Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 21, calling on Vice President Pence to invoke his powers under the 25th Amendment. We are in the midst of a national emergency and President Trump must be removed from office immediately, before any further damage to this Capitol--or to our Republic--can be done.

Last week's violent attack on the Capitol took root more than 5 years ago when Donald Trump first descended the escalator at Trump Tower to announce his run for President.

The hateful rhetoric, baseless accusations, and contempt for the democratic process were all on display that day. Later, they formed the foundation of his presidency. Last week, they reached a violent crescendo.

After losing his bid for reelection--in decisive fashion--President Trump embarked on a campaign of misinformation aimed at delegitimizing the results of a free and fair election. When this failed, he tried to intimidate local election officials into reversing the results. When those brave public servants refused to do his bidding, he made one final desperate attempt to hold onto power by attacking the constitutionally mandated process of counting and certifying the electoral votes in a Joint Session of Congress.

Although the President had willing volunteers to join him, Vice President Pence refused to exceed his limited authority and reject the results of the election. That is when the President unleashed his supporters to storm the Capitol. And the result--an armed insurrection--left in its wake lost lives, property destroyed, desecration of hallowed ground, and physical and emotional scars that may never fully heal.

Vice President Pence upheld his constitutional duty and his oath of office that day. It is time for him to do so once more.

Under the 25th Amendment, the Vice President, along with a majority of the members of the Cabinet, may inform Congress ``that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,'' upon which ``the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.''

This is not a step to be taken lightly--but it is the step that must be taken today.

The President is clearly incapacitated and unable to exercise the powers of the presidency to protect the United States, as witnessed by the attack on the Capitol itself. Rather than immediately calling for an end to the violence and calling on his supporters to withdraw, the President waited several hours before releasing a half-hearted video that also expressed his ``love'' for the rioters who were ``special people''. All the while, he continued his efforts to subvert the election, seeking Senators who would object to the certification of as many as ten states' electoral votes, without a shred of evidence that there was any reason to doubt their authenticity.

And reports indicate that the threat that our country faced on January 6th--from a president who would do anything to hold onto power--is ongoing. It is a national crisis. It demands immediate action.

I thank the Gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Raskin--a constitutional scholar and a valuable member of the Judiciary Committee--for bringing forward this important resolution, and I call upon the Vice President to do his constitutional duty and to protect the American people from one more day of a dangerous presidency.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 491, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 489) condemning President Trump's racist comments directed at Members of Congress, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H. Res. 489.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the comments described in this resolution were not just offensive to our colleagues; they were inconsistent with the principles and values upon which this Nation was founded.

In urging four female Members of Congress of color to ``go back'' where they came from, these comments were not only factually incorrect, but they were also deeply hurtful and divisive.

These were shocking comments, even from an administration that rips children from the arms of their parents and warehouses asylum seekers in facilities under inhumane conditions. We cannot let this moment pass without a forceful condemnation.

Need I remind the Speaker that this is the same President who defended the ``very fine people'' at the neo-Nazi march in Charlottesville, who denounced the ``s-hole countries'' in Africa and the Caribbean, who claimed that Haitian immigrants ``all have AIDS,''

and who declared that a Mexican American judge who was born in the United States had an ``inherent conflict of interest'' against him.

At every turn, Democrats have denounced offensive comments that emanate from the White House, but the silence coming from the other side of the aisle has been deafening. I hope that will finally change today.

This Congress must speak--loudly and with one voice--to condemn the President's words and, more importantly, to condemn the sentiments behind them.

The United States should be a beacon of hope and a refuge to those who need its protection, and it should welcome with open arms those who embody our values and ideals.

From our earliest days as a nation, we have welcomed people fleeing persecution and violence and those who seek economic opportunity and freedom in a land whose diversity is one of its greatest strengths. But the President has, instead, pursued a relentless campaign to build both a literal and a figurative wall around this Nation.

