Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today, along with Representative Hank Johnson, chair of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet to honor and congratulate James Duff, who recently retired from his position as Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. In his role as Director, he also served as Secretary of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the principal policy-making body of the federal Judiciary. The Supreme Court and our federal court system are a cornerstone of our democracy; the third branch of our government is tasked with rendering impartial justice through interpreting and applying the laws that we in Congress pass, and of course, the Constitution. The judges and Justices who have this enormous responsibility rely on the Administrative Office to set them up for success, and this is no small undertaking. During his more than eleven years of service, Director Duff guided the courts through government shutdowns and the COVID-19 pandemic among other challenges, dedicating his efforts to ensuring that our federal courts have the resources and support they need to faithfully fulfill their constitutional role as the third branch of government.

Even prior to his role as Director, Mr. Duff had a long history of public service with the courts, particularly the Supreme Court. He was an assistant to Chief Justice Warren E. Burger while studying at Georgetown Law. From 1996-2000, he was a counselor/administrative assistant to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. In that role, he was the Court's liaison to Congress, the executive branch, and various state and federal organizations involved with the administration of justice and assisted the Chief Justice in his duties as Chancellor of the Smithsonian Institution.

Besides his work for the courts, Director Duff has been active in the community and educating the next generation of lawyers. He has served as the chairman of the Supreme Court Fellows Commission, a board member of the Supreme Court Historical Society, and an adjunct faculty member at Georgetown University, teaching constitutional law and civil liberties. In 2012, he was named to the University of Kentucky Arts & Sciences Hall of Fame and was the recipient of the Georgetown Entertainment and Media Law Achievement Award. In 2014, Director Duff was appointed to Georgetown Law's Board of Visitors and was named the Peter Mullen Professor of Law.

Upon appointment from Chief Justice Roberts, Director Duff twice served as the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, from 2006 to 2011, and from 2015 to 2021. About his tenure, the Chief Justice shared the following congratulatory words which are worth reiterating here:

Jim Duff has provided invaluable service to the Judiciary

during his first term as Director from 2006 to 2011 and his

second term from 2015 to the present. During these periods,

he has provided superb judgment in addressing a broad range

of issues. Among his many accomplishments, he has resolved

budgetary challenges, implemented workplace conduct reforms,

introduced new technology, strengthened and improved the

auditing and oversight of the Judicial Branch's financial

management, and--most recently--ensured that the courts

continue to operate effectively in the face of the nationwide

pandemic. As much as I appreciate his many contributions, I

understand his desire to begin a new phase of his life. On

behalf of the Judiciary, I thank Jim for his leadership.

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts does critical work to help ensure the nation's federal courts remain fair, efficient, independent, and impartial. We thank and congratulate Director Duff for his over eleven-year tenure as the head of that office and for his work with Congress during that time. This work has included securing critical appropriations for the judiciary, such as emergency funding during the recent coronavirus pandemic, ensuring that the law establishes courthouse locations and district divisions that reflect the needs of the community and judiciary, helping to ensure the safety of judges by securing legislation, the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007, which was directed at coordinating the work of the U.S. Marshals with the Judicial Conference and imposing criminal penalties designed to protect judges, witnesses, and others involved in court proceedings, and, in separate legislation, providing that sensitive information in financial disclosures can be redacted. We also commend Director Duff's commitment to public service and teaching throughout his career. After all of these accomplishments, we wish Director Duff the best in the next chapter in his life along with a fulfilling and rewarding retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I have rarely heard such pernicious nonsense as we heard from the minority leader a few minutes ago. He accused Mr. Swalwell of having a Chinese spy or Chinese agent in his campaign. I understand he has introduced a resolution to remove Mr. Swalwell from his committee for that purpose.

The fact is we all have hundreds of people in our campaigns--hundreds of people.

Can we vouch for any of them? Do we know everybody's associations? Do we know whether someone in the campaign is a spy or a thief, or whatever? Do we do a police investigation, an FBI investigation of every member of our campaigns?

That is absurd. And I think Mr. McCarthy ought to be ashamed because he is an experienced campaigner--he knows this--for raising these spurious allegations.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 233, I call up the bill (H.R. 6) to authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment of status of certain aliens, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. 6.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2021, is vital legislation that establishes a path to lawful permanent resident, or LPR, status for two critically important populations that are in dire need of protection.

The Dream Act creates an earned path to LPR status for Dreamers, individuals who entered the United States in their youth and who have lived here for most of their lives. Dreamers are part of the fabric of our Nation, aptly demonstrated by their commitment to bettering our country through the pursuit of education, military service, and employment.

It is undeniable that Dreamers enrich our Nation. They are our neighbors and coworkers, they are classmates with our children, and they serve in our military with distinction. They are an essential part of our communities, where they contribute to our thriving economy and make America a stronger, more united, and more diverse Nation.

Similarly, the American Dream and Promise Act provides a path to LPR status for individuals who either held, or were eligible for temporary protective status, TPS, as of January 1, 2017; or deferred enforced departure, DED, as of January 20, 2021.

TPS is a form of humanitarian relief provided to individuals from countries experiencing dangerous conditions and crises. DED is like TPS, but it is derived solely from the President's constitutional powers to conduct foreign relations.

Like Dreamers, TPS and DED recipients are essential to our communities. Many of them have lived in the United States for decades. They make up a significant portion of the workforce in key industries, including construction, food service, and home healthcare. They contribute to the U.S. economy, not only through their work, but also through consumer spending and tax revenue, and they have been particularly essential in serving our country during the COVID-19 pandemic.

I have no doubt that some of my Republican colleagues will stand before us today and use what they claim is a crisis at the border as an excuse not to support this bill. But let's get one thing straight, this legislation is not about the border, this legislation is about finally delivering on our promise to America's Dreamers and others who are equally deserving of our protection.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Nydia Velazquez, and Yvette Clarke, for their commitment to this important legislation, and to the millions of people this legislation will protect.

I hope that all my colleagues will stand up for them when it truly counts and will support H.R. 6 today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stanton).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Jones).

Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia).

Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).

Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz).

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

Madam Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Manning).

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

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

We do have a crisis in this country: the crisis consists of a shortage of workers. As our birth rate goes down, as our aging goes up, we have fewer and fewer workers. And since economists tell us that the number of workers is what produces prosperity, this is a crisis for the country.

