Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the exceptional service of William E. Havemann, who served in the House's Office of General Counsel as an Associate General Counsel.

During his tenure, Mr. Havemann played an integral role in advancing and protecting the legal interests of the House of Representatives and its Members, Officers, and employees in connection with Federal court litigation involving issues of the highest institutional importance. Mr. Havemann provided invaluable legal counsel and representation to numerous Committees of the House, greatly assisting them both in fulfilling their constitutionally authorized oversight functions and defending those prerogatives in litigation. In particular, Mr. Havemann was primarily responsible for developing the House's legal position in support of challenges to the Trump administration's attempt to change the criteria for determining whether immigrants to the United States are likely to become a ``public charge.'' The amicus briefs filed by the House and oral arguments presented by Mr. Havemann directly contributed to the Trump administration's position being invalidated by multiple federal courts.

Additionally, Mr. Havemann provided essential legal counsel to the House regarding both Presidential impeachments, as well as with respect to the defense of long-standing institutional powers, including House Committees' authority to enforce its subpoenas and the House's constitutional authority to adopt rules permitting its Members to participate in the legislative process remotely by proxy during an unprecedented global pandemic.

Mr. Havemann's work on behalf of the House has been of the highest caliber and I have no doubt that clients of the Hogan Lovells' law firm will benefit from his excellent legal counsel. On behalf of the entire House community, I thank Mr. Havemann for his dedicated service to the House, and I wish for him the very best in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 983) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide an additional tool to prevent certain frauds against veterans, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 983.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support H.R. 983, the Preventing Crimes Against Veterans Act of 2021, bipartisan legislation that would make it a crime to knowingly engage in any scheme to defraud a veteran of his or her veteran's benefits.

Our Nation owes a great debt to veterans. There are currently about 18 million veterans of the United States military, men and women who selflessly served our Nation.

Unfortunately, many of our veterans, as a result of their service, have physical and mental scars. There are well over 1 million American veterans with service-connected disabilities, and 43 percent of post-9/ 11 veterans have a service-connected disability which may entitle them to certain benefits.

Receipt of benefits requires the veteran to file an application and undergo a thorough review by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Sometimes these benefits are granted outright. Other times, the veteran must appeal their initial denial to receive the benefits they deserve.

Under current law, the VA allows agents or attorneys to assess a nominal fee to assist claimants who are appealing different aspects of their benefits. They are not permitted, however, to charge for services related to the initial preparation and filing of their claims.

Accordingly, it is currently illegal for a nonattorney or a person not registered as an agent to assist such initial claims. The rationale for this prohibition is that many veterans may fall victim to benefit fraud schemes, where individuals may divert benefits or apply for benefits that should not be awarded.

To enforce this prohibition, Federal prosecutors currently rely on the wire and mail fraud statutes to ensure that nonattorneys or nonregistered agents do not assist in benefit applications or unlawfully divert benefits.

However, if an unauthorized individual offers a veteran assistance in person, they cannot be prosecuted under current fraud statutes. The wire and mail fraud statutes do not extend to in-person fraudulent schemes.

The Preventing Crimes Against Veterans Act would close this critical loophole and would ensure that in-person benefit fraud schemes may also be prosecuted.

For example, in one instance, a scammer held briefing seminars in a senior community. He asked the staff to round up the veterans, then used high-pressure sales tactics to coerce the veterans to apply for benefits.

In-person solicitation like this requires no electronic or mail transmission and, thus, evades wire and mail fraud criminal prohibitions. Other reports indicate that scammers have also been known to hand out flyers outside of VA regional medical centers and VA regional offices to identify unwitting veterans.

These examples are precisely why closing this loophole is so critically important. Under H.R. 983, anyone convicted of such crimes could be fined, imprisoned, or be subject to both penalties.

By adopting this bill, Congress would affirm the integrity of the benefits program and would protect veterans and their survivors who receive payments, such as those to veterans with service-connected disabilities, pensions for veterans with limited incomes, and education and training payments under the GI bill.

In recognition of the extreme sacrifice by our veterans and the hardships many of them continue to face after their military service, it is our duty to provide, to the best of our ability, an appropriate measure of compensation for them, particularly for those who are in need.

This legislation would ensure that attempts to defraud them of the benefits they need and deserve may be fully prosecuted.

I commend the bill's sponsors, Mr. Deutch and Mr. Fitzpatrick, for their hard work and bipartisan efforts to address this critical problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Congress owes a continuing debt to veterans. This bill would help protect the more than 1 million veterans diagnosed with service-connected disabilities who receive related benefits, as well as the thousands who are undiagnosed and may apply for such benefits in the future.

Helping to ensure that their benefits are protected against fraud, as H.R. 983 would do, is one way of expressing our appreciation for veterans' service.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2694) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for transportation and subsistence for criminal justice defendants, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2694.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2694, the Criminal Judicial Administration Act of 2021, is bipartisan legislation that makes two modest but important amendments to current law, promoting efficient, effective, and fair administration of justice.

The first part of this bill concerns out-of-custody criminal defendants, particularly those who are released pending trial to live in communities that are located far from the courthouses where their cases are being heard.

Most Federal criminal defendants are detained pending trial. The U.S. Marshals Service is responsible for housing and transporting them to court hearings, including trial. Under current law, the court may order the marshals to provide funds for a criminal defendant who is released pending trial but cannot afford the cost of travel to the location of the courthouse for required court proceedings.

However, defendants must fund their own way back home, and defendants in this position are not able to receive financial support from the marshals for subsistence, such as lodging and meals. For an indigent defendant, these costs are sometimes insurmountable.

For years, Federal courts have struggled with how to assist indigent defendants when they find themselves in these difficult situations. Unfortunately, the courts' efforts have come up against the text of the statute.

This bill would authorize courts, in the interest of justice, to order the U.S. marshals to cover roundtrip travel and subsistence for defendants who must attend court hearings but who cannot afford to pay this on their own. The Judicial Conference of the United States has urged us to correct this grave unfairness, and I am pleased to see that we are finally doing so with this bill.

The second part of this bill, concerning Federal magistrate judges, is

also supported by the Judicial Conference. Magistrate judges have trial jurisdiction over certain misdemeanors, except for Class A misdemeanors, for which the maximum sentence is up to 1 year in custody. With a defendant's consent, however, a magistrate judge may exercise trial jurisdiction over a case involving a Class A misdemeanor. Magistrate judges frequently do so and often hear Class A misdemeanor cases all the way through judgment and sentencing.

Under current law, a magistrate judge's jurisdiction ends after judgment is entered in a misdemeanor case, and post-judgment jurisdiction reverts to the district court. Indeed, magistrate judges are not authorized to hear post-judgment motions, such as motions to vacate a sentence, even though they are the ones who handled the entire matter at the trial level and are best equipped to hear such post- judgment motions.