We must not turn our backs on our historic commitment to immigration and to refuge, and we must not fall prey to racial stereotypes and nativist fear-mongering that thinks that some immigrants who came here years ago are okay but those who come here today, because they are from so-called s-hole countries, are not okay.

It was Martin Luther King who told us: ``I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.''

The offensive words by the President undermine that dream. They contradict that dream.

Mr. Chair, I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in denouncing racism and in supporting this resolution, and 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\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Malinowski), the sponsor of the resolution.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the gentlewoman from California

(Ms. Pelosi) be permitted to proceed in order.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1327) to extend authorization for the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 through fiscal year 2090, 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 the bill under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, today, this body will, for what I hope is the final time, meet its moral obligation to provide for survivors and responders suffering from 9/11-related illnesses.

This obligation is two-fold.

First, on September 11, 2001, it was not just the city of New York and the Pentagon that were attacked, it was the entire country. A national attack has always required a national response. That is why responders from around the country rushed to New York to aid in the rescue and recovery effort in the immediate aftermath. Today, sick responders and survivors live in all 50 States. This is a national problem, and Congress must provide a national solution.

Second, tens of thousands of responders and survivors are sick because the Federal Government, in its rush to get Wall Street reopened, ignored the evidence and the expert opinions of scientists. The then-head of the Environmental Protection Agency repeatedly assured us that the air around the World Trade Center was ``safe to breath.'' We knew it wasn't, but the Federal Government kept insisting it was.

And, compounding the Federal Government's culpability was its failure to conduct a comprehensive cleanup of the environmental disaster created when the World Trade Center towers collapsed. For example, the EPA administrator told the public that asbestos could be cleaned from apartments with a damp cloth and a wet mop.

Based on these false assurances, students were sent back to schools that had been contaminated with the toxic dust cloud without ventilation systems being cleaned first. People kept working to clear the pile for months with no protective equipment. Quite simply, the Federal Government lied, and now tens of thousands of people are sick with 9/11-related illnesses. It now falls to us--in the words of Abraham Lincoln--``to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and for his orphan.''

Three times, Congress has come together to provide a health program and compensation for the victims of 9/11 through a victim compensation fund, or VCF. Most recently, in 2015, we made the World Trade Center Health Program effectively permanent, extended to 2090, but reauthorized the VCF, the victim compensation fund, for only 5 years.

As we heard in a Judiciary Committee hearing last month, a 5-year authorization was not nearly long enough. People are still getting sick as diseases, such as cancer, often emerge only after long latency periods. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that, in the coming years, cancer claims will represent 63 percent of all claims before the VCF, up from 44 percent today.

Further, as the number of sick responders and survivors continues to rise, the limited resources Congress provided to the VCF have proven inadequate and now thousands of families are facing up to 70 percent cuts in compensation.

I refuse to accept that. Every sick responder and survivor should be treated with the same dignity and compassion, regardless of when they became sick, and no one should be forced to spend their last days walking the Halls of Congress begging us to reauthorize this program.

That is why we are here today, to pass what I hope will be the last authorization we ever need for the VCF.

This bipartisan legislation, with over 330 cosponsors, will reverse all of the cuts in compensation and make those families whole. It will extend the authorization for the VCF through 2092, substantially the same timeline as the World Trade Center Health Program, and make technical improvements to the program.

We have asked so much of our responders and survivors. It is time for us to give them the peace of mind they deserve and pass this bill once and for all.

Finally, I want to take a moment to recognize the three men after whom we named this bill.

James Zadroga, Ray Pfeifer, and Luis Alvarez passed away after battling 9/11-related illnesses. A month ago, Detective Alvarez testified before the Judiciary Committee, just 24 hours before what was supposed to be his 69th chemotherapy treatment, a treatment he, ultimately, was too sick to receive. Two weeks ago, he passed away.