Fortuitously, we have a situation where we have several million people in this country who are Americans, who have lived almost their entire lives in America, who, as was mentioned before, find out they weren't born in this country only when they apply for a driver's license when they are 18 years old. They are a resource for this country, and they ought to be legalized, which is what this bill does, so that we can utilize their talents properly and remain under rule of law.

Madam Speaker, organizations, associations, and industry leaders from across the political spectrum support passage of H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2021. They include among them: United We Dream, Service Employees International, the AFL-CIO--and these unions do not fear competition, they know it is good--the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, United States Chamber of Commerce, Apple, and the National Education Association.

After closing the books on 4 years of disastrous and inhumane immigration policies, today we begin a new chapter, one based on compassion, reason, and the fundamental values we hold dear as Americans.

Passage of H.R. 6 is long overdue. Today's vote will dictate the future of millions of Dreamers and recipients of the TPS and DED and will greatly help the economy of this country.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the American Dream and Promise Act of 2021, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 233, I call up the bill (H.R. 1603) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for terms and conditions for nonimmigrant workers performing agricultural labor or services, and for other purposes, 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 include extraneous material on H.R. 1603.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 1603, the Farm Workforce Modernization Act of 2021 addresses an issue of critical national importance: the growing labor challenges that are damaging the American agriculture sector.

Solving this issue is paramount to the sustainability of American farming. It is also a matter of food security, and thus, national security. As domestic food outputs decline, we have become more dependent on food imports and more vulnerable to food contamination. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed these vulnerabilities as travel restrictions impacted our food supply chain, and over 500,000 farmworkers tested positive for the virus.

With fewer U.S. workers turning to agricultural work as their chosen pursuit, most of today's hired farm laborers are foreign-born. Unfortunately, our immigration laws have not been updated to reflect the needs of our 21st century economy.

As a result of these outdated laws, undocumented workers now comprise about half of the U.S. workforce. But they are living and working in a state of uncertainty and fear, which contributes to the destabilization of farms across the Nation.

H.R. 1603, the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, addresses these challenges head on. The bill provides temporary status to current farmworkers with an optional path to a green card for those who continue to work in agriculture. The bill also addresses the Nation's future labor needs by modernizing the H-2A temporary visa program, while ensuring fair wages and workplace conditions for all farmworkers.

This is a bipartisan, balanced solution, one that we should all be able to get behind. It is a victory for farmers who have struggled with persistent labor shortages for decades.

It is also a victory for farmworkers who have worked tirelessly in the field growing and harvesting food without proper labor protections or any guarantee that they can remain in this country. No acceptable solution can fail to deal with this reality. That is why H.R. 1603 is the right solution.

Madam Speaker, I hope my colleagues will vote today in favor of providing a seat at America's table for those who have long grown the food we serve on it.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, Ms. Lofgren of California, the chair of the Immigration Subcommittee, for her leadership and steadfast commitment to the bipartisan process that led to today's vote on the Farm Workforce Modernization Act.

Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support our farmers and our farmworkers by supporting this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stanton).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

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

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 gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz).

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 233, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 17) removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment, 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.J. Res. 17.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, H.J. Res. 17 is long-overdue legislation to ensure that the equal rights amendment can finally become the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The House passed identical legislation last Congress on a bipartisan basis, and I hope it will do so again today.

Madam Speaker, in 1923, Alice Paul first introduced an amendment to the Constitution to guarantee full equal protection for women. The text of the amendment is simple and clear: ``Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.''

That amendment passed with overwhelming bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate in 1972.

Unfortunately, it fell just short of being ratified by the requisite number of States before the arbitrary deadline imposed by Congress ran out in 1982. In the 40 years since, we have made great strides in this country to ensure equality. Women have secured the right to vote, protection against workplace discrimination, and through case law decided under the 14th Amendment, many other critical protections denied them for too long on the basis of sex.

Without the ERA, millions of women have still had to march in support of their rights, their healthcare, their reproductive freedom and abortion access, and their dignity as equal citizens. Through the Me Too movement, we have had long-overdue, and sometimes painful, conversations about the violence and harassment that women and others experience--whether in the workplace, at homes, or in schools and universities.

But still, to this day, the Constitution does not explicitly recognize and guarantee that no one can be denied equal protection of the laws on the basis of sex. The ERA would enshrine those principles and take the final, critical step of ensuring that laws disadvantaging women and gender minorities are subject to the most rigorous form of scrutiny.

Last year, Virginia became the 38th and last necessary State to ratify the ERA, and, today, in passing H.J. Res. 17, we will be one step closer to enshrining it into law. This resolution removes a previous deadline Congress set in the amendment's proposing clause for ratifying the ERA, and will, therefore, ensure that recent ratifications by Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia are given full effect.

We are on the brink of making history, and no deadline should stand in the way. The Constitution itself places no deadlines on the process for ratifying amendments. Congress, just as clearly, has the authority to extend or remove any deadlines that it previously chose to set in the first place.

The recent ruling by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia refusing to recognize the recent State ratifications makes it even more imperative that Congress act now in removing this deadline. We must make it absolutely clear that Congress does not want language put in the proposing clause of a resolution 40 years ago to stand in the way of full equality now.

Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Speier for introducing this resolution, which takes that important step. This resolution will ensure, at long last, that the equal rights amendment can take its rightful place as part of our Nation's Constitution.

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

Madam Speaker, the gentlewoman errs, the deadline for ratification is not part of the amendment, it is part of the resolution proposing the amendment. And if Congress can propose a deadline, it can revoke that proposal since it is not part of the amendment at all.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

Madam Speaker, I am glad the gentleman recognizes that equality includes the right of each woman and man to make their own decision about their reproductive choices. There can be no equality of the sexes when one class of people is denied the ability to control their own bodies.

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 Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) that he may control that time.

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

Madam Speaker, every amendment since the 22nd, except for the 27th, has had a deadline for ratification inserted in the resolution. But if you look at the Constitution, Madam Speaker, you won't find the deadline. That is because the deadline is part of the congressional resolution proposing the amendment, not part of the amendment itself.

What Congress can propose, Congress can alter, which is all we are proposing to do today.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath) to control the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Madam Speaker, we are prepared to close.

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

Madam Speaker, Alice Paul's equal rights amendment was introduced in both Houses of Congress way back in 1923. But 96 years later, the United States Constitution still does not explicitly declare that women have equal rights under the law.

We are the only western democracy without such a clause in its Constitution. Today, we have an opportunity to rectify that glaring omission.

