Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Lou Sepersky, whose decades of dedicated public service and visionary contributions have left an indelible mark on New York City. I was privileged to have known Lou for over sixty years, and it was an honor to work with him as a colleague and call him my friend.

As the President of MetroEast, he played a pivotal role in reigniting the momentum for the long-delayed full-build Second Avenue subway. His relentless advocacy and leadership were instrumental in securing support and federal funding for this vital project. Lou's dream for the subway to extend from 125th Street, cutting across Manhattan to Hanover Square, was not just a transportation plan but a vision for connecting and transforming communities.

His deep commitment to public service shone through his extensive involvement with Manhattan's Community Board Six. Serving with distinction for over five decades, he became the longest-serving Community Board Member in the city.

Lou was a fervent advocate for public spaces. He played a key role in creating the

East Midtown Greenway and developing Sutton Place Park, ensuring they were inclusive and enjoyable for all. His contributions were critical in the remapping and expansion of Dag Hammarskjold Plaza and the creation of Stuyvesant Cove Park.

Lou's dedication to his community and city extended into the political arena as well. He was a delegate at the Democratic National Convention in 1992, a Democratic candidate for the New York State Senate, and a Democratic District Leader in East Midtown, Manhattan.

As we reflect on Lou's remarkable life and legacy, let us remember his humor, his thoughtfulness, and his relentless pursuit of a better and more connected New York. He will be deeply missed, but his contributions will continue to benefit our city for generations to come.

Mr. Chair, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 73.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Tlaib

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by expressing my deepest condolences to Laken Riley's family. The pain of losing a child is something no parent should have to go through. The alleged perpetrator should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

By all accounts, Laken was a kind and gentle soul, beloved by everyone around her. May her memory be a blessing.

Unfortunately, instead of coming together to express our sorrow for Laken's tragic loss, the majority appears to be exploiting her death for yet another partisan political stunt.

Rather than approaching this tragic event in a thoughtful manner, Republicans appear to have just thrown together language from existing unrelated bills that target and scapegoat immigrants to score cheap political points in an election year, while doing nothing to address the situation at the border.

This approach is fundamentally unserious. As if to emphasize the point, the author of this legislation spent the weekend promoting anti- Semitic memes on Twitter.

At base, this bill is a rinse and repeat of the majority's unserious attempt to keep immigration in the news: pick a crime; paste it into a template bill with sweeping, unrealistic immigration consequences; and then require detention and deportation of certain immigrants merely accused of committing such a crime--no due process required--all so that you can demonize immigrants and sound tough without actually making this country safer.

The legislation before us today would subject to mandatory detention any undocumented immigrants merely arrested or charged with committing an act of theft, larceny, or shoplifting, along with those who are convicted or who admit to committing such acts.

Let's think about that. Someone who is arrested and who was never even charged with a crime is now going to be subject to mandatory immigration detention?

The case of Laken Riley is a tragedy, but as is often said, hard cases make bad law.

Under this bill, committing a misdemeanor shoplifting, or even committing no crime at all, can result in a DACA or TPS recipient, someone who may have been in this country for decades, being subject to mandatory detention.

Sadly, there are countless real-life examples of people getting arrested because of mistaken identity through erroneous witness identification, biographical similarities to perpetrators, and errors caused by faulty facial recognition technology.

In a markup we had in the Judiciary Committee last month, Mr. Massie discussed how mistaken identification can deprive someone of their constitutional rights. He noted very real concerns about racial disparities in the development of artificial intelligence and facial recognition tools. These tools have led to numerous erroneous arrests, mostly of people of color.

For example, just over a year ago, a Detroit woman was arrested for robbery and carjacking after she was improperly identified as the perpetrator by automatic facial recognition search. She was 8 months pregnant when she was arrested. After being held by the police for 11 hours, she was released on a $100,000 bond. It took a month and two hearings for the case against her to be dismissed.

Under this bill, however, if this woman had been on DACA or TPS status, ICE would have been required to detain her upon release, and her U.S. citizen son would have been born in immigration detention even though she had committed no crime.

Mandatory detention of innocent people is not a reasonable or sensible policy choice. This is not where we should be focusing our limited enforcement resources.

It is important to remember that this bill would subject more people to mandatory detention at a time when Republicans refuse to give the Department of Homeland Security the resources it needs to carry out its policies.

The Biden administration is currently detaining 39,000 people a day. That is 5,000 more people than Congress has even provided funding for it to detain.

Congress has never appropriated, and no administration has ever requested, sufficient resources to detain all noncitizens who fall under the ``mandatory detention'' categories. Even former President Trump never tried to detain all migrants subject to mandatory detention.

House Republicans know this, but instead of facing that reality and providing the resources necessary to address weaknesses in the immigration system, they would prefer to demagogue the issue, and they bring us measures like this.

If that wasn't bad enough, this bill also purports to give State attorneys general standing to sue in court for perceived violations of certain sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act, hoping to convince the judicial branch to impose draconian immigration policy preferences that MAGA Republicans have failed to get through

the political branches of the Federal Government.

