the CROWN Act and urge all my colleagues, including my Republican colleagues, to do so as well.

I thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman) for her leadership and for introducing this important bill this Congress. I urge all Members to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I said that this was covered by the law, but several Federal circuit courts disagree. Therefore, it is not covered in those circuits, and that is why we need this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman), the sponsor of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Bush), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

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

I would point out again, because some of my Republican colleagues seem not to hear it, that this is the law, as they say, but that several circuit courts say it isn't the law, so all this bill is doing is reaffirming what the law is, despite several circuit courts. And we see that the law in those States where the circuit courts have upheld it properly has not resulted in any of the catastrophes we just heard.

Yes, I will. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Yes.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I just want to point out that we don't need new drilling legislation. There are 6,000 leases which have been granted by the Federal Government which the oil companies are not drilling. They can drill.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley).

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

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Williams).

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

Madam Speaker, while racism and discrimination sometimes appear in overt forms, they can also manifest themselves in more subtle ways.

One way is through discrimination based on natural hairstyles and hair textures associated with people of a particular race or national origin.

This CROWN Act would make explicit that civil rights laws prohibit such discrimination. This is a matter of basic fairness and justice.

This bill passed the House last Congress unanimously, and I hope we will do so again today.

All the arguments we have heard about everything else are interesting and important but not relevant to this bill. This bill is purely about discrimination, purely about protecting people from discrimination, and we ought to pass it.

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 979, I call up the bill (H.R. 963) to amend title 9 of the United States Code with respect to arbitration, 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 H.R. 963.

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 963, the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act, or the FAIR Act, is critical legislation that would restore access to justice for millions of Americans who are currently locked out of the court system and are forced to settle their disputes against companies in a private system of arbitration that is often skewed in the company's favor over the individual.

Private arbitration has been transformed, by 40 years of reckless Supreme Court decisions, from a voluntary forum for companies to resolve commercial disputes into a legal nightmare for millions of consumers, employees, and others who are forced into arbitration and are unable to enforce certain fundamental rights in court.

By burying a forced arbitration clause deep in the fine print of take-it-or-leave-it consumer and employment contracts, companies can evade the court system, where plaintiffs have far greater legal protections, and hide wrongdoing behind a one-sided process that is tilted in their favor.

For example, arbitration generally limits discovery; does not adhere to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; can prohibit class actions, which it almost always does; and deny the right of appeal. Worse yet, arbitration allows the proceedings, and often even the results, to stay secret, thereby permitting companies to avoid public scrutiny of potential misconduct.

For millions of workers and consumers, the precondition, whether they know it or not, of obtaining a basic service or product, such as a bank account, a cell phone, a credit card, or even a job, is that they must sign a nonnegotiable contract that includes a provision requiring all disputes to be resolved in private arbitration.

These take-it-or-leave-it contracts, which were once clearly disfavored under the law, now seem to have been blessed by the Supreme Court as standard operating procedure in the corporate world.

That means for millions of people, the ability to enforce consumer, labor, antitrust, and civil rights laws are subject to the whims of a private arbitrator, often selected by the companies themselves.

These private arbitrators are not required to provide plaintiffs any of the fundamental protections guaranteed in the courts, and their further employment can depend on building a good reputation with the companies that hire them. Unsurprisingly, arbitration has become a virtual get-out-of-jail-free card many companies use to circumvent the basic rights of consumers and workers.

The FAIR Act reverses this disastrous trend by prohibiting the enforcement of forced arbitration clauses in consumer, labor, antitrust, and civil rights disputes.

Importantly, this legislation does not preclude both parties from agreeing to arbitrate a claim after a dispute arises. It does, however, protect unsuspecting consumers and employees from being forced to give up their right to seek justice in court.

Last month, Congress came together in a bipartisan fashion to prohibit forced arbitration clauses in suits concerning sexual harassment and sexual assault. Watching that legislation be signed into law was a proud moment for many of us in this Chamber. This bill simply extends the same basic fairness in that bill to other workers and consumers.

That bipartisan bill, which gathered, as I recall, about 130 Republican votes, is exactly the same as this bill, only limited in its application.