The arbitrary deadline for ratification that Congress imposed, and later extended, can be just as easily removed, and that is all this legislation does. It can be just as easily removed, because it is not part of the amendment, as some of our Republican friends said.

Every amendment since the 22nd Amendment, except for the 27th, has had such a clause. And if you look at the text of the Constitution, it is not there. That is because the deadline is part of the resolution proposing the constitutional amendment, not part of the constitutional amendment. If Congress can establish a deadline by resolution, it can certainly, by resolution, extend or change the deadline. That is all this resolution does.

Adopting the ERA would bring our country closer to truly fulfilling values of inclusion and equal opportunity for all people. Adopting this legislation would help make this a reality.

I urge all Members to support this resolution.

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

(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 233, I call up the bill (H.R. 1620) to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, and for other purposes, 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. 1620.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA, was signed into law in 1994 to help ensure that women in America are free from violence and free from fear. At the time that VAWA was enacted, it was all too common for violent crimes against women to go without appropriate response and to remain unaddressed by the criminal justice system.

But through programs implemented under VAWA, Congress began to help provide communities in America the assistance they need to combat the crimes of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

Building on this success, H.R. 1620 is bipartisan legislation that reauthorizes and strengthens the Violence Against Women Act so that it can continue delivering vital services to those in need.

VAWA, which is not gender-exclusive, addresses the needs of men and women, children, persons with disabilities, homeless persons, and LGBTQ individuals, among others.

This reauthorization would also increase access to grant programs for

culturally specific organizations and ensure that such organizations are included in the development and implementation of service, education, training, and other grants. The range of individuals VAWA helps is broad and should be as diverse as our communities around the country. I am pleased that this reauthorization continues our commitment to this principle.

VAWA has had, and continues to have, a positive impact on people who rely on its assistance, whether directly or indirectly.

Through grants to State and local governments, the Office on Violence Against Women in the Department of Justice funds the work of thousands of advocates in preventing and addressing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking, and in assisting and training law enforcement and victim advocates.

In addition, grants administered through the Department of Health and Human Services provide funds for shelters, rape prevention and education, programs to address and reduce the sexual abuse of runaway and homeless youth, and programs to educate the community on domestic violence. The reach of the work carried out under VAWA is vast, and we must continue to support it.

This legislation expands services for older survivors of abuse and for programs targeting rural areas. It also expands the jurisdiction of some Tribal authorities over non-Indians who commit certain crimes on Tribal lands to ensure that they are held accountable.

Like the legislation the House passed last Congress, it also includes provisions protecting transgender individuals, and it bans individuals convicted of domestic abuse from purchasing firearms.

The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act is comprehensive and inclusive legislation that I hope will earn further bipartisan support in the long tradition of this vital law.

I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the chair of the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee and the sponsor of this legislation, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick) for their outstanding leadership in the effort to reauthorize VAWA.

I also want to thank the advocates, many of whom are survivors themselves, for the countless hours they have put into improving this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.

Their efforts, and those of many other Members, have produced this important bill that will not only continue the progress enabled by VAWA as originally enacted but will also make the act an even more effective tool in addressing the horrible scourge of domestic violence.

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

House of Representatives,

Committee on Education and Labor,

Washington, DC, March 10, 2021.

Hon. Jerrold Nadler,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Nadler: I write concerning H.R. 1620, the

Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2021. This bill

was primarily referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and

additionally to the Committee on Education and Labor and

other committees. As a result of Leadership and the Committee

on the Judiciary having consulted with me concerning this

bill generally, I agree to forgo formal consideration of the

bill so the bill may proceed expeditiously to the House

floor.

The Committee on Education and Labor takes this action with

our mutual understanding that by forgoing formal

consideration of H.R. 1620, we do not waive any jurisdiction

over the subject matter contained in this or similar

legislation, and we will be appropriately consulted and

involved as the bill or similar legislation moves forward so

we may address any remaining issues within our Rule X

jurisdiction. I also request that you support my request to

name members of the Committee on Education and Labor to any

conference committee to consider such provisions.

Finally, I would appreciate a response confirming this

understanding and ask that a copy of our exchange of letters

on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during

floor consideration of H.R. 1620.

Very truly yours,

Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,

Chairman.

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

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

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

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 Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

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

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 Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, every year approximately 7.9 million women are victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner. An average of three women are killed every day by a current or former intimate partner. These grim statistics underscore the crucial need for us to act without delay to reauthorize VAWA, and to enhance and expand the Act so that it is even more effective.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join with me in voting for this critical bipartisan legislation today, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 233, I offer amendments en bloc.

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crist).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).

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

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

Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time remains.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett).

Madam Speaker, the en bloc amendment includes a number of very important amendments that make significant improvements to the bill. I appreciate all the Members who contributed to this en bloc amendment from both sides of the aisle, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment.

While I believe it is well-intentioned, and we all want to prevent the misuse of Federal funds, I am concerned about the effect that it may have on small service providers that provide crucial services to victims and survivors.

It is also unnecessary since the underlying bill maintains existing accountability measures, which have proven to work very well.

This amendment imposes a mandatory bar on receiving grant funds up to 5 years if the grant recipient is found to have fraudulently misused such grant funds. Smaller providers, many of whom are run on a voluntary basis, are more likely to make financial errors because they lack the accounting, financial, and compliance expertise that larger organizations have.

Many of these small providers are culturally specific, rural, and Tribal programs that play a crucial role in their communities. Banning such groups from receiving funding for 5 years in these circumstances could have an unnecessarily punitive effect and could be detrimental to the victims and survivors who rely on them.

For many small service providers who rely on Federal funds to support their operations, such a severe penalty, or even the threat of one, could make a difference between continuing to serve victims and survivors in need and shutting their doors forever.

Accountability is vital in all forms, and I appreciate the spirit behind this amendment; but, for these providers, I fear it could end up doing more harm than good. It is because of these concerns that this amendment is opposed by the National Network to End Domestic Violence, among other organizations, and I must reluctantly oppose the amendment as well.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 233, the previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).

The question is on the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, in the engrossment of H.R. 1620, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, spelling, and cross-references, and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1651) to amend the CARES Act to extend the sunset for the definition of a small business debtor, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1651.

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 1651, the COVID-19 Bankruptcy Relief Extension Act of 2021, is bipartisan legislation to temporarily extend, until March 27, 2022, the COVID-19 bankruptcy relief provisions enacted as part of the CARES Act in the December 2020 omnibus appropriations bill.