Like every responder and survivor of 9/11, these three men kept fighting for this program, even when they knew it was too late for them. That is the spirit of 9/11. This bill is now their namesake, and we vote today in their name.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), one of the chief sponsors of the bill.

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House, someone who has done more for this than anyone else. Without the gentlewoman's strong support, this bill never would have passed back in 2010.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), who is the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), who is the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.

Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New Jersey an additional 30 seconds.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I have one more speaker, and then I am prepared to close.

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

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

Madam Speaker, 9 years ago, I stood here and called up for consideration the original 9/11 bill, the James Zadroga Act.

I want to thank Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, and Majority Whip Clyburn for their roles in passing that bill, and now for moving us as quickly as possible to get this bill done.

I also want to thank my colleagues from New York, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), for standing with me in this fight for so long, and to thank all the advocates, many of whom are here today, who have given so much and have worked so hard to pass this bill.

Finally, I want to thank Lisette Morton, my longtime legislative director and director of policy planning and member services for the Committee on the Judiciary, who is leaving my team at the end of this month after nearly 20 years.

Lisette worked for me on September 11, 2001, and she was tireless in her efforts to get a proper detoxification and cleanup after the attack in New York and to hold the EPA accountable for its failures. Without her fierce advocacy and dedication, there would be more victims today, and we would not be here considering this bill today. She will be greatly missed by this institution, by my staff, and by me.

Now, Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

She will be greatly missed.

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

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the illustrious 55-year career of acclaimed writer and Upper West Side resident Lore Segal nee Groszmann.

Lore Segal was born to a Jewish middle-class family in Vienna, Austria in 1928. Shortly after Hitler's annexation of Austria in 1938, she participated in the first wave of the Kindertransport which brought thousands of children to safety in England. It was here she first began writing: Segal penned impassioned letters to refugee committees and potential sponsors advocating for her parents to be brought to England, ultimately resulting in her parents' arrival a year later with domestic laborers' visas. Although this effort reunited her family, her parents' roles as domestic laborers required Segal to live with foster families until she was eighteen. After earning her degree in English Literature from the University of London, Segal spent three years in the Dominican Republic, finally making her way to New York with her mother in 1951.

Segal's writing career began in earnest when she began chronicling her experiences as a young emigre living with different families in England in series of articles in The New Yorker, which later formed the basis of her first novel, Other People's Houses, published in 1964. Segal's other works include five novels, including Shakespeare's Kitchen (a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in Fiction in 2008), eight children's books including Tell Me a Mitzi, translations such as The Juniper Tree, an adaptation of Grimm tales on which she collaborated with her friend Maurice Sendak, and innumerable short stories and essays. Lore Segal's most recent book is the 2019 collection of published and unpublished works entitled, The Journal I Did Not Keep: New and Selected Writing. Segal taught writing for almost thirty years at notable institutions, including as a tenured professor at University of Illinois at Chicago and Ohio State University, as well as Columbia University, Princeton, Sarah Lawrence and the 92 Y. She has also been recognized for her work with numerous awards and honors including a Guggenheim Fellowship, National Endowment for the Arts grants and O. Henry awards.

What makes Segal's writing so enduring is the masterful way she balances the themes of displacement and otherness, central to her identities as a refugee and a foster child, with the emotions, humor and conflicts inherent to the universal human condition. Her work provides a unique insight into the immigrant perspective on the American Dream and the Jewish diaspora. Segal's contributions to the diverse community of immigrant voices who illustrate the complexities and vibrancy of American life are well-deserving of tribute.

Madam Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 55th Anniversary of Lore Segal's first publication, and in recognizing the amazing achievements and continued impact of her work.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, when a congressional committee issues a subpoena, compliance is not optional. We expect witnesses to testify when summoned. We expect the administration to comply with subpoenas and to provide us with the materials we require to do our jobs.

Of course, there may be differences between the Congress and the executive branch as to what information can be produced on a timely basis. When those differences arise, we are required to seek a reasonable accommodation.