Among other things, this bill would authorize a magistrate judge to hear post-judgment motions in misdemeanor cases in which he or she exercised trial jurisdiction. This amendment clearly improves judicial economy and makes perfect sense.

This is a straightforward and bipartisan measure that will help our criminal justice system operate in a more effective and fair manner. I thank Mr. Jeffries and Mr. Roy for sponsoring this legislation, and I urge all Members to support it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Criminal Judicial Administration Act of 2021 would make several critical changes to improve the operation of our Federal criminal justice system.

I commend Representatives Hakeem Jeffries and Chip Roy for introducing the legislation, as well as their bipartisan cosponsors for their leadership in bringing these important issues to our attention.

I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan bill today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2922) to amend the Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act to authorize the Elder Justice Initiative, to require that online resources of such initiative are made available in Spanish, and for other purposes, 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 H.R. 2922.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2922, the bipartisan Elder Abuse Protection Act of 2021.

This bill would make permanent the Department of Justice's Elder Justice Initiative and would assign the initiative a number of critical responsibilities that would protect vulnerable seniors from fraud and abuse.

The bill includes critical elder abuse preventive measures, including an obligation to post elder abuse prevention resources online, to coordinate with the Office of Tribal Justice to address elder fraud on reservations, and to publish Spanish-language elder fraud and abuse materials. Additionally, the bill would authorize the Department's operation of the National Elder Fraud Hotline.

These changes are a testament to the importance this Congress places on elder justice and its continued commitment to address emerging elder fraud issues.

Sadly, tens of thousands of elderly Americans are abused and exploited every day. By one estimate, American seniors lose at least $2.9 billion each year due to financial abuse and exploitation. The U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau similarly estimates that elder Americans suffer an average annual loss of $34,200 due to fraud.

Tragically, instances of elder fraud and abuse have only gone up. From 2013 to 2017, financial scams and other crimes targeting older Americans quadrupled. Elderly individuals are vulnerable to abuse on account of a myriad of factors, with social isolation and mental impairment, such as dementia or Alzheimer's disease, playing outsized roles.

By making permanent and expanding the Elder Justice Initiative's mandate, the Department of Justice can more effectively protect our Nation's seniors and prosecute instances of elder abuse. At a time when seniors are perhaps at their most vulnerable, it only makes sense that the government redouble its efforts to protect America's seniors.

It is particularly important that marginalized elder communities get the educational and preventive resources they need. The Elder Abuse Protection Act does exactly that by requiring that the Elder Justice Initiative coordinate with the Office of Tribal Justice on how to address elder abuse on reservations. This provision would mean fewer elder indigenous Americans will fall victim to exploitation.

The bill also makes permanent the elder abuse fraud hotline. With the hotline, concerned Americans can report instances of elder abuse directly to the Department of Justice, and victims can obtain support and resources that they need.

The Elder Abuse Protection Act also requires that the Elder Justice Initiative share their materials online and in Spanish. More Americans will have access to the DOJ's resources. Greater access to those materials is critical so that older Latinos, who comprise almost 4 million individuals, can also access these crucial resources.

In short, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2922 redoubles the government's commitment to preventing elder fraud and abuse, and to ensuring that seniors have access to the resources they need.

I thank Representatives Garcia and Spartz, the sponsors of this bipartisan legislation, for their vision and their leadership on this important issue.

I strongly support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 961) to exempt juveniles from the requirements for suits by prisoners, and for other purposes, 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 H.R. 961.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 961, the Justice for Juveniles Act.

This bipartisan bill would eliminate the administrative exhaustion requirement for incarcerated youth before they may file a lawsuit challenging the conditions of their incarceration.

By passing this bill today, the House would correct the manifest wrong currently present in Federal law and would continue bipartisan efforts to support incarcerated youth.

This bill recognizes the same conclusion that has been embraced by the Supreme Court and experts for decades, that incarcerated young people have different cognitive abilities than adults, are less mature, and have a higher chance of being assaulted while incarcerated.

In recent years, our Nation has finally come to the realization that youth and adults have fundamentally different decisionmaking abilities. The Supreme Court has repeatedly cited adolescents' lack of maturity as a reason why they are not as culpable as adults for their actions or able to recognize certain dangers.

Yet, in current law, there are no allowances for these differences in cognitive abilities when it comes to addressing deficiencies in conditions of confinement.

Complying with current law, which requires an understanding of detailed grievance procedures and timelines, is nearly impossible for most incarcerated youth. Compliance with grievance procedures not only requires an understanding of the grievance process but, on a more basic level, it requires that an incarcerated person be able to read, which, sadly, many incarcerated people cannot do.

According to one study, among incarcerated youth, 85 percent are functionally illiterate, and the baseline reading levels vary from grade one to grade six. In addition, approximately 70 percent of incarcerated juveniles have at least one learning disability.

Youth are, furthermore, less likely than adults to recognize as risks the circumstances they face in a correctional facility. Youth may not recognize the impending or imminent danger of some of the risks they face.

Compounding these challenges, incarcerated youth, as a group, experience extraordinarily high rates of mental illness. Nearly 50 percent of incarcerated 16- to 18-year-olds suffer from a mental illness. Juveniles housed with adults are 10 times more likely to have psychotic episodes, and they have a suicide rate that is 7.7 times higher than those housed in juvenile facilities.

In recent years, the public has become more aware of the many dangers that lurk in correctional facilities. Hurricanes have flooded facilities; cold snaps have left prisoners freezing to death; and heat waves have killed prisoners when they lacked proper ventilation or air conditions. These conditions pose a special danger to youth, who do not have the ability or experience to recognize that they are in immediate danger.

While natural disasters can pose an extraordinary risk to youth, prison life itself may also pose life-threatening dangers. Adolescents incarcerated with adults are also more prone to both physical and mental abuse. Youth are 50 percent more likely to be physically assaulted when they are housed in adult facilities than in juvenile facilities.

Taken together, most incarcerated youth are simply not able to recognize or to effectively communicate when their prison conditions become dangerous or unconstitutionally deficient.

There remains little doubt that the current process needs to be changed.

This bill proposes a modest reform to the Prison Litigation Reform Act. It simply exempts youth in correctional facilities from having to comply with technical grievance procedures before they can go to court to challenge the unconstitutional conditions of their confinement. While I would like to see us do much more to protect incarcerated youth, this bill is a necessary first step.

I thank Ms. Scanlon and Mr. Armstrong for introducing this bipartisan legislation, and I urge all Members to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I join the gentleman in urging Members to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3239) to make improvements in the enactment of title 41, United States Code, into a positive law title and to improve the Code.

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

Mr. Speaker, keeping track of the new laws Congress passes every session is a formidable challenge, but it is an essential part of maintaining the rule of law in our country and it is a duty we take seriously in the House.