Since the bankruptcy provisions of the CARES Act will expire next week, it is urgent for Congress to ensure that families and small businesses do not lose access to these economic lifelines.

These provisions were enacted last year to provide critical relief to families and small businesses forced into bankruptcy because of the ongoing pandemic. For example, they help ensure that Federal COVID- related relief payments are used by families to get through this pandemic instead of being seized by creditors. They also help people stay in their homes and ensure that their utilities are not shut off.

In addition, these provisions protect individuals and creditors alike from the effects of the pandemic derailing the court-ordered repayment plans that promise a way out of chapter 13 bankruptcy.

They will also allow more small businesses to take advantage of the streamlined process established by the Small Business Reorganization Act.

Extending these necessary protections until March of next year will provide much-needed certainty that the bankruptcy system will remain responsive to debtors and creditors alike during this extraordinarily disruptive crisis.

I thank Mr. Cline for his work with me on this bill, and for his work to ensure that small businesses have meaningful access to the bankruptcy process.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this urgently needed bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers.

Madam Speaker, this bill will provide critical relief to the small businesses and families forced into bankruptcy because of the ongoing pandemic. These provisions help make sure that the pandemic does not derail the path to a fresh start that the bankruptcy code promises for individuals and businesses alike.

As Mr. Issa said, this is bipartisan legislation. I am aware of no opposition to it whatsoever.

Madam Speaker, I hope all of my colleagues will support this urgently needed bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1652) to deposit certain funds into the Crime Victims Fund, to waive matching requirements, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam 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. 1652.

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

Madam Speaker, the VOCA Fix to Sustain the Crime Victims Fund Act would support vital victim service programs by preventing future cuts to already diminished Federal victim service grants.

Grants under the Victims of Crime Act, or VOCA, are the primary source of Federal funding for thousands of victim service providers around the country, including programs serving victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, trafficking, and drunk driving. VOCA grants also fund victim compensation, including paying medical bills, covering lost wages, and paying for funeral costs.

These critical grants are not taxpayer-funded. Instead, they are paid out of the Crime Victims Fund, or CVF, which is funded, in turn, through Federal criminal fines, forfeited bail bonds, penalties, and special assessments collected by U.S. Attorneys' Offices, Federal U.S. courts, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Over the past several years, however, deposits into the CVF have dropped significantly, leading to corresponding cuts in grants to victim service providers. This is, in part, because the Federal Government has increased its reliance in recent years on deferred prosecution and nonprosecution agreements, the penalties from which are not deposited into the CVF.

This legislation would shore up funding for this critical fund by requiring DOJ to deposit penalties from these deferred prosecution and nonprosecution agreements into the CVF, in addition to the funds currently deposited from other sources.

Not only does this legislation ensure the CVF is more financially stable, it would also make much-needed improvements to victim compensation and services. For example, it would increase the statutory amount awarded to victim compensation programs, and it expands the range of victims eligible for compensation. It also allows States to request a no-cost extension from the Attorney General, as allowed for other Department of Justice formula grant programs, to ensure that States can thoughtfully and effectively distribute victim service grants without being penalized.

Other improvements include waiving matching requirements for the duration of the COVID-19 crisis, plus 1 additional year, and additional discretion for the States which administer VOCA funds to further waive matching requirements once this initial waiver period expires.

All of these provisions would substantially improve the program's effectiveness and would enable it to offer more services to more people.

I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), and the other bipartisan cosponsors of this important legislation for their support. I also want to thank our colleagues in the Senate, including Senator Durbin, the lead sponsor, and Senator Graham, for their efforts to pass this bill in that Chamber as well.

This bipartisan and bicameral legislation ensures that programs and services assisting victims of crime are fully funded and are better- supported, with no new taxpayer dollars.

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

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

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

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

Last year, all 56 State and territorial attorneys general sent a letter to Congress warning us that the balance and financial health of the Crime Victims Fund is in jeopardy and urging that we act swiftly to address the problem. They explained any decrease in the funds available for distribution results in a decrease in the number of victims and survivors that are served, as well as potential loss of essential staff in victim service programs.

The VOCA Fix to Sustain the Crime Victims Fund Act heeds their call and would ensure that this fund has the resources it needs to continue delivering essential services to victims of crime. This important legislation is supported by more than 1,670 national, regional, State, territorial, and local organizations.

I thank all of my colleagues who have supported this bill. I am aware of no opposition to this bill at all, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 188, I call up the bill (H.R. 8) to require a background check for every firearm sale, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. 8.

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

Mr. Speaker, gun violence impacts all of our communities, and no place is immune from its reach, including our homes, our streets, our schools, and even our places of worship. That is why we must take swift and decisive action to reduce the daily toll of gun violence that afflicts our Nation. H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021 is sensible and effective legislation to do just that.

Under current law, gun sales conducted by licensed firearms dealers may only be completed if the buyers clear background checks. This bill would simply extend that requirement, with limited exceptions, to guns transferred by unlicensed individuals as well. That simple change to close a gaping loophole in the law is one of the most effective steps we can take to address the scourge of gun violence in this country.

According to one study, 22 percent of gun owners in the U.S. acquired their most recent firearm without a background check. We do not know if they were felons, fugitives, domestic abusers, or otherwise prohibited under the law from possessing firearms. A huge volume of guns was sold with no questions asked. It is time to close this dangerous loophole.

There is no reason to continue to make it easy for people who are legally prohibited from possessing firearms to acquire them. The evidence clearly shows that background checks work and significantly curb gun violence. One study found that a Connecticut law requiring background checks was associated with a 40 percent decline in gun homicides and a 15 percent drop in suicides. On the other hand, when Missouri repealed its background check law, the State's gun homicides increased by 23 percent and suicides increased by 16 percent.

Gun violence of this magnitude is a distinctly American problem. A recent study in the American Journal of Medicine found that compared to 29 other high-income countries, the gun-related murder rate in the United States is 25 times higher. Even when you adjust for population differences, Americans are disproportionately killed by gun violence. This is a disparity that we can remedy by passing this bill.

With the exception of certain limited transfers, such as gifts to family members and transfers for hunting, target shooting, and self- defense, H.R. 8 would extend the current Federal background check requirement--which applies now only to licensed gun dealers--and would require virtually all transactions to undergo a background check to help ensure that firearms do not end up in the wrong hands.