Every argument for that bill is an argument for this bill. This bill simply extends the same basic fairness in that bill, as I said, to other workers and consumers.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) for his leadership on this bill.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this vital legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to correct something Mr. Bishop said. This bill does not ban arbitration. It bans forced arbitration. It bans the practice or the enforceability of the practice of having a provision in a contract that you sign to buy anything or an employment contract where you are forced, that is there and that if you try to change it, they won't sell you the car, they won't sell you the cell phone, they won't hire you, so you have no choice, and that forced arbitration removes the constitutional right to a trial by jury.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a member of the Judiciary Committee and a sponsor of this bill.

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

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

I just want to point out that this bill does not ban arbitration. If two parties have a dispute and prefer arbitration to going to court, they can have arbitration. This bill bans forced arbitration, meaning arbitration that is entered into contracts that people have no ability to change. That is why it says pre-dispute arbitration agreements are struck by this bill, not post-dispute arbitration agreements.

So this bill does not eliminate arbitration agreements if they want to. It does eliminate forced arbitration agreements that the party, usually the employee or the consumer had no knowledge of probably and no ability to say no to. We used to call them contracts of adhesion, but we don't do that anymore.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Wild).

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, which would significantly weaken this legislation and damage the collective bargaining process for tens of millions of working Americans.

We have said it over and over again today--this bill is not designed to eliminate arbitration. While my Republican colleagues would like you to believe that the FAIR Act will end arbitration entirely, that is simply not true.

The FAIR Act would put an end to forced arbitration--arbitration that is not willingly agreed to by both sides, which is a predatory one- sided practice created by and for huge corporations to allow them to get away with abusive conduct. It is a system that can exist only when these companies can take advantage of a stark power imbalance between themselves and workers, consumers, and small businesses.

Labor unions correct that power imbalance. The collective bargaining process provides real protections that are unavailable to nonunion workers by forcing big businesses to compromise with skilled negotiators focused on improving terms for their workers.

Collective bargaining guarantees other important protections in the arbitration process, such as truly neutral arbitrators, better procedures, transparent decisionmaking, and the option to appeal decisions. It creates a system that can actually resolve disputes quickly, efficiently--and most important--fairly for all parties involved.

That is not forced arbitration precisely because it is truly voluntary. Arbitration only works when two parties of equal bargaining power can negotiate terms that work for everyone involved, which is exactly what happens when a labor union and a corporation establish a collective bargaining agreement.

That is completely different than forced arbitration of nonunion employment disputes where an employee is forced to accept an arbitration clause that is buried deep inside the fine print of a stack of confusing paperwork on a take-it-or-leave-it basis that they must sign to get a job.

The big corporations love this system because it forces their workers, it forces employees, it forces the purchasers of products to go to forced arbitration, and that is an inherently skewed process. That is why the employee loses 98 percent of the forced arbitrations. The employer wins 98 percent of the forced arbitrations. That is not a fair process.

Moreover, as my colleague, Congressman Perlmutter, made clear during the Rules Committee meeting on this bill, nothing in the FAIR Act prevents individual workers from deciding to vindicate their rights before a jury.

As the plain language of the bill states, no collectively bargained arbitration provision ``shall have the effect of waiving the right of a worker to seek judicial enforcement of a right arising under a provision of the Constitution of the United States, a State constitution, or a Federal or State statute, or public policy arising therefrom.''

In other words, this amendment is a solution in search of a problem that could upend the rights of millions of workers today. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, to vote for the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, there are over 60 million workers--a majority of nonunion private-sector employees--who are subject to forced arbitration clauses. According to the Economic Policy Institute, that number will be over 80 million by 2024. Those employees are told that if they want to get a job or keep their current job they must sign away their right to their day in court and submit to a forced arbitration agreement. In most cases they do not have a choice.

When these workers seek to hold their employers to account for wage theft, civil rights abuses, or racial discrimination, they are shoved into a secretive arbitration process designed by corporations with almost unlimited resources, and they lose 98 percent of the time. That is what the FAIR Act will fix. This legislation will restore these workers' access to our justice system and guarantee their constitutional rights by ending forced arbitration.

This amendment would do nothing to protect workers while undermining this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this unnecessary and harmful amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2116) to prohibit discrimination based on an individual's texture or style of hair, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act, or the CROWN Act, is a critically important civil rights bill that would explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of hair texture or hairstyles commonly associated with a particular race or national origin. It would do so in areas of the law where discrimination on the basis of race and national origin are already prohibited, such as employment, education, and housing.