The body of Federal law is so large and complex at this point that it would be almost completely unmanageable without the United States Code. Currently consisting of 54 titles, the Code compiles the general and permanent laws of the United States into coherent subject areas. The Code makes our Federal laws accessible, both to the government officials who work to fairly administer them and to the private citizens who seek the benefits or relief the laws provide them.

The Code did not appear magically out of thin air. Congress created it in 1926. And since that time, it has been painstakingly constructed and updated by expert lawyers working under the supervision of the House. We all owe a great debt to the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, whose attorneys ably carry out this statutory mandate ``to develop and keep current an official and positive codification of the laws of the United States,'' while maintaining strict impartiality as to legislative policy.

Pursuant to the law governing their work, the Office of the Law Revision Counsel has submitted this legislation containing amendments related to title 41, which Congress recently enacted into positive law. It contains purely technical changes that update the U.S. Code to reflect the new status of these titles.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that this bill does not change the meaning or effect of existing laws in any way. It is part of an ongoing effort to maintain the Code as an authoritative, accurate source of Federal law.

I thank Mr. Fitzgerald for introducing this important legislation, and I urge all Members to support the bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3241) to make improvements in the enactment of title 54, United States Code, into a positive law title and to improve the Code, 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 H.R. 3241.

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

Mr. Speaker, just like H.R. 3239, this bill has been prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, and it makes a number of technical changes to update title 54 of the United States Code while making no substantive changes in law.

I thank the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Bush) for introducing this legislation, and I urge all Members to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 704) to amend section 708 of title 17, United States Code, to permit the Register of Copyrights to waive fees for filing an application for registration of a copyright claim in certain circumstances, and for other purposes.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 704, a bill that would help introduce promising young students who have won either the Congressional Art Competition or the Congressional App Challenge to the intellectual property system by waiving the fee for those students to apply for a copyright registration for their winning work.

I applaud Mr. Jeffries for introducing this bipartisan, bicameral legislation with Ms. Mace, along with their bipartisan cosponsors.

Many of us in this Chamber know just how important intellectual property rights are to our country and to our economy, yet studies show that awareness of intellectual property is lacking among the country's students, even if they pursue fields that are IP-intensive.

The ARTS Act helps close this awareness gap early on and allows these students to participate in the intellectual property system without a financial burden.

It builds on Congress' work to encourage the creativity of our Nation's youth with the establishment of the Congressional Art Competition nearly 40 years ago and the Congressional App Challenge more recently in 2013.

In the art competition, Members host a districtwide contest in which high school students compete to have their artwork hang in the Halls of Congress. In the app challenge, middle and high school students show off their computer coding skills and compete against others in their district.

Year after year, in both of these competitions, the talent our students display is remarkable. Through both, we continue to see our youth encouraged to develop their artistic and technology talents, as Congress intended.

The ARTS Act makes these competitions even more impactful. Under the bill, students may apply to register a copyright for their winning artwork and winning app for free. This introduces these students to the intellectual property system and the benefits of copyright protection.

Under current law, the Register of Copyrights cannot waive these fees on her own. The ARTS Act amends the Copyright Act to allow such a fee waiver for these specific circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, I again applaud Mr. Jeffries and Ms. Mace for bringing forward this important bipartisan legislation, which will aid the next generation of creators and innovators, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the sponsor of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2571) to include Portugal in the list of foreign states whose nationals are eligible for admission into the United States as E- 1 and E-2 nonimmigrants if United States nationals are treated similarly by the Government of Portugal and to otherwise modify the eligibility criteria for E visas, 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 H.R. 2571.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2571, the Advancing Mutual Interests and Growing Our Success Act, or AMIGOS Act, would allow citizens of Portugal to participate in the E-1 and E-2 visa programs for traders and investors if Portugal provides reciprocal treatment to U.S. citizens.

The E-1 Treaty Trader program provides temporary visas to individuals or employees of firms that engage in substantial trade with the United States.

The E-2 Treaty Investor program provides visas to individuals so that they can develop and direct the operations of an enterprise in which they have invested a substantial amount of capital.

The United States became Portugal's largest trading partner outside the European Union in 2015. Bilateral trade between our counties is growing at a rapid pace, from $4.2 billion in 2015 to $8.9 billion in 2019.

Unlike most European Union countries, Portugal did not have a bilateral treaty with the United States before joining the European Union. Now, despite being one of our closest allies and closest economic partners, they are one of only five European Union countries whose citizens are not eligible for E-1 and E-2 visas.

This is a bipartisan measure that we can all support. The bill simply would expand opportunities for Portuguese citizens to invest in the United States, facilitate trade, and create jobs for U.S. workers.

The bill also strengthens the E visa programs by ensuring that individuals who obtain the nationality of a treaty country through an investment-based visa have sufficient ties to their new country of nationality before they can qualify for an E-1 or E-2 visa.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) for championing this issue and working across the aisle to build consensus on this legislation. H.R. 2571 will improve our economy and strengthen our ties with an important and longstanding ally.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. Speaker, the AMIGOS Act is bipartisan legislation that would improve our economy and strengthen our ties with an important and longstanding ally.

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

Madam Speaker, today I am proud to have introduced the ``Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act of 2021,'' or the ``MORE Act of 2021.'' This long overdue legislation would reverse the failed policy of criminalizing marijuana on the federal level and would take steps to address the heavy toll this policy has taken across the country, particularly on communities of color.

The MORE Act would make three important changes to federal law:

(1) remove marijuana, or cannabis, from the list of federally controlled substances;

(2) authorize the provision of resources, funded by an excise tax on marijuana, to address the needs of communities that have been seriously impacted by the War on Drugs, including increasing the participation of communities of color in the burgeoning cannabis market; and

(3) provide for the expungement of Federal marijuana convictions and arrests.

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 unwise and unjust.

This issue is not new to Congress. There have been many Members who have introduced bills upon which provisions in this bill are based. For instance, Representative Barbara Lee has sponsored bills that are the foundation of key provisions of the MORE Act, and I thank her for her longstanding leadership on this issue. Representative Earl Blumenauer has also been an indefatigable advocate and has supported everything we have done to get to where we are today. I thank him, as well as my other colleagues who have joined me as original cosponsors on the bill.

Federal action on this issue would follow the growing recognition in the states that the status quo is unacceptable. Despite the federal government's continuing criminalization of marijuana, 36 states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical cannabis. Fifteen states and the District of Columbia have legalized cannabis for adult recreational use.

I have long believed that the criminalization of marijuana has been a mistake, and the racially disparate enforcement of marijuana laws has only compounded this mistake, with serious consequences, particularly for communities of color.

It was only in the early part of the 20th century that marijuana began to be criminalized in the United States--mainly because of misinformation and hysteria, based at least in part on racially-biased stereotypes connecting marijuana use and people of color, particularly African-Americans arid Latinos. In 1970, when President Nixon announced the War on Drugs and signed the Controlled Substances Act into law, the federal government placed marijuana on Schedule I, the most restrictive schedule that is attached to the most serious criminal penalties, where--unfairly and unjustifiably--it has remained ever since.