I thank Representative Mike Thompson of California for drafting this important legislation and for being a champion of gun violence prevention in Congress.

Simply put, H.R. 8 will save lives. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to support safer streets, safer schools, and safer communities.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), the sponsor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that 160 families every day buy guns. All this bill does is to say that people who obtain guns from unlicensed dealers, as well as licensed dealers, must be subject to the background check, and that will save a heck of a lot of lives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

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

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

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

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 Texas (Mr. Doggett).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, since the House passed H.R. 8 more than 2 years ago, an estimated 80,000 people have lost their lives to gun violence. We have had too many moments of silence and too many expressions of sympathy. Too many families are grieving the loss of a loved one.

Expanding background checks is overwhelmingly supported by the American public because they know that it will make a meaningful difference in reducing gun violence and saving lives. It is time to enact this important legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is correct.

Amendments En Bloc Offered by Mr. Nadler of New York

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 188, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, this en bloc amendment includes several amendments that strengthen the bill and that thoughtfully modify it to account for practical considerations surrounding the use and misuse of firearms.

Among this group are a provision that clarifies the exchange of firearms between family members, a measure to protect more expansive State firearm laws, an amendment that would ensure ATF background check forms are available in Spanish, and a proposal that would allow for temporary transfers for pest control.

Representative Jackson Lee's amendment concerning suicide is particularly important as it highlights the tragic consequences that access to firearms can have on those who intend to harm themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the en bloc amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 188, I call up the bill (H.R. 1446) to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to strengthen the background check procedures to be followed before a Federal firearms licensee may transfer a firearm to a person who is not such a licensee, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. 1446.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1446, the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2021, is a critical bill to provide law enforcement the necessary time to keep firearms out of the hands of those who are not legally eligible to own them.

The 2015 massacre at Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, which killed nine innocent people, stands as a tragic reminder of how current background check laws sometimes fall short.

Under current law, a licensed gun dealer conducting a background check on a prospective purchaser is permitted to sell the firearm to the purchaser if there has been no determination from the background check system, commonly called NICS, after 3 business days.

This is the case even if the system has not indicated that the person has actually passed the background check. Often, we refer to this as a default proceed transaction.

While 96 percent of background checks are processed within 3 business days, an analysis of FBI data showed that over 35,000 guns were transferred to prohibited purchasers between 2008

and 2017 because of the default proceed rule.

On average, over the course of the last decade, 10 prohibited individuals have been able to purchase guns at licensed firearms dealers through the default proceed rule every single day.

The cases in which there is a delay are the very cases that ought to be carefully investigated.

If NICS is unable to return an instant determination--and especially if there is no report after 3 days--there is cause for concern. There may be a good reason that these individuals should not own firearms, but the current system allows the transfer nonetheless.

Under this legislation, as under current law, a sale may proceed immediately once a background check clears a purchaser, which is the case in the vast majority of instances.

This bill provides, however, that for checks taking longer to complete, the FBI will have 10 business days for the initial background check investigation period. If the check is not completed during this time, an individual may submit a petition for expedited review. If a petition is submitted, unless NICS provides an answer within the next 10 business days, either clearing the transaction or stopping it, a gun dealer has the discretion to complete the sale and transfer the firearm.

We must ensure that firearms transfers are lawful, and in some instances, that requires additional time. That is why H.R. 1446 is needed, to prevent the sale of firearms to prohibited individuals by providing the FBI with additional time to complete background checks.

H.R. 1446 is a sensible and necessary approach to closing a dangerous loophole, and I commend our colleague, Congressman Jim Clyburn, the distinguished Democratic whip, for introducing this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the sponsor of this legislation, and the distinguished majority whip.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have never heard such pernicious nonsense as we have heard today from our Republican friends.

They say that this legislation will violate gun rights. But all this legislation does is close a dangerous loophole that puts weapons in the hands of individuals who should not legally be permitted to purchase them merely because the FBI is not able to complete the background check in time.

The FBI under this legislation will have 10 days maybe instead of 3 days to complete the background check and decide whether someone is too dangerous to have access to guns. That is all this legislation does.

To say that it infringes on the Second Amendment, Mr. Raskin pointed out that Justice Scalia in the Heller decision upheld this kind of legislation.

So stop with the nonsense, pass this legislation, and make the American people safe.

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 188, I offer amendments en bloc.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.

Madam Speaker, the amendments contained in this en bloc amendment include important changes to the bill that will provide Congress additional information to inform our future decisionmaking.

Representative Burgess' amendment would require reporting to Congress on the number of NICS denials referred for investigation after a firearm was sold to a person who was later found to be ineligible.

Representative Levin's amendment adds State-level data tracking which will facilitate our review of which State gun safety measures have been effective and which should be considered on the Federal level.

Representative McBath's amendment would require critical reporting on the impact of the bill on victims of domestic abuse.

Lastly, Representative Neguse's amendment makes data available to the public regarding NICS denials.

These are valuable additions to H.R. 1446.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our Republican friends insist on misreading the bill. They insist on talking about things that aren't in the bill.

The bill takes away the rights of nobody except those who have threatened their wives, threatened their former wives, threatened other people in the community. Those are all the people who are affected.

Yes, we extend the NICS system from 3 days to 10 days. That means that if the NICS system hasn't reported back within 3 days, the FBI gets up to 10 days. At the end of 10 days, they can't stop you from getting a weapon unless the records show that you are not entitled to get the weapon because you are a danger to the community. That is what this bill does.

To misread it and say it gives any rights to felons, or to gun buyers, or to people who are criminals because they disobey the law, of course people who disobey the law are criminals. But that is not what the bill deals with.

The bill simply says that it effectuates a system that says that people who are threats to the community may not get guns. And it does not limit the time beyond 10 days to make that decision.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 179, I call up the bill (H.R. 1280) to hold law enforcement accountable for misconduct in court, improve transparency through data collection, and reform police training and policies, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 1280.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, last summer, millions of Americans all across the country took to the streets to demand fundamental change in the culture of law enforcement and to call for meaningful accountability for officers who commit misconduct.

The catalyst for these protests was the tragic and brutal death of George Floyd. None of us can forget the image of that officer's knee pinned to his neck for nearly 8 agonizing minutes, or the sound of his anguished pleas of ``I can't breathe'' that were ignored until his final breath was taken from him.