To be clear, it is my view that existing civil rights statutes already make such hair-based discrimination unlawful. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission agrees, having issued guidance interpreting title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit such discrimination as a form of race discrimination in certain circumstances. Unfortunately, some Federal courts have erroneously rejected this interpretation. The CROWN Act simply fixes these courts' misinterpretation of Federal civil rights law.

This fix is urgently needed. According to a 2019 study conducted by the JOY Collective, Black people are ``disproportionately burdened by policies and practices in public places, including the workplace, that target, profile, or single them out for natural hair styles'' and other hairstyles traditionally associated with their race, like braids, locs, and twists.

The study also found that 80 percent of Black women believed that they had to change their hair from its natural state to fit in at the office and that they were 83 percent more likely to be judged harshly because of their looks.

While this study illustrates the prevalence of hair discrimination, it is the people behind those numbers that make this legislation so vital. For example, a Texas student was told that he would not be able to walk at graduation because his dreadlocks were too long; a Florida boy was turned away from his first day of school because his hair was too long; and a New Orleans-area girl was sent home from school for wearing braids.

Similarly, numerous Black employees have been told to change their hair because it violated their employer's dress code. Some have even been denied employment altogether because of their hairstyles.

In view of these disturbing facts, 14 States have enacted statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of an individual's natural hairstyle--in every case with bipartisan support and sometimes even with the unanimous support of both parties.

While I applaud these States for taking action, this is a matter of basic justice that demands a national solution by Congress. That is why I strongly support the CROWN Act. The House passed a nearly identical measure last Congress, and I hope that we will do so again today.

I thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey, Representative Bonnie Watson Coleman, for her leadership and for introducing this important bill this Congress. I urge all Members to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman), sponsor of this bill.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick), the newest Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Carter).

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

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

Madam Speaker, while racism and discrimination sometimes appear in overt forms, they can also manifest themselves in more subtle ways. One way is through discrimination based on natural hairstyles and hair textures associated with people of a particular race or national origin.

As we have discussed on this floor, this is intolerable and it is not taken care of by current law, despite the statements from the other side notwithstanding. The CROWN Act would make explicit that the civil rights laws prohibit such discrimination. It is a matter of basic fairness and justice.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 55) to amend section 249 of title 18, United States Code, to specify lynching as a hate crime act, as amended.

Madam 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 the bill under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, the Emmett Till Antilynching Act is long-overdue legislation that would correct a historical injustice by finally specifying lynching as a crime under Federal law.

Our Nation endured a shameful period during which thousands of African Americans were lynched as a means of racial subordination and enforcing white supremacy. These violent incidents were largely tolerated by State and Federal officials, and they represent a stain on our Nation's legacy.

Today, we acknowledge this disgraceful chapter in American history, and we send a clear message that such violent actions motivated by hatred and bigotry will not be tolerated in this country.

The term ``lynching'' generally refers to premeditated public acts of violence--often resulting in death--carried out by a mob in order to punish an alleged transgressor or to strike fear among a targeted group.

Throughout history, lynching has been employed as an extreme form of informal group social control and has often been conducted with the display of a public spectacle for maximum intimidation.

This legislation is named in honor of Emmett Till, a 14-year-old African-American youth from Chicago, who was lynched in a particularly gruesome fashion while visiting an uncle in Mississippi in 1955. His murder and the antilynching movement that followed set the stage for the creation of the civil rights movement that we recognize today.

Though lynching touches all races and religions and occurs throughout the United States, it has been most common in the South and was targeted primarily at Blacks.

During the period between the Civil War and World War II, thousands of African Americans were lynched in the United States. These violent incidents profoundly impacted race relations and shaped the geographic, political, social, and economic conditions of African-American communities in ways that are still evident today.

The first Federal antilynching legislation was introduced in 1900, almost 120 years ago, by Congressman George Henry White, the only African-American Member of Congress at that time. Unfortunately, neither his bill nor any antilynching bills that were introduced in the decades that followed managed to pass Congress.

The Department of Justice has used other laws to prosecute some civil rights-era crimes and hate crimes that were described as lynching in public

discourse, but there is no Federal law explicitly prohibiting lynching.