As a consequence of this decision, thousands of individuals-- overwhelmingly people of color--have been subjected, by the federal government, to unjust prison sentences for marijuana offenses. It is time for this manifest injustice to end. The MORE Act would remove marijuana from Schedule I and the Controlled Substances Act altogether, thereby decriminalizing it at the Federal level.

This is only fair, particularly because the same racial animus motivating the enactment of marijuana laws also led to racially disproportionate enforcement of such laws, which has had a substantial, negative impact on communities of color. In fact, nationwide, the communities that have been most harmed by marijuana enforcement are benefitting the least from the legal marijuana marketplace.

The MORE Act would address some of these negative impacts, by establishing an Opportunity Trust Fund within the Department of Treasury to fund programs within the Department of Justice and the Small Business Administration to empower communities of color and those adversely impacted by the War on Drugs. These programs would provide services to individuals, including job training, reentry services and substance use disorder services; provide funds for loans to assist small businesses that are owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals; and provide resources for programs that minimize barriers to marijuana licensing and employment for individuals adversely impacted by the War on Drugs.

The collateral consequences of a conviction for marijuana possession--and even sometimes for a mere arrest--can be devastating. For those saddled with a criminal conviction, it can be difficult or impossible to vote, to obtain educational loans, to get a job, to maintain a professional license, to secure housing, to receive government assistance, or even to adopt a child.

These exclusions create an often-permanent second-class status for millions of Americans. This is unacceptable and counterproductive, especially given the disproportionate impact that enforcement of marijuana laws has had on communities of color. The MORE Act recognizes this injustice and addresses these harmful effects by expunging and sealing federal convictions and arrests for marijuana offenses. Indeed, the states have led the way--and continue to lead the way--on marijuana, but our federal laws have not kept pace with the obvious need for change. We need to catch up because the public supports reform and because it is the right thing to do.

In my view, applying criminal penalties, with their attendant collateral consequences for marijuana offenses is unjust and harmful to our society. The MORE Act comprehensively addresses this injustice, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise to thank and honor Shadawn Reddick- Smith for her years of distinguished service to the House Judiciary Committee and to the United States Congress. Through her strategic insight and tireless dedication to advancing the Committee's priorities, Shadawn played a vital role in ensuring the work of the House Judiciary Committee was accessible and tangible to the American people.

As we toiled together to reject then-President Trump's disgraceful efforts to undermine our democracy and erode key Judiciary priorities-- namely reforming our immigration system, preventing gun violence, and protecting access to the ballot box--I saw firsthand her passion and her skillful capacity to render our often-complex work understandable to the public.

When Democrats took control of the House in January of 2019, the eyes of the country were fixed upon the Judiciary Committee I now chaired. I was deeply grateful that Shadawn stayed on my staff as my communications director as we entered this unprecedented time in American history. Before us lay problems existential in nature and scope: a lawless President intent on destroying democratic norms, an executive branch stubbornly fixed on stonewalling accountability, and a structure of government thrown into disarray by the Administration's ineptitude and cruelty.

Despite the daunting task at hand, Shadawn's composure was unflagging and her capacity to maintain and nurture relations with members of the press--and the Democratic caucus--were invaluable.

It would be easy to recognize Shadawn first and foremost for her work on the Judiciary Committee's oversight efforts, which included two presidential impeachments during her tenure. And, to be sure, Shadawn handled these incredibly demanding environments with poise, marshalling stakeholders, communicating effectively with the media, and shaping the public narrative to ensure our message of accountability under the law was heard loudly and clearly by the American people. But to focus only on these high-profile events would be to omit Shadawn's commitment to all the work of the Judiciary Committee.

Shadawn sacrificed much of herself, without complaint, to provide access to the press and ensure the public understood what was transpiring in the Halls of Congress. She would regularly wake early, arriving at the Rayburn House Office Building often before the sun rose to ensure that television cameras and reporters were met with unlocked doors. She was also a kind presence to the junior staffers and interns who perform much of the unsung work of the Committee, offering guidance on how to communicate effectively and how to navigate a career on Capitol Hill. And Shadawn expanded and transformed the Judiciary Committee's digital program, ensuring that the work of the Committee could meet Americans where they are today: online and on social media. Her legacy is a Judiciary Committee with a social media reach unparalleled among other House Committees.

In bringing the Judiciary Committee into the 21st century, Shadawn worked to ensure that the Committee was actively addressing issues that were top of mind to the American people. She was deeply passionate about overhauling America's broken, often brutal system of policing and helped shepherd the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act--bold legislation that reimagines policing in our communities--through the Judiciary Committee and the full House of Representatives. In doing so, Shadawn showcased her wide array of skills, demonstrating her ability to build consensus, deftly manage a surge of press requests, and craft a message that helped facilitate the bill's passage while rendering it visible to the public at large.

Shadawn is moving on to tackle new challenges at the Department of Homeland Security, where she will serve as Director of Strategic Communications. She is one of a select few who stood tall and demonstrated exemplary grit during a most turbulent moment for our nation. I always felt proud to have her by my side.

I wish Shadawn all the best in her future endeavors, and I thank her for her service to the Committee, to the Congress, and to the country.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 937) to facilitate the expedited review of COVID-19 hate crimes, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 937.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act is important and timely legislation to address the disturbing rise in violence directed at Asian Americans during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Among other things, this legislation would help DOJ expedite review of reported cases of hate crimes during the pandemic and provide guidance to State and local law enforcement agencies for collecting better and more accurate data.

It also incorporates the Jabara-Heyer NO HATE Act, which includes measures to encourage the adoption and implementation of the National Incident-Based Reporting System to facilitate the reporting of hate crimes by local police departments to the FBI.

The COVID-19 pandemic has taken almost 600,000 lives in the U.S. It has also, unfortunately, deepened existing divisions in our country. Racist, hateful rhetoric blaming the pandemic on Asian Americans fanned the flames of discord and resulted in a disgraceful, sickening, and ongoing spate of violence and discrimination against Asian people across our country.

Stop AAPI Hate has collected reports of over 6,000 anti-Asian hate crimes and incidents since the pandemic began in March 2020. Just this month, they released four more heartbreaking attacks on Asian Americans in New York City alone. These cases are, unfortunately, part of a broader and deeply troubling uptick in hate crimes generally since 2015, with a surge in such crimes in 2019.

This legislation addresses this disturbing trend by helping policymakers determine where critical resources should be focused, identifying trends that can be interrupted, and directing public education campaigns.