After his death, the world awoke to daily indignities, and sometimes the brutality, that too many people--disproportionately Black, Latinx, and indigenous people, people living in poverty, and people with disabilities--face in their interactions with law enforcement throughout the country.

We value and respect the many brave and honorable police officers who put their lives on the line every day to protect us and our communities. We know that most law enforcement officers do their jobs with dignity, selflessness, and honor, and they are deserving of our respect and gratitude for all they do to keep us safe. But we must also acknowledge that there are too many exceptions.

The reality for too many Americans, especially many Black Americans, is that police officers are perceived as a threat to their liberties; to their dignity; and, too often, to their safety. Sadly, our country's history of racism and racially motivated violence continues to haunt our Nation.

We see it in the rates of COVID deaths, in our system of mass incarceration, and in the vast chasm of economic inequality, all of which fall disproportionately on the backs of African Americans. And we see it in the harassment and excessive force that many people of color routinely experience by law enforcement.

That is why we must act today. The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act would allow for meaningful accountability in cases of police misconduct. It also effectively bans choke holds, ends racial and religious profiling, ends no-knock warrants in drug cases, and limits the militarization of local policing.

It encourages departments to meet a gold standard in training and other best practices to reduce police bias and violence. It requires significant data collection, including the first-ever national database on police-misconduct incidents to prevent the movement of dangerous officers from department to department.

In addition, this legislation creates a process to reimagine how public safety could work in a truly equitable and just way in each community.

Last summer, within weeks of the protests that galvanized the Nation, the House passed the legislation before us today. Unfortunately, the pleas for justice that rang out in the streets fell on deaf ears in the Senate.

Since then, over 600 more people--disproportionately people of color--have been killed by law enforcement officers.

The time for action is now.

I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass) for crafting this bold, yet responsible, legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass), the chief sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would simply point out that this bill does

not--all the cities that we talked about, it does not mention any cities.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, no matter how many times the other side says that this bill will defund the police, it does not make it true.

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

Mr. Speaker, no matter how many times Republicans may say the contrary, Democrats have never called for defunding the police.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, no matter how many times Republicans say that this bill defunds the police, it doesn't change the fact that it does not defund the police.

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Torres).

Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Williams).

Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Mfume).

Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 147, I call up

the bill (H.R. 5) to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and for other purposes, 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. 5.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5, the Equality Act, which amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other core civil rights statutes to explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The bill would also strengthen nondiscrimination protections for women and others.

In short, this long overdue legislation will provide millions of LGBTQ Americans explicit protections from being denied medical care, fired from their jobs, or thrown out of their homes simply because of who they are.

Much of the history of the United States is about expanding the definition of who is understood to be included when the Declaration of Independence says ``all men are created equal.'' When these words were first written, that phrase did not include Black and Latino men; it did not include Native Americans; it did not include women; and it did not include LGBTQ individuals.

Once again, we have an opportunity to continue our march toward justice and to enshrine in our Nation's laws protections for marginalized communities to ensure that everyone can fully participate in key areas of life and to provide them resources in the face of discrimination.

Today, I expect we will hear arguments asking us to pick and choose which of our Nation's children deserve our support, to pick which of our children are valuable enough to have a right to live their lives to the fullest. But that is a false choice and one designed to pit rights for some against rights for all. There is no question that all our children, including those who are transgender, deserve the freedom to choose their own path.

Many of the protections codified by this bill already exist throughout the country, whether through court decisions or in State laws. In those places, women still have rights, religious freedom is still protected, parents are still involved in their children's healthcare, and doctors are still free to exercise their professional medical judgment. And trans athletes from high schools to the Olympic trials sometimes win and sometimes lose, just like everyone else.

But the ability to have a job, to receive medical care, or to rent a home should not depend on who someone is, where they happen to live, or who represents them. LGBTQ people should not have to worry that a future Supreme Court could rip away their existing protections. They deserve the same protections as other communities that have historically faced discrimination, and that requires action from Congress.

For decades, the LGBTQ community has been telling us their stories of outrageous discrimination. Madam Speaker, to my colleagues, I say that it is far past time we stop asking them to come to the Capitol just to defend their existence.

To the LGBTQ community and, in particular, the trans youth and athletes who I expect will hear themselves demonized on the floor today: We see you, we appreciate you, we value you, and we will continue to fight for you.

I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), for his tireless leadership in introducing this bill and helping to shepherd it through the legislative process.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this landmark legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5, the ``Equality Act,'' which amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and other core civil rights statutes, to explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The bill would also strengthen non-discrimination protections for women and others.

In short, this long overdue legislation will provide millions of LGBTQ Americans explicit protections from being denied medical care, fired from their jobs, or thrown out of their homes simply because of who they are.

Much of the history of the United States has been about expanding the definition of who is understood to be included when the Declaration of Independence says, ``all men are created equal.'' When these words were first written, that phrase did not include black and Latino men; it did not include Native Americans; it did not include women; and it did not include LGBTQ individuals.

Once again, we have an opportunity before us to continue our march toward justice--to enshrine in our nation's laws protections for marginalized communities to ensure that everyone can fully participate in key areas of life, and to provide them recourse in the face of discrimination.

Today, I expect we will hear arguments that will ask us to pick and choose which of our nation's children deserve our support--to pick which of our children are valuable enough to have a right to live their lives to the fullest.

Despite what we will hear, that is a false choice--one designed to pit rights for some against rights for all. There is no question that all our children--including those that are transgender--deserve to have the freedom to choose their own path.

The Equality Act seeks to make our civil rights laws inclusive of all people who have historically faced discrimination. Not only does it provide explicit protections for the LGBTQ community, it also expands protections for women and people of color.

Under the Equality Act, women will finally be protected from discrimination in public accommodations and federally funded programs. By expanding the existing definition of public accommodations under the Civil Rights Act, the Equality Act also increases protections for people on the basis of race, color, religion, and national origin.

People of color should not need to fear being targeted and discriminated against while shopping, just because of the color of their skin. Muslim people should not need to fear being targeted while flying, just because of their religion. And LGBTQ people and women should not need to fear being denied services in public spaces and services simply because of who they are. At long last, this legislation provides them with legal recourse if they face such discrimination.

Many of the protections being codified by this bill already exist across all 50 states following the Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County in 2020, and we know that more than 20 states have had some version of the protections before us today even before the Supreme Court's ruling. In those places women still have rights, religious freedom is still protected, parents are still involved in their children's healthcare, and doctors are still free to exercise their professional medical judgment. And trans athletes, from high schools to the Olympic trials, sometimes win and sometimes lose, just like everyone else.