We first requested access to the full Mueller report and the underlying evidence on February 22. After refusing for almost 4 months, the Department of Justice, in the last few days, has finally agreed to permit us to view the special counsel's most important files.

We are hopeful this will provide us with key evidence regarding allegations of obstruction of justice and other misconduct.

Given this potential breakthrough, we will hold the criminal contempt process for Attorney General Barr in abeyance for now.

But President Trump has blocked other key witnesses from testifying before the Judiciary Committee, including his former White House counsel Don McGahn, whose account of the President's actions was featured in the Mueller report.

The President has claimed absolute immunity for critical witnesses to prevent them from even showing up. He has invoked executive privilege to prevent us from seeing documents that stopped being privileged long ago, if they were ever privileged to begin with.

He has done the same in response to Congress' important work unrelated to the Mueller report, and he has ordered the agencies not to cooperate with even our most basic oversight requests.

This unprecedented stonewalling by the administration is completely unacceptable. The committees have a constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight, to make recommendations to the House as necessary, and to craft

legislation that will curb the abuse of power on full display in the Trump administration.

This is why it is important that the Judiciary Committee be able to act in such matters using all of our Article I powers, as contemplated in this resolution and described in both the Rules Committee report and the House Judiciary Committee's contempt report.

Now, I heard what the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) said a few minutes ago, and he is exactly right. This resolution gives committee chairs the power, with the approval of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, to go to court on behalf of the House to enforce our subpoenas.

This has not been done before, but neither have we ever seen blanket stonewalling by the administration of all information requests by the House. We have never faced such blanket stonewalling.

The President himself said--and they have been as good as their word--they will oppose all of our subpoenas.

We must go to court to enforce the subpoenas without a separate floor vote each time if we are going to enforce our subpoenas and reject the arrogant assumption of power by the administration and denigration of the power of the House and of the Congress.

We cannot afford to waste all the floor time every single time the administration rejects one of our subpoenas, which is every time we issue a subpoena.

That is why we must pass this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution so that we can get into court and break the stonewall without delay.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 415, 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.

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. 6.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019, is vital legislation that provides a path to lawful permanent resident, or LPR, status for two groups of people who enrich our Nation and who are in dire need of protection, Dreamers, and long-term recipients of humanitarian relief, known as Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, and Deferred Enforcement Departure, or DED.

Dreamers are undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children and have embraced this country as their own. They are our neighbors and coworkers; they are the classmates of our children; and they serve in our military with distinction. Many did not even know they were not born here and were not American citizens until they found they could not get drivers licenses or in-state tuition rates for college.

That is why it was so devastating when the Trump administration announced that it was ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, also known as DACA, which enabled approximately 800,000 Dreamers to work lawfully, attend school, and plan their lives without the constant threat of deportation.

Although less is known or understood about long-time TPS and DED recipients, there is no doubt that they are equally deserving of our protection and support. Broadly speaking, TPS and DED provide humanitarian relief to individuals from countries facing dangerous conditions or experiencing upheaval, such as ongoing armed conflict, natural disasters, or other extraordinary conditions.

TPS and DED recipients have lived in the United States, on average, for decades, laying down deep roots in our communities. They also contribute to the U.S. economy by making up a significant portion of the workforce in key industries, including construction and food service, as well as through consumer spending and tax revenue.

Unfortunately, like Dreamers, their futures now hang in the balance as a result of the Trump administration's anti-immigrant, enforcement- only approach to immigration policy. Since September 2017, the administration has announced the termination of TPS and DED for seven affected countries.

Fortunately, the courts have issued multiple injunctions preventing efforts to terminate DACA and TPS from moving forward. But even if the courts ultimately rule against the administration, only a fraction of Dreamers and TPS recipients will benefit from a reprieve that is itself only temporary. That is why we must pass H.R. 6 today to provide Dreamers and TPS recipients the permanent protections they need and deserve.