I thank my good friends, Congresswoman Grace Meng and Senator Mazie Hirono, for championing this bill; Congressman Don Beyer and Senator Richard Blumenthal for their leadership on the Jabara-Heyer NO HATE Act; Chairman Steve Cohen, for holding an important hearing in his subcommittee on hate crimes and violence against Asian Americans; and Congresswoman Judy Chu, you, Madam Speaker, chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, for your tireless advocacy for the AAPI community.

The Senate passed this bill almost unanimously. I urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Meng).

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

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

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

Madam Speaker, I wish the gentleman from New York a happy birthday.

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 Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu), one of the sponsors of this legislation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, our country is experiencing a devastating rise in hate, particularly against Asian Americans, throughout this pandemic. The COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act responds to this urgent problem and will help our government position itself to act quickly on reports of hate crimes. It will ensure we have accurate data on the size and scope of the problem. With this information, the Department of Justice will be better positioned to act on reported hate crimes and to prevent future ones.

Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this important legislation and to send it to the President's desk without delay, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Katko for cosponsoring this bill.

For as long as women have been in the workforce, they have faced discrimination because of their sex, which is only amplified when a woman is pregnant. Pregnant workers are often passed over for promotions, forced out on leave, whether paid or unpaid, and sometimes even fired. As we have seen time and again, these policies disproportionately impact women of color and low-wage hourly workers.

We all agree that pregnancy is not a disability, but sometimes pregnant workers need an easy fix, such as a stool or an extra bathroom break, to stay on the job. These accommodations are short in duration, and typically cost very little to provide, but they can mean the difference between keeping your job or putting your pregnancy at risk.

Given the low cost of these accommodations, we must ask why so many employers are unwilling to provide them and keep their pregnant workers employed. The answer, unfortunately, is that for many employers, a pregnant employee embodies negative gender stereotypes regarding motherhood and pregnancy. Society still expects women to conform to stereotypical notions that to be a good parent, you must choose between pregnancy and work.

This harmful stereotype puts working women in an impossible position of having to choose between their family's health and their financial well-being. While pregnancy may create some known physical limitations, this choice between work and pregnancy is a fallacy and can be remedied with a reasonable accommodation. Despite repeated attempts by Congress over the years to address this persistent gender discrimination, many employers still view pregnancy and work as incompatible.

Current law continues to allow employers to simply force most pregnant workers out on leave rather than even considering providing an accommodation. The Americans with Disabilities Act does require employers to accommodate a pregnant worker if her work limitations rise to the disability impacting one or more major life functions. Women who have limitations that do not rise to this level are not protected under the ADA, which was not designed to address pregnancy-related gender discrimination.

Furthermore, the courts have hamstrung other attempts by Congress to address pregnancy-related gender discrimination. Courts have interpreted the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to only require employers to provide an accommodation if they also accommodate nonpregnant employees similar in their ability or inability to work and employed in similar working conditions.

In order to prove discrimination, pregnant women must have perfect and complete employment and medical histories for every other employee in their workplace. It is obviously nearly impossible for employees to have that information, as evidenced by the fact that in over two-thirds of cases, courts have sided with employers who denied a pregnant worker accommodation.

Current law lets women fall through the cracks in every sector of our economy, including the public sector. Take, for example, the story of Devyn Williams, a correctional officer trainee with the Alabama Department of Corrections. From the moment Ms. Williams told her employer she was pregnant, they started a campaign to fire her.

When she presented a note from her doctor requesting to be excused from a monthly physical training session during her pregnancy, the State fired her. Her employer actually wrote an email stating that her doctor's note gave them grounds to dismiss Ms. Williams.

Even with that email in her possession, Ms. Williams is still litigating her case 5 years later. No one should have to go to Federal court to get a simple accommodation to safely stay on the job while pregnant.

The bipartisan Pregnant Workers Fairness Act before us today will close this gap in the law and create an affirmative right to accommodation for all pregnant workers. Using the familiar language of the ADA as a framework, the bill requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant workers as long as the accommodation does not impose an undue hardship on the employer.

Courts know exactly how to interpret that language.

Employers know exactly what their responsibilities will be. But most importantly, women will have the certainty they can safely stay on the job.

That is why 30 States have passed pregnancy accommodation laws similar to the PWFA and over 200 business, civil rights, health, and labor organizations support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters of support from two of those organizations, A Better Balance and the National Women's Law Center.

May 11, 2021.

Re The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (H.R. 1065).

Dear Representative: On behalf of A Better Balance, I write

to express our strong support for the Pregnant Workers

Fairness Act (``PWFA''; H.R. 1065). This legislation will

ensure pregnant workers, particularly low-income workers and

women of color, are not forced to choose between their

paycheck and a healthy pregnancy. The bill will require

employers to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnant

workers unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the

employer, similar to the accommodation standard already in

place for workers with disabilities.

Forty-two years after the passage of the Pregnancy

Discrimination Act, pregnant workers still face rampant

discrimination on the job and treatment as second-class

citizens, as I explained in detail in my Congressional

testimony before the House Education & Labor Committee in

March 2021 and October 2019, as well as in A Better Balance's

May 2019 report, Long Overdue. We urge you to support healthy

pregnancies, protect pregnant workers' livelihoods, and end

the systemic devaluation of women of color and vote YES on

the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

A Better Balance is a national non-profit legal

organization that advances justice for workers so they can

care for themselves and their loved ones without sacrificing

their economic security. Since our founding, we have seen day

in and day out the injustices that pregnant workers continue

to face because they need modest, temporary pregnancy

accommodations and have led the movement at the federal,

state, and local level to ensure pregnant workers can receive

the accommodations they need to remain healthy and working.

As I wrote in my 2012 Op-Ed in The New York Times ``Pregnant

and Pushed Out of Job,'' which sparked the PWFA's

introduction in Congress, ``[Gaps in our civil rights laws

leave this enormous class without the right to the modest

accommodations that would protect them.'' As a result, ``for

many women, a choice between working under unhealthy

conditions and not working is no choice at all.''

We founded A Better Balance 15 years ago because we

recognized that a lack of fair and supportive work-family

laws and policies--the ``care crisis''--was

disproportionately harming women, especially Black and Latina

mothers, in low-wage jobs. As I recently shared before

Congress, ``This bias and inflexibility often kicks in when

women become pregnant and then snowballs into lasting

economic disadvantage. We call this the `pregnancy penalty'--

and since day one, A Better Balance has recognized it as a

key barrier to gender equality in America.''

Through our free, national legal helpline, we have spoken

with thousands of pregnant workers, disproportionately women

of color, who have been fired or forced on to unpaid leave

for needing accommodations, often stripping them of their

health insurance when they need it most, driving them into

poverty, and at times, even homelessness. Other women we have

assisted were denied accommodations but needed to keep

working to support themselves and their families and faced

devastating health consequences, including miscarriage,

preterm birth, birth complications, and other maternal health

effects.