Opponents of the Equality Act argue that it undermines women's rights. That assertion is false. The Equality Act simply ensures that all women, including trans women, are included in female institutions and programs.

When it comes to athletics, the Equality Act ensures that LGBTQ students--including women and girls who are lesbian, bisexual, or transgender--will have the same opportunity to participate in sports as their peers. Trans women and girls have been participating in sports consistent with their gender at all levels for years, and we have not seen any dominance by trans athletes.

Young people who are trans are competing in sports for the same reasons as their peers who are not transgender--including to be part of a team and to challenge themselves--and they deserve the same opportunities as their cisgender peers.

That is why the Women's Sports Foundation, National Women's Law Center, and hundreds of athletes in women's sports and other women's rights groups have consistently voiced their strong support for inclusion of transgender women and girls in women's sports and have opposed efforts to exclude them. Women's sports can play a critical role in women's development and equality and including all women and girls in women's sports strengthens women's sports.

Similarly, single-sex institutions like women's and men's colleges have played an important and historic role in making our nation's higher education system the strongest and most diverse in the world. To be clear, nothing in the Equality Act should be construed to prohibit or otherwise limit or affect the ability of single-sex colleges to maintain their single-sex status. Moreover, it is not Congress's intention to alter in any way Title IX or the scope or availability of its exemptions as they currently stand.

In addition, the Equality Act will not undermine services like single-sex homeless shelters or single sex-facilities. It will simply ensure that these facilities do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Arguments that providing transgender people access to facilities consistent with their gender identity will undermine women's safety have no basis in reality. Laws protecting LGBTQ people from discrimination do not authorize anyone to engage in abusive or harassing behavior.

That is why over 300 domestic violence and sexual assault organizations, including the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, the National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence, and the National Center for Victims of Crime, have signed onto a National Consensus Statement of Anti-Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence Organizations in Support of Full and Equal Access for the Transgender Community.

Transgender people experience shockingly high rates of sexual and physical violence, and the real risk of violence occurs when transgender people are barred from using the appropriate facilities.

The idea that transgender people need explicit protections from discrimination is not new. Dozens of states provide nondiscrimination protections in public accommodations on the basis of gender identity, and in those states we have not seen the parade of horribles that Equality Act opponents raise.

The request to pit people's rights against each other is not based on the real-world outcomes--for which ample evidence exists to the contrary--but a continued resistance to advancing rights for those different from so many of us here in Congress. The ability to have a job, to receive medical care, or to rent a home should not depend on who someone is, where they happen to live, or who represents then politically. LGBTQ people should not have to worry that a future Supreme Court could rip away their existing protections, and they deserve the same protections as other communities that have historically faced discrimination. And that requires action from Congress.

For decades, the LGBTQ community has been coming here over and over to tell us their stories of outrageous discrimination. To my colleagues, I say, it is far past time we stop asking them to come to the Capitol just to defend their existence.

To the LGBTQ community--and in particular the trans youth and athletes who I expect will hear themselves demonized on the floor today--we see you, we appreciate you, we value you, and we will continue to fight for you.

I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island, Representative David Cicilline, for his tireless leadership in introducing this bill and helping to shepherd it through the legislative process. I urge my colleagues to support this landmark legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I object.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), who is a distinguished sponsor of this legislation.

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

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

Madam Speaker, this bill does not affect Title IX and, consequently, religious freedom at all.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia).

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a number of documents.

Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights

Washington, DC, February 25, 2021.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the Lawyers' Committee

for Civil Rights Under Law (hereinafter ``Lawyers''

Committee''), a nonpartisan civil rights organization formed

at the request of President John F. Kennedy to enlist the

private bar in providing legal services to address racial

discrimination, we urge you to vote for the Equality Act

(H.R. 5). The Equality Act would clarify that LGBTQ+ people

are protected against discrimination in access to credit.

housing, education, and employment under federal law, as well

as to strengthen public accommodation antidiscrimination for

all people.

The Lawyers' Committee strongly believes that the Equality

Act is an essential step in fulfilling our nation's

commitment to civil rights for all people. Unfortunately,

discrimination is a persistent problem for millions of people

in the LGBTQ+ community, particularly for those who also

identify as people of color. Everyone in America, regardless

of who they are, is entitled to equal rights and should be

free to pursue career and educational opportunities and live

their daily lives free from discrimination.

Black Americans and other people of color continue to face

persistent discrimination while engaging in commonplace

transactions, errands, and tasks, such as shopping and

accessing transportation like taxis and car services. The

Equality Act would finally make this discrimination illegal,

as it strengthens the public accommodations provision in the

1964 Civil Rights Act. Congress must act now to pass the

Equality Act to clarify and strengthen federal civil rights

protections so everyone across the country can engage in

public life without the fear of harassment or discrimination

because of who they are.

As Congress considers this important bill, we are committed

to ensuring the Equality Act does solely what it was intended

to do: clarify and strengthen existing federal civil rights

protections for everyone in America. We strongly oppose any

effort to weaken any existing federal civil rights law the

Equality Act would amend.

We urge you to vote for final passage of the Equality Act

because no one in our country should be discriminated against

for who they are. It is time for Congress to clarify and

strengthen federal civil rights protections for all

Americans.

Respectfully submitted,

Damon T. Hewitt,

Acting President & Executive Director, Executive Vice

President, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under

Law.

Erinn D. Martin,

Policy Counsel, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under

Law.

Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stanton).

Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean), and I ask unanimous consent that she may control that balance.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Torres).

Mr. Steube, what any religious tradition ascribes as God's will is no concern of this Congress.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, how much time do we have left?

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I have listened to this debate in amazement. I have been involved in this struggle for equality for many, many years. I was the chief author in the House of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and to hear it suggested that I would turn my back on religious freedom is just ridiculous.

This bill enshrines equality. It enshrines equality for everyone. That is its purpose. It does not contradict the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which, as a number of people have mentioned, I was the chief author of. But it does enshrine equality, and that is what our friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be afraid of, equality.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have the right to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

It is precisely because this bill enshrines equality; it is precisely because of the nonsensical nature of the arguments from the other side of the aisle that the Equality Act has been endorsed by more than 500 civil rights, women's rights, religious, medical, and other national and State organizations, including the American Medical Association, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the Episcopal Church, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the NAACP, the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence--to end sexual violence--the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, the National Women's Law Center, the Network Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, the Rabbinical Assembly, and the United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society, all of whom obviously would not endorse this bill if it had anything to do with destroying religious liberty.