Today, we act to correct this historical injustice. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) for his leadership on this important issue and for his attention to history.

In memory of Emmett Till and in memory of all the victims of lynching throughout our history, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Carter).

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

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

Madam Speaker, with this legislation, we can right a great historical wrong by finally specifying lynching as a crime under Federal law, more than 120 years after the first antilynching bill was introduced in Congress. Although this proposal should have been law a long time ago, it is never too late to do the right thing.

The shameful era when lynchings were commonplace in this country-- particularly in the South--is thankfully over, but we have seen disturbing echoes of this gruesome practice in recent years--most recently in the brutal murder of Ahmaud Arbery. This legislation sends a clear message that such violent actions motivated by hatred and bigotry will not be tolerated in this country.

The Nation is in the midst of a national conversation and a national awakening on issues of race and justice. As we reckon with our past and look to the future, it is important that we place lynching where it properly belongs--in criminal code alongside other hate crimes that have caused so much pain and suffering over the years.

I want to thank Congressman Bobby Rush for his tireless efforts in bringing this legislation forward and all the other Members whose efforts have paved the way for passage of this bill today.

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

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

Betsy came to the Committee as part of a distinguished career working to advance the rights of immigrants and their families. She had previously worked for more than a decade at the American Immigration Lawyers Association, where she held several different positions, including Associate Director of Education, Associate Director of Liaison, and Director of Government Relations. Before joining AILA, Betsy was an associate attorney at Van Der Hout LLP. She earned her B.S. from Northeastern University and her J.D. from the University of San Francisco School of Law.

Betsy joined the Committee on the Judiciary as Counsel to our Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship in February 2019--an especially busy time as we prepared to advance a robust immigration reform agenda and conduct meaningful oversight of the Trump Administration's anti-immigrant policies. Betsy quickly proved herself to be an invaluable member of our immigration team, and we were pleased to promote her to Chief Counsel of our Immigration Subcommittee at the beginning of this Congress.

During her tenure here, Betsy played a pivotal role in ensuring House passage of numerous bills to provide for a more humane and just immigration system, including the American Dream and Promise Act, the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, the National Origin-Based Antidiscrimination for Nonimmigrants (NO BAN) Act, and the Access to Counsel Act. She was also heavily involved in our investigation into the Trump Administration's ``zero tolerance'' or family separation policy, our efforts to include meaningful immigration reform in the reconciliation process, and our work to ensure immigration provisions were included in the America COMPETES Act of 2022. Despite our polarized political climate, Betsy and her team successfully worked to pass several bills into law, including the Citizenship for Children of Military Members and Civil Servants Act and the HOPE (Honoring Our Promises through Expedition) for Afghan SIVs Act of 2021. The Committee is deeply proud of her record of accomplishment.

The country has been fortunate to have Betsy working hard within the halls of Congress to reform our broken immigration system, undo the harms caused by the last administration, and ensure the expedient issuance of special immigrant visas to those who served side by side with American troops in Afghanistan. Although we will miss her greatly, we know she will continue to make her country proud as she transitions to her new role in the Biden-Harris Administration.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to thank John Williams for his service to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

John came to the Committee as merely the last step in a distinguished career in public service. He previously worked for various offices on Capitol Hill, including for former Representative Baron Hill of Indiana, the House Committee on Rules, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. He has also held positions at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the IMPAC 2000 redistricting project, and, most recently-before rejoining us on the Hill-at the Federal Communications Commission. John received his bachelor's degree from the University of Virginia, his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, and his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center.

John joined the Committee on the Judiciary as Senior Counsel and Parliamentarian in November 2019, as the House was in the midst of its first impeachment inquiry into then-President Trump. His knowledge of House procedure and parliamentary rules were critical as we navigated the first Presidential impeachment in two decades--and again a year later as we conducted the second impeachment of that same president.

John has played an integral role advising me, our subcommittee chairs, and staff over the course of more than 75 committee hearings and more than 100 bill votes in committee and on the House floor. John also worked especially closely with our subcommittees as we participated in several reconciliation processes this Congress.

John's knowledge and counsel have been invaluable as we have worked to deliver tangible results for the American people over the past two years. His guidance has helped us move dozens of bills through both chambers of Congress and to the President's desk. We will miss John's work ethic and counsel as he takes the next step in his career.

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