The American Dream and Promise Act is carefully crafted legislation that delivers needed protections, while creating rigorous eligibility standards, including specifically restricting eligibility to those individuals who pose no public safety or national security concerns.

I want to congratulate my colleagues, Representatives Lucille Roybal- Allard, Nydia Velazquez, and you, Madam Speaker, Yvette Clarke, for introducing this important legislation.

I would also like to thank the distinguished chair and vice chair of the Immigration Subcommittee, Representatives Zoe Lofgren and Pramila Jayapal. Their steadfast support for

the Dreamer and TPS/DED populations, and their tireless efforts, have been essential in bringing this bill to the floor today.

Dreamers and TPS and DED recipients contribute to our thriving economy, and they make America a stronger, more united, and more diverse nation. Failing to provide permanent protections for them at this critical juncture would be a travesty, not only for these individuals, but also for us as a country.

I hope that all of my colleagues will stand up for these vital members of our society when it truly counts by supporting H.R. 6 today.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the distinguished chairperson of the Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), the chief sponsor of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), a sponsor of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), and I ask unanimous consent that she may control the time for the majority.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 377, 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 in the House.

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

Today is a historic day: the first time a comprehensive LGBTQ civil rights bill has come to the floor of the House. This long overdue legislation will provide millions of LGBTQ Americans 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 certainly did not include LGBTQ individuals.

At this moment, we have an opportunity to continue our march towards 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.

Despite what opponents to the bill may say, we know these protections can work. We know that our existing Federal nondiscrimination laws have helped millions of Americans.

We know that protections for sexual orientation and gender identity have worked in more than 20 States and that, in these 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. Transgender individuals play sports, and sometimes they win and sometimes they 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 or where they happen to live. We cannot accept the situation where anyone in this country can get married on Sunday and legally be fired on Monday because of who they love.

For decades, the LGBTQ community has been coming to Congress to tell us their stories. We have heard of transgender women being fired from their jobs, lesbian couples being kicked out of their homes, and gay men being denied medical care. It is time we stop asking them to come to the Capitol just to defend their existence.

The question before us is not whether the LGBTQ community faces outrageous and immoral discrimination, for the record shows that it clearly does. The question is whether we, as Congress, are willing to take action to do something about it. The answer goes straight to the heart of who we want to be as a country, and today, that answer must be a resounding and unequivocal ``yes.''

To the thousands of LGBTQ people who have shared their stories, I say: Thank you for your bravery. Thank you for reliving your trauma to help build the case for this legislation--to build the case for expanding freedom in this country.

We hear you; we see you; we believe you. And we will continue fighting for you.

I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island (Representative 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, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the chair of the Education and Labor Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), the cochair of the Equality Caucus.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, anybody who says that this bill would dictate to the churches what they may preach or practice doesn't know what he is talking about.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the chair of the Democratic Caucus and a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. McAdams).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

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

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

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), the conscience of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask the gentleman the same thing. I have no further speakers. I am prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, this morning, we have heard phantom fears about the allegedly harmful effects of the Equality Act on religious freedom and women's rights. If these fears had any basis in reality, the Equality Act would not have 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, the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, the National Women's Law Center, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, the Rabbinical Assembly, and the United Methodist Church's General Board of Church and Society.

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.

Mr. Speaker, the time has come to proclaim liberty and equality throughout the land.

Mr. Speaker, I now commend the bill to the judgment of the House, and I commend the House to the judgment of history.

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

Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Chair, I support this amendment which would increase the sexual assault services program authorization from $40 million to $60 million.

This program assists States, Tribes, and territories to provide intervention, advocacy support, and related assistance to victims of sexual assault.

Experts in the field have indicated that this program is underfunded for the depth and the breadth of the work it covers, despite the remarks of the gentleman from Virginia.

It is underfunded. We need more money here. I support the amendment of the gentlewoman.

Now, the gentleman from Virginia says there is no offset. That is true. We do not need an offset.