In the past year alone, we have heard from women across the

country who continue to face termination or are forced out

for needing pregnancy accommodations, in situations often

exacerbated by the pandemic and economic crisis. Tesia, a

retail store employee from Missouri called us in 2020 after

she was forced to quit her job because her employer refused

to let her carry a water bottle on the retail floor even

though she was experiencing severe dehydration due to hot

temperatures in the store this summer. A massage therapist

from Pennsylvania called us in June 2020 requesting to return

to work on a part-time basis on the advice of her OB-GYN

after experiencing cramping in her uterus. Her employer

responded that they would not accommodate her and cut off all

communication with her after that, forcing her out of work

just three months before she was due to give birth. A nurse

we spoke with from Pennsylvania who was six months pregnant

requested to avoid assignment to the COVID-19 unit. Though

her hospital was not overwhelmed by the pandemic at that

time, had many empty beds, and other workers were being sent

home, her employer refused her request and made heartless

comments mocking her need for accommodation. She decided not

to jeopardize her health and lost pay for missing those

shifts as a result. She also worried about being called to

the COVID unit shift constantly. Without the law on their

side, these women had little legal recourse because they

lived in a state without a state-level pregnant workers

fairness law.

Although the pandemic has shined a spotlight on these

issues, the stories we heard in 2020 are in many ways similar

to those we've been hearing for over a decade. ln 2012,

Armanda Legros was forced out of her job at an armored truck

company because her employer would not accommodate her

lifting restriction. Without an income, she struggled to feed

her newborn and young child. As she told the Senate Health,

Education, Labor, and Pensions committee in a hearing in

2014, ``Once my baby arrived just putting food on the table

for him and my four-year-old was a challenge. I was forced to

use water in his cereal at times because I could not afford

milk.'' The need for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

preceded our current public health crisis and will remain in

place beyond the pandemic, until the law is passed.

Current Federal Law is Failing Pregnant Workers: The Pregnant Workers

Fairness Act is the Solution

Gaps in federal law, namely the Pregnancy Discrimination

Act (PDA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), mean

many pregnant workers in need of accommodation are without

legal protection in states that do not have statewide PWFA

protections. As we explained in our report Long Overdue,

``[w]hile the PDA bans pregnancy discrimination, it requires

employers to make accommodations only if they accommodate

other workers, or if an employee unearths evidence of

discrimination. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires

employers to provide reasonable accommodations to workers

with disabilities, which can include some pregnancy-related

disabilities. However, pregnancy itself is not a disability,

leaving a gap wherein many employers are in no way obligated

to accommodate pregnant workers in need of immediate relief

to stay healthy and on the job.''

Original analysis we conducted for Long Overdue found that

even though the 2015 Supreme Court Young v. UPS case set a

new legal standard for evaluating pregnancy accommodation

cases under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, in two-thirds

of cases decided since Young, employers were permitted to

deny pregnant workers accommodations under the Pregnancy

Discrimination Act. As I shared in my recent testimony, women

are continuing to lose their cases because of this uniquely

burdensome standard.

That statistic, as devastating as it is, does not account

for the vast majority of pregnant workers who do not have the

resources to vindicate their rights in court. Beyond being

resource strapped, most pregnant workers we hear from do not

have the desire to engage in time-consuming and stressful

litigation. They want to be able to receive an accommodation

so they can continue working at the jobs they care about

while maintaining a healthy pregnancy.

The Americans with Disabilities Act is also inadequate for

pregnant workers for two reasons. First, because pregnancy is

not itself a disability under current disability law, a

pregnant worker who has no complications but seeks an

accommodation in order to avoid a complication, will not be

able to get an accommodation under the Americans with

Disabilities Act. Second, even though Congress expanded the

Americans with Disabilities Act in 2008, courts have

interpreted the ADA Amendments Act in a way that did

little to expand coverage even for those pregnant workers

with serious health complications. As one court concluded in

2018, ``Although the 2008 amendments broadened the ADA 's

definition of disability, these changes only have had a

modest impact when applied to pregnancy-related conditions.''

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a Critical Economic Security,

Maternal Health, and Racial Justice Measure

Pregnant workers who are fired or forced on to unpaid leave

for needing accommodations face significant economic

hardship. In addition to losing their livelihood, many of

these workers lose their health benefits at a time when they

need them most, forcing them to switch providers, delay

medical care, or face staggering health care costs associated

with pregnancy and childbirth. Many workers must use up saved

paid or unpaid leave they had hoped to reserve to recover

from childbirth. We worked with one woman who was eight

months pregnant and whose hours were cut after she needed an

accommodation which meant she also lost her health insurance.

As a result, she asked her doctor if they could induce her

labor early, despite the health risks in doing so, so that

she would not be left facing exorbitant medical bills. In the

long term, being pushed out for needing pregnancy

accommodations also exacerbates the gender wage gap, as it

means not only a loss of pay, but also losing out on many

types of benefits such as 401K and retirement contributions,

social security contributions, pensions, as well as

opportunities for promotion and growth.

To be clear, most pregnant workers may not need

accommodations. However, for those who do, reasonable

accommodations can avert significant health risks. For

instance, in a Health Impact Assessment of state level

pregnant workers fairness legislation, the Louisville,

Kentucky Department of Public Health and Wellness concluded,

``Accommodating pregnant workers, upon their request, is

critical for reducing poor health outcomes . . . Improving

birth outcomes makes a sustainable impact for a lifetime of

better health.'' The report noted that those poor health

outcomes can include miscarriage, preterm birth, low birth

weight, preeclampsia (a serious condition and leading cause

of maternal mortality), among other issues. According to the

March of Dimes, in the U.S., nearly 1 in 10 babies are born

pre-term and the preterm birth rate among Black women is

nearly fifty percent higher than it is for all other women.

Preterm birth/low birthweight is a leading cause of infant

mortality in America. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a

key measure to reduce poor maternal and infant health

outcomes.

Pregnancy accommodations are also a key solution, among

many, needed to address the Black maternal and infant health

crisis. Systemic racism has led to the shameful reality that

Black women in this country are three to four times likelier

to die from pregnancy-related causes than white women, and

Black babies are more than two times as likely to die in the

first year of life than white babies. At the same time, we

know Black women also face devastating health consequences

when they are unable to obtain needed pregnancy

accommodations to maintain their health and the health of

their pregnancies. When Tasha Mureil, a Black woman who

worked at a warehouse in Tennessee, received a doctor's note

saying she needed a lifting restriction and complained of

extreme stomach pain, she was forced to continue lifting on

the job. One day, she told a supervisor she was in pain and

asked to leave early. Her manager said no. Tragically, she

had a miscarriage the next day. Tasha was not alone. Three

more of her coworkers, also Black, miscarried after

supervisors dismissed their requests for reprieve from heavy

lifting. As Cherisse Scott, CEO of Memphis-based SisterReach,

explained ``It doesn't surprise me that this is the culture

of that workplace. I think it's important to look at the fact

that since we arrived here in chains, we [Black women] were

regarded as producers to fuel a labor force that couldn't

care less for us . . .'' The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

will ensure pregnant workers and their health are valued and

that Black mothers, especially, are not treated as expendable

on the job.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a Bipartisan Bill That Has the

Support of This Country's Largest Business Groups

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is not a partisan bill.