It has also been endorsed by dozens of business associations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Sports and Fitness Industry Association, and hundreds of other businesses.

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

Madam Speaker. I rise to thank Daniel Schwarz for nearly six years of service in my personal office and on the Judiciary Committee. Throughout his time on my staff, he has provided key advice across a range of issues, and he has crafted effective strategies for communicating my office's vision and accomplishments to my constituents and to the American people.

Growing up in the Washington, D.C. area, it is perhaps no surprise that Danny has a keen understanding and appreciation of government and politics. After graduating from Indiana University, he earned a master's degree in politics and communication in the media from the London School of Economics and Political Science. He then worked in a variety of communications roles in both domestic and international politics.

Danny began working in my personal office as Communications Director in April 2015. He added the role of Director of Strategic Communications for the Judiciary Committee in January 2018, skillfully handling two high-profile and high-pressure positions at once. He also ensured that the need to keep my constituents informed never got lost among a sea of national press requests.

In addition to his responsibilities as Communications Director, he has been a key advisor on issues relating to the Jewish community and Israel in my personal office. When President Obama negotiated a controversial and highly technical agreement preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Danny's strategic thinking and advice was essential to evaluating the agreement and navigating the complicated political challenges that the deal presented.

Once I decided to support the deal, Danny helped craft a lengthy statement describing my decision and why I believed it was in the public interest, which he helped present to the public in a way that was nothing short of masterful. This statement was vital to building confidence with my constituents and with the broader public that I had arrived at this difficult decision with great thought and care. Danny's knowledge and keen analysis on issues relating to Israel has also made him an invaluable asset to staff from other offices who rely on his expertise in advising their Members.

Danny's work has always been integral to the office, but we needed his effort more than ever when President Trump came to office and it became necessary to hold him and his Administration accountable. As I became involved in more and more high-profile events--from rushing to the airport on the day the Muslim Ban was enacted, to introducing a Resolution of Inquiry about the President's connection to Russia, to calling out the racism and anti-Semitism coming out of Charlottesville with a powerful censure resolution. Danny was there every step of the way to ensure that my work was visible and understandable to the public.

He also helped guide the communications strategy during the impeachment proceeding of 2019. At a time when the eyes of the world were on the Judiciary Committee, Danny had the difficult task of helping to shape our message and working with all of the Committee Members as well as House Leadership and the broader Democratic Caucus to ensure that we spoke with one voice to make the case to the American public.

At the same time, Danny helped me navigate a local and national press corps hungry for information about our work. He developed strong relationships with journalists, skillfully balanced the needs of different news outlets, and he worked hard to keep me on message with clear and concise talking points.

Long before I became Chairman, Danny worked tirelessly to ensure that coverage of my work would put me and the positions I advocated in the best light. Danny's hard work behind the scenes also helped me rise to Ranking Member and, later, to become Chairman, and I am grateful for everything he did to get me where I am today.

Danny's skill as a writer and as a strategic thinker, combined with his good judgment, have been invaluable. His thoughtful advice, his deep understanding of how our words and deeds will be interpreted by the public, and his skill in shaping a clear, direct message to effectively communicate my work will be greatly missed.

Danny enjoys the respect, admiration, and friendship of many staffers on the Hill who will miss his keen insights, his sense of humor, and his unique perspective on many of the most pressing issues of the day.

He is moving on to new challenges in the private sector, but we wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

I thank him for his service to my office, to the Congress, and to the country.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 41, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 24) impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H. Res. 24.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, we all saw it coming. Months in advance, President Trump was baselessly and deliberately whipping his supporters into a frenzy.

Weeks before the riot, he used his bully pulpit to spread lies about the election. He told his supporters that the results were fraudulent. He implored them again and again to help him stay in power, and he convinced them that accepting the outcome of the election posed an existential threat to their families and their freedoms.

We have a duty to observe, Madam Speaker, that racism played a direct role in this incitement. The President's violent rhetoric is always at its most fevered pitch when he is talking about the civil rights and civic aspirations of Black Americans and other minority communities.

On January 6, at a rally that was large, angry, and widely reported to be armed, the President's lies and violent rhetoric reached their crescendo. At that rally, the President took the stage. After reiterating the falsehood that ``we won this election, and we won it by a landslide,'' he told the crowd that ``if you don't fight like hell, you are not going to have a country anymore.'' And then he urged the mob to ``walk down Pennsylvania Avenue'' to prevent the Congress from confirming the election of ``an illegitimate President.''

On that day, President Trump unleashed the force of a mob on this, the people's House. He encouraged that attack with the explicit intent to disrupt the joint session of Congress, an attack that threatened the safety of the Vice President, the Speaker of the House, and the President pro tempore of the Senate, the next three officers in the line of succession.

And look at what that violence has wrought: at least six dead, offices ransacked, the sanctity of our Capitol breached for the first time in two centuries, our hallways littered with broken glass, the battle flags of a long dead Confederacy, and the debris we have come to associate with the Trump campaign.

Madam Speaker, I have faith in the resiliency of our government. We will bring the rioters to justice. Their accomplices in this House will be held responsible.

But today we must focus on the gravest threat first: President Trump, who incited this riot and who remains a grave danger to the Nation.

As we warned the Senate when we tried him for his first impeachment: ``President Trump has made clear in word and deed that he will persist in such conduct if he is not removed from power. He poses a continuing threat to our Nation, to the integrity of our elections, and to our democratic order. He must not remain in power one moment longer.''

Not one moment longer. The danger is too great. We must impeach.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Maryland an additional 10 seconds.

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

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 Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Auchincloss).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Bourdeaux).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Bush), a new Member of the House and a new member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crow).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar).

Madam Speaker, I now yield 30 seconds to distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Madam Speaker, I now yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia).

Madam Speaker, I now yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Jacobs).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jones), a new Member of the House and a new member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Levin).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Luria).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Newman).

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross), a new member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stanton).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stevens).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Torres), who is a new Member.

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining, please?

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Kahele).

I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Casten).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Manning).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Mrvan).

Madam Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, we can have all of this, but we have to have accountability, too.

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

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