Of course, we could take it away from President Trump's personal part of the tax, of the $1.8 trillion tax break that the Republicans voted for for the rich.

But the fact is we don't need an offset. Under the rules, the appropriations bill has to deal with that. This simply makes funds available, and for a very worthy purpose.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Chairwoman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment. Representative Torres Small's amendment makes it clear that nothing in this bill impacts or changes any obligations or requirements to comply with our immigration laws.

This amendment alleviates any potential concern or confusion about the intent of this legislation. It makes clear that the bill does not change any immigration law, nor does it affect any of the immigration obligations and requirements under current law. It is that simple, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I move that the committee do now rise.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of H.R. 1585, 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, including the changes now at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 1585.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1585, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019, will not only reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, also known as VAWA, but will also strengthen and expand the act's critical programs.

VAWA's grant programs provide communities across America the crucial assistance they need to combat crimes of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. H.R. 1585 builds on this foundation by enhancing the services available under these programs and by expanding their reach to include vulnerable populations who are victims of these crimes.

VAWA, which is not gender exclusive, addresses the needs of men and women, children, persons with disabilities, homeless persons, and LGBTQ people, among others. Importantly, H.R. 1585 includes new protections for transgender individuals.

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 important principle.

This bill reauthorizes a wide variety of grant programs, including programs to help prosecute violent crimes against women and to provide services to sexual assault victims. It also strengthens various nondiscrimination provisions, provides greater protections for survivors during the prosecution of perpetrators, expands services for older survivors of abuse, authorizes programs specifically targeted toward rural areas, strengthens protections against gun violence in domestic abuse situations, and expands the jurisdiction of some Tribal authorities over non-Indians who commit certain crimes on Tribal lands.

I want to thank Ms. Bass, the chair of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security and the sponsor of this legislation, for her outstanding leadership in the effort to reauthorize VAWA.

I also want to thank Ms. Jackson Lee for her longstanding and tireless efforts over the years to protect and strengthen the act.

Thanks to their efforts and the efforts of many others, this bill will not only continue the progress enabled by VAWA as originally enacted, but it will also make the act an even more effective tool in addressing the horrible scourge of domestic violence.

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

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, March 14, 2019.

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Pallone: I am writing to you concerning H.R.

1585, the ``Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of

2019.''

I appreciate your willingness to work cooperatively on this

legislation. I recognize that the bill contains provisions

that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy

and Commerce. I acknowledge that your Committee will not

formally consider H.R. 1585 and agree that the inaction of

your Committee with respect to the bill does not waive any

future jurisdictional claim over the matters contained in

H.R. 1585 which fall within your Committee's Rule X

jurisdiction.

I will ensure that our exchange of letters is included in

the Congressional Record during floor consideration of the

bill. I appreciate your cooperation regarding this

legislation and look forward to continuing to work with you

as this measure moves through the legislative process.

Sincerely,

Jerrold Nadler,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings), the vice-chair of the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Wexton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), the assistant Democratic leader.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass), the chair of the Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee and the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence), a co-chair of the Bipartisan Women's Caucus.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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

Mr. Chairman, 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 than it has proven to be in the past.

The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019 is comprehensive and inclusive legislation that I hope will earn bipartisan support in the long tradition of this important law. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join with me in voting for this critical legislation today.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I support this amendment, which would require the preparation of a GAO report on the return on investment for legal assistance grants for victims.

Studies show that the efficiency of the legal system improves whenever victims receive assistance by legal professionals. This amendment would provide a vehicle to help us assess the effectiveness and ramifications of providing legal assistance for victims, particularly in the areas of housing, medical needs, and employment social welfare programs.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I support this amendment, which would direct the preparation of a report on the status of women in Federal incarceration. The amendment would also direct the Attorney General to work on a model of gender- responsive transition for incarcerated women, including the development of a national standard on prevention with respect to domestic and sexual violence.