Not only does it have strong bipartisan support in Congress,

but thirty states and five cities including Tennessee,

Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia, Illinois, Nebraska,

and Utah already have laws requiring employers to provide

accommodations for pregnant employees. All of the laws passed

in recent years are highly similar to the federal

legislation, and all passed with bipartisan, and often

unanimous, support.'' Many, including Tennessee's and

Kentucky's, were championed by Republican legislators.

Pregnant workers are a vital part of our economy. Three-

quarters of women will be both pregnant and employed at some

point during their lives'' Ensuring pregnant workers can

remain healthy and attached to the workforce is an issue of

critical importance, especially as this country faces a

devastating economic crisis. That is why leading business

groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Society for Human

Resources Management, many major corporations, and local

chambers around the country including, Greater Louisville

Inc., one of Kentucky's leading chambers of commerce, support

this measure. The PWFA will provide much needed clarity in

the law which will lead to informal and upfront resolutions

between employers and employees and help prevent problems

before they start. Furthermore, accommodations are short term

and low cost. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will help

employers retain valuable employees and reduce high turnover

and training costs. The reasonable accommodation framework is

also borrowed from the American with Disabilities Act

framework so employers are already familiar with the

standard. Furthermore, keeping pregnant workers employed

saves taxpayers money in the form of unemployment insurance

and other public benefits.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Uses a Familiar Framework That Provides Key Protections to Pregnant Workers and Clarity to Employers

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act has several key

provisions that will address the inequality pregnant workers

continue to face at work. Employers, including private

employers with fifteen or more employees, will be required to

provide reasonable accommodations to qualified employees

absent undue hardship on the employer. Both the term

``reasonable accommodation'' and ``undue hardship'' have the

same definition as outlined in the American with Disabilities

Act. Similar to the Americans with Disabilities Act,

employers and employees will engage in an interactive process

in order to determine an appropriate accommodation. In order

to prevent employers from pushing pregnant employees out on

leave when they need an accommodation, the bill specifies

that an employer cannot require a pregnant employee to take

leave if another reasonable accommodation can be provided.

The bill also includes clear anti-retaliation language such

that employers cannot punish pregnant workers for requesting

or using an accommodation. This is critical as many pregnant

workers often do not ask for accommodations because they are

afraid they will face repercussions for requesting or needing

an accommodation.

Critically, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is also very

clear that a pregnant worker need not have a disability as

defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act in order to

merit accommodations under the law. Rather, the bill

indicates that pregnant workers with ``known limitations

related to pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical

conditions'' are entitled to reasonable accommodations.

``Known limitations'' is defined as a ``physical or mental

condition related to, affected by, or arising out of

pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions that the

employee or employee's representative has communicated to the

employer whether or not such condition meets the definition

of disability'' as set forth in the Americans with

Disabilities Act. This addresses the two challenges with the

ADA outlined above.

Now, more than ever, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is

an urgent maternal health, racial justice, and economic

security measure to keep pregnant workers healthy and earning

a paycheck. We cannot delay justice and fairness for pregnant

workers any longer. For the sake of this country's pregnant

workers and our nation's families, we implore Congress to put

aside its many differences and pass this legislation with a

strong bipartisan vote. We ask every Member of Congress to

vote YES on the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. It is long

overdue.

Sincerely,

Dina Bakst,

Co-Founder & Co-President,

A Better Balance.

Mr. Speaker, that is why, last Congress, the House passed identical legislation with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. But as the economy reopens, the problem persists. The House must act again to pass this bill, and the Senate must take it up.

Providing reasonable accommodations to pregnant workers helps businesses, workers, and families. Passing this bill is long overdue, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 330, I call up the bill (H.R. 1333) to transfer and limit Executive Branch authority to suspend or restrict the entry of a class of aliens, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. 1333.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 1333, the National Origin-Based Antidiscrimination for Nonimmigrants Act, or NO BAN Act, is an important step toward reining in executive overreach and preserving the power of Congress to establish our Nation's immigration laws.

Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the INA, authorizes the President to suspend the entry of noncitizens when the President finds that their entry would be detrimental to U.S. interests.

From 1952, when this provision was enacted, until January 2017, Presidents of both parties invoked section 212(f) to exclude only narrow groups of individuals, such as human rights violators, North Korean officials, and individuals seeking to overthrow governments, for reasons that would clearly serve the national interest.

But former President Trump abused this authority, twisting it in ways that were never intended. He first used it to deliver on his campaign promise to ban Muslims from the United States, an immoral and disastrous policy that traumatized children and families and made us no safer, while weakening our standing in the world.

The former President then used this section to rewrite immigration laws with which he disagreed. For example, the INA expressly provides asylum eligibility to any individual who arrives in the United States ``whether or not at a designated port of arrival.'' However, President Trump invoked section 212(f) to deny asylum to persons who cross the southern border between ports of entry, in direct conflict with the statute. Fortunately, the judiciary agreed that this was unlawful and stopped the policy from taking effect.

H.R. 1333 will prevent such executive overreach by amending section 212(f) to ensure it is used in a manner consistent with its intended purpose and historical norms.

Although President Biden has repealed the egregious orders of the Trump era, including the Muslim ban, we must pass the NO BAN Act to ensure that this authority is never abused again. In advancing this legislation today, we uphold our Nation's founding ideals and reaffirm our commitment to the rule of law.

This should not be a partisan issue. Members on both sides of the aisle should agree that no President, Republican or Democratic, should be permitted to usurp the powers of the legislative branch enshrined in the Constitution. The separation of powers is fundamental to our democratic Republic, and it must be protected.

I would like to thank my friend and colleague, Representative Judy Chu, for her leadership and her steadfast commitment to this issue. Her efforts led to the introduction of the NO BAN Act, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu), the author of this legislation.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the distinguished chairperson of the Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, let me say that I agree with some of what I heard from the Republicans. They said there is a lot of nonsense spoken on the floor today. Indeed, there was. Everything they have said about this bill is nonsense. They have said there is no Muslim ban. Everybody knows there was a Muslim ban. The President said he was going to impose a Muslim ban, and then he did.

When Nydia Velazquez and I went to Kennedy airport, when Jan Schakowsky went to the airport in Chicago, when other people went to the airport, what did we find?

We found Muslims being kept out of the country. People with perfectly valid visas, perfectly valid green cards, people whose relatives were waiting for them here because they had perfectly valid entry certificates, were being kept out of the country, and they couldn't even speak to their lawyers.

That is the next bill we will be considering on the floor in a few minutes.

That is what we found. And that has been in effect for a long time. It is un-American. It is unconstitutional. It is against the ethics of this country.

As the Speaker said--I think it was the Speaker who said it--the motto of the country is E Pluribus Unum; from many, one.

This situation, this Muslim ban, denies that. This says E Pluribus--I don't know the Latin from a few, not from all.

Madam Speaker, we must pass this bill. More than 400 organizations and industry leaders support this bill. They include Muslim Advocates, the ACLU, Airbnb, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society.

Yes, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society. Why? Because the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society remembers its futile efforts when Jews were turned away from this country to go back to the Holocaust; when the St. Louis was turned back to go back to the Holocaust; when the State Department deliberately wouldn't even use the quota. The quota was 150,000, and they kept it down to 6,000 because of the anti-Semitism of some officials in the State Department. And the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society--which was formed to aid Jewish immigrants, but has long since broadened its mission to aid immigrants from any country--knows what happens and doesn't want to see it happen again. That is why they are supporting this bill.

Other organizations and industry leaders that support this bill include the Service Employees International Union, because so many of their members were born abroad; the National Immigration Law Center, MoveOn, and United We Dream.

Members on both sides of the aisle should agree that no President, Republican or Democrat, should be permitted to usurp the powers of the legislative branch enshrined in the Constitution. The separation of power is fundamental to our democratic Republic and must be protected.

For all these reasons, that is why passage of H.R. 1333 is so vital. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 330, I call up the bill (H.R. 1573) to clarify the rights of all persons who are held or detained at a port of entry or at any detention facility overseen by U.S. Customs and Border Protection or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 H.R. 1573.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 1573, the Access to Counsel Act of 2021, is an important bill that will ensure that individuals who seek to lawfully enter the United States can contact a family member or an adviser if they are held for an extended period at a port of entry.

Last September, the Judiciary Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing to explore President Trump's Muslim ban and the chaos that unfolded at airports across the country when it was first announced.

I can personally attest to that chaos, based on my experience at JFK Airport immediately after the ban was implemented. Refugees, individuals with valid visas, and even lawful permanent residents were detained for hours and were prevented from speaking with attorneys. Some even had their phones taken away and were unable to call their family.

Although the issue grabbed the headlines then, it is, unfortunately, a problem that occurs daily. Due to the complexity of U.S. immigration law and the fact-intensive nature of questions regarding admissibility, it is not uncommon for some people to spend hours undergoing inspection by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP.

During this time, individuals are often prevented from communicating with those on the outside. And if the individual is lucky enough to have a lawyer, CBP will often refuse to speak to them, even if they can provide critical information or correct the legal error. Moreover, serious consequences can result from being refused admission.

Some have argued that this bill will require CBP to expend significant resources, but I believe they fundamentally misunderstand the substance of the bill. To be clear, H.R. 1573 does not provide a right to counsel, nor does it impose any obligation on the Federal Government to build any additional space to accommodate counsel or hire new staff, nor to pay for counsel.

The bill simply ensures that no one who presents themselves at a port of entry with valid travel documents is completely cut off from the world during the inspection process. It allows those seeking admission, including U.S. citizens, to communicate with counsel and other parties if they are subjected to secondary inspection that lasts longer than 1 hour. The bill specifically contemplates that this could be accomplished telephonically.

It is absurd to claim that providing these individuals with the opportunity to call their families or an attorney and potentially receive their assistance during the inspection process will consume significant CBP resources.

Madam Speaker, I would like to extend a special thanks to my colleague, Representative Jayapal, for her leadership on this issue and for championing this bill. I encourage my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), who is the chairwoman of the Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from California such time as she may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to have a lot more to say about this bill a little later, but I have to respond to one point that the gentleman just made.

He said he was considering whether the agreement to enter the Union was valid or was worth it. He is not the first to consider that. John Calhoun considered that. Others considered it, and they tried it. The result was a civil war. So I certainly hope that no one is thinking of that again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), who is the sponsor of the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

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

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 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.

Madam Speaker, I have heard a lot of nonsense on this floor. I have heard a lot of fiction on this floor today, but not everything the Republicans have said is fiction.

They said, for instance, there is a crisis at the border. Indeed, there is a crisis at the border.

The crisis at the border started under President Trump and has continued under President Biden; the same crisis. The difference is that President Trump tried to deal with the crisis in the cruelest way possible, by tearing babies away from their parents, by tearing families apart, and by doing so, so incompetently--I assume it was incompetence; maybe it was malevolence, I don't know--that they didn't even get the records so that people today can figure out how to reunite these families.

The crisis continues, but at least we are dealing with it. We are trying to deal with it in a humane way.

It is also interesting the fictions we have heard about this bill: This bill will cost money, this bill gives people the right to an attorney, and the Federal Government will have to pay for that attorney. Not true. Not true.

I suspect my Republican colleagues have lost the ability to read a bill somehow. The bill is very clear. The bill simply says that if someone with valid documents--valid documents--no litigation as to whether they are valid or not, they have got to be valid in the first place, a U.S. citizen, a green card holder, someone with a valid visa, that is all we are talking about. The bill simply says that those people, if detained at a border entry point for a period of time for longer than an hour have the right to make a phone call.

A phone call doesn't cost the government anything. They have the right to make a phone call. To whom? To whoever they want. A family member, perhaps an attorney, a friend, whoever they want.

Experience tells us that when people can make a phone call to an attorney in such a situation because the INA, the Immigration and Naturalization Act, is so complicated, it can often straighten things out, and that saves the government money. Because they don't have to litigate, it saves the government money. So this bill will not cost the government any money. It will save it money.

It will also help people who must be helped--again, I stress, only those people who have a valid document to enter the United States and for some reason are detained at the border.

How long does this last? Eight hours, at most. That is what the bill says, 8 hours.

This bill is limited to a measure that Members on both sides of the aisle, everybody, should embrace. As I said before, this is not a bill about a right to counsel. It is simply a bill about fair process. It ensures that individuals seeking to enter the United States with facially valid documents--a visa, a green card, including U.S. citizens who may have a passport--are given an opportunity to call somebody, a family member, counsel, another interested party, whoever they want, if they are subject to prolonged inspection.

Admissibility decisions by Customs and Border Protection can have life-altering consequences. This bill will ensure that CBP has the relevant facts prior to making decisions, the relevant facts, and facts that don't cost the CBP anything to get. Well, they do, actually: the cost of a phone call. I take that back. It would cost the CBP the cost of a phone call, although not necessarily, because the person may have their cell phone on him. So, it won't even cost the cost of a telephone.

I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the Access to Counsel Act. It makes sense. It hurts nobody. It imposes no duty on the government. It imposes no cost on the government. But it does mean that people will not unnecessarily get caught up in bureaucracy. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the Access to Counsel Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.