According to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, very little current data exists on the status of incarcerated women in Federal custody. This amendment will allow us to better respond to the needs of incarcerated women, and it will provide us with vitally important data, for oversight purposes.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I support this amendment to improve the reporting requirements for States and localities that receive funding under the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program.

As we all know, because of the increased awareness of the potential for DNA evidence to help solve criminal cases, the demand for DNA testing continues to grow nationwide. Crime laboratories now process more DNA than ever before. In recognition of this, H.R. 1585 reauthorizes the Debbie Smith Act, which I helped to originate.

This amendment directs States and localities to report information to the Attorney General on best practices for reducing the backlog of DNA evidence. The emphasis on best practices is a good one, as it will help ensure that the backlog is cleared in as expeditious and efficient a manner as possible.

Madam Chair, I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I support this amendment which expands the types of grants that can be funded to combat violent crimes on college campuses.

Evidence-based research on the neurobiology of trauma has shown the effectiveness of using victim-centered, trauma-informed interview techniques when investigating allegations of sexual harassment, sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, or stalking.

This amendment seeks to ensure that campus personnel who investigate these types of cases are trained in up-to-date, research-based methods for interviewing victims and handling cases in a sensitive manner.

Madam Chair, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I support this amendment because it improves and enhances the special Tribal criminal jurisdiction pilot project created by VAWA in 2013 specifically to benefit Alaska Natives.

For over 5 years, the special Tribal criminal jurisdiction has given qualifying Tribes across the United States the authority to prosecute non-Tribal members for certain offenses.

This year's reauthorization of VAWA would extend that jurisdiction to more crimes, including dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

Tribes across the country have been effectively exercising their authority under VAWA and keeping their communities safe. This amendment would ensure that Alaska Native villages that qualify are also able to exercise this type of jurisdiction. It is only fair that they be allowed to do so.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I support this bipartisan amendment, which would ensure that entities focused on addressing sex trafficking maintain eligibility for CHOOSE grants.

We know that sex trafficking is a serious problem in the United States. At this time, CHOOSE grants are available for the purpose of enhancing the safety of youth and children who are victims of or exposed to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or sex trafficking, and for preventing future violence.

This amendment ensures that we continue to provide critical funding to address sex trafficking in our communities. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I support this amendment, which would make entities found by the Attorney General to have fraudulently misused VAWA grant funds ineligible to apply for future grants for up to 5 years.

This amendment tries to guard against the potential misuse of grant funds, but it does so in a way that safeguards due process, after reasonable notice and opportunity for a hearing.

Any misuse of funds that does not rise to the level of fraud, or that is merely an error, is insufficient to make a grantee ineligible for funds and only places a temporary, but sufficiently lengthy, ban on receipt of funding.

Because this is a commonsense measure, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and in opposition to the administration's ban on openly transgender individuals in the armed services.

Throughout history, each time we expand who may join the armed services to better reflect the diversity of our Nation, the same tired and disproven arguments are brought back: that any individual within a new group, regardless of their ability, is unfit to serve and that they will disrupt unit cohesion. We heard these arguments with respect to Black and Latino men; women; and gays, lesbians, and bisexuals.

But we know that is simply untrue. There are no issues with transgender individuals serving in our military. You don't have to take my word for it. The service chiefs of all five branches of our military have testified that there have been zero instances of transgender servicemembers hurting cohesion or readiness since the ban was first lifted.

The conservative obsession with targeting and attacking transgender individuals in all areas of American life is cruel and immoral. It is astonishing that, after years of ``support our troops'' demagoguery from my colleagues across the aisle, they would choose to turn their backs on Active-Duty servicemembers and vote to specifically deny them medically prescribed care.

After 2\1/2\ years of transgender servicemembers serving with no issues, there is one reason and one reason alone for this administration to be bringing back a ban on transgender servicemembers: to force a bigoted agenda on the military that they cannot force on the rest of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, much of the history of this country is the history of expanding our understanding of whom the Declaration of Independence meant when it said that all men are created equal. It didn't mean, in 1776, Black men; it certainly didn't mean women; it didn't mean Native Americans; and it didn't mean LGBTQ people. We have come to the point where we understand, at least aspirationally, it means all of those things.

This resolution gives us a choice:

Do we join the march? Do we continue the march to expand the meaning of the Declaration of Independence to declare equality for everyone regardless of specific characteristics, or do we join that dreary procession of slavers, confederates, racists, and misogynists who have dragged this country through the mud and have besmirched the ideals of the Declaration of Independence?

That is our choice today. Let's take the right one.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, in 1963, when the Equal Pay Act was signed into law, women earned 59 cents on the dollar compared to men.

In the 56 years since, that gap has only closed by 21 cents. Women still make only 80 cents on the dollar compared to their male counterparts and earn less than men in nearly every single occupation.

The pay gap is even more extreme for women of color. Over the course of an entire career, that gap results in women losing millions of dollars in earnings compared to their male counterparts.

In today's economy, in which women make up more than half of the workforce and are the sole or co-breadwinner in half of American families, that is simply unacceptable.

Being paid fairly for your work is a fundamental issue of fairness and freedom. Pay disparity can limit women's career choices and their financial independence, but equal pay enables women to save for retirement, to build careers, to buy homes, and to support their families.

Today, I am proud to vote for the Paycheck Fairness Act, legislation I have cosponsored in every Congress since 1997.

This legislation gets us closer, at last, to fulfilling the promise of equal pay for equal work and finally ensuring that women have the ability to fight back against wage discrimination and close the wage gap.

I wish to thank Chairman Scott for including language in this bill that mirrors legislation I introduced with Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton to address how employers use salary history.

Many women and minorities start their careers with unfair and artificially low salaries compared to their White male counterparts. That discrepancy can be compounded from job to job, when employers rely heavily on salary history in compensation packages.

This change will help ensure that women's pay is based on their merit and not on the past discrimination of other employers.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to finish the work of closing the wage gap.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of overriding the President's veto of H.J. Res. 46.

One month ago, the House passed a bipartisan resolution to terminate the so-called national emergency declared by President Trump. The Senate has likewise voted on a broad bipartisan basis to reject that emergency declaration, leaving President Trump to issue the first veto of his Presidency.

I am more convinced than ever that the President's actions are not only unlawful, they are deeply irresponsible. A core foundation of our system of government--and of democracies across the world going back hundreds of years--is that the executive cannot unilaterally spend taxpayers' money without the legislature's consent.

The President shredded that concept when he declared an emergency after he failed to get his way in a budget negotiation. As he often does, he announced his intention to ignore Congress in plain sight for all the world to see.

Meanwhile, hundreds of Americans have started receiving letters from the Federal Government demanding entry

onto their land. Soon our fellow citizens' backyards may be seized in order to build a medieval border wall that Congress and the American people do not want.

The senseless diversion of military resources to the southern border has also created concerns about our troops' combat readiness and their ability to implement other key priorities, and the Trump administration appears to be deciding on the fly which military construction projects they are planning to raid, leaving our men and women in uniform and everyone else who might be affected in a prolonged state of uncertainty. This type of chaos and confusion is the inevitable result when the President ignores the express will of Congress.

The Judiciary Committee recently held a hearing to discuss the National Emergencies Act and to begin considering reforms to check abuses of this power. I was heartened by the enthusiasm on both sides of the aisle for such efforts, and I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on these proposals.

But these longer term reform efforts should not detract from our responsibility to address what the President is doing right now. President Trump's invention of a so-called national emergency to suit his political goals and to get around Congress' refusal of the funding request is intolerable, and I will be proud to cast my vote to override his veto.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 208, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 24) expressing the sense of Congress that the report of Special Counsel Mueller should be made available to the public and to Congress, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.