This bill simply declares that States have standing to sue so long as the State or its residents suffer almost any degree of harm, no matter how trivial, appearing only to exclude financial harms that are less than $100.

We should note that this provision is almost certainly unconstitutional. Just declaring that there is standing does not make it so.

Just last year, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of States' standing to sue the Federal Government over immigration enforcement matters, which this bill appears to be a half-baked attempt to circumvent. In an 8-1 decision, the Court held that Texas and Louisiana lacked Article III standing to bring suit against the Federal Government over its alleged violation of some of the very same immigration statutes that this bill would purport to grant standing to the States to sue over.

In rejecting the States' standing argument, the Court noted, among other things, that lawsuits alleging insufficient arrests or prosecution run against the executive branch's Article II authority to enforce the law, which includes the discretion to determine enforcement priorities in the face of lack of resources and shifting public safety and public welfare needs.

This bill also goes directly against the Supreme Court's settled precedent in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, which explicitly states that a statutory right to sue does not constitute an injury for purposes of standing.

Be that as it may, settled precedent, much like responsible governance, doesn't seem to matter much to the majority. Time and again, Republicans have refused to engage in bipartisan immigration reform. At the behest of Donald Trump, Republicans dismissed out of hand a bipartisan Senate border bill that Senate Minority Leader McConnell called the strongest border bill in 30 years.

In October, the Biden administration sent Congress a supplemental funding request, which included an additional $14 billion for border security. House Republicans refused to schedule a vote on this funding request, which would provide the Biden administration the resources it needs to secure the border and would provide additional support for communities receiving migrants.

Both these bills would have allowed the Biden administration to hire thousands more asylum officers and asylum and immigration judges, so asylum hearings happen in weeks, not years. This would help put an end to what my Republican colleagues refer to as catch and release.

That is the procedure in immigration law that has been used by every administration for decades. What they mean by that is you catch someone, but because of lack of resources, his court date is 3 years from then, so you have to release him pending the court date because he has a credible claim to asylum. However, with the appropriation that the Biden administration had requested, it could be done in weeks, not years, and we wouldn't have the problem of the so-called catch and release.

All they can point to is H.R. 2, which last week had a grand total of 32 ``yes'' votes in the Senate when it was brought up for a vote.

Instead of rushing yet another partisan stunt to the floor, the majority should work with Democrats to pass bipartisan solutions to address the situation at the border. That would be a far better way to truly honor the lives of those we have tragically lost.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ivey), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker said that illegal aliens who committed crimes should be detained, and, indeed, they should. However, this bill says that illegal aliens who somebody thinks may have committed a crime should be detained mandatorily. That is un- American.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Scalise and the other Republicans are not serious about solving the problem we all talk about. Mr. Scalise says the solution is H.R. 2, a bill so serious it received 32 votes in the United States Senate, a body with 49 Republican Senators.

If the Republicans were sincere and serious about solving this problem, they would vote for the $14 billion that the President has requested to hire more Border Patrol people and more judges so that asylum decisions can be made in weeks and not years, and he wouldn't have the problem of catch and release.

If Republicans were serious, they wouldn't have tanked the Senate bill developed in negotiations with principally Senator Lankford, who is considered the second-most conservative Senator in the Senate, and that bill was going to be agreed to until President Trump decided-- former President Trump and hopefully never again President Trump-- decided that he would rather have an issue for the campaign than solve the problem, so he told the Republicans to tank the bill that they had just written.

Let's talk about hypocrisy. That is what we are hearing in this Chamber. That is what we hear all the time from a Republican Party that loves the rhetoric, that loves to use the victimhood of people like Laken Riley for political purposes, but this is a Republican Party that does not want to solve this problem, will not take any serious step to solve this problem, and is trying to create a fraud on the American people by pretending that it cares about this problem.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I want to close where I began, by expressing my deepest condolences to the family of Laken Riley. I only wish that we were debating a bill worthy of her name. Instead, we have the latest Republican press release, a bill that serves as an excuse to target and demonize immigrants while making our country no safer. I hope that my Republican colleagues will change course and choose to work with Democrats and with the administration in a constructive manner that improves our immigration system and makes our border more secure.

Until then, I must urge Members to oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this esteemed body to honor the late Lloyd Richards, who left an indelible mark on our society through his groundbreaking career as a director, producer, performer, and educator.

A giant of the American Theatre, Richards was a groundbreaking talent who smashed the color barrier on Broadway for African American directors and became the first Black director to direct a Broadway play.

Before becoming one of the most important figures in American theater during the 20th century, he survived poverty and hardship during the depths of the Great Depression. At the age of only 13, he worked in a barbershop to help put food on the table for his blind mother and his four siblings.

During World War II, Richards halted his studies at Wayne University to serve his country in the U.S. Army Air Corps' division of fighter pilots known as the Tuskegee Airmen. He then moved to New York City in 1947, and despite roles for African American actors being incredibly hard to come by, he landed roles on Broadway and on the radio. It was during this time that Richards started his illustrious career as an educator and developed what would become a lifelong friendship with one of his early acting students, the great Sidney Poitier.

Richards would go on to direct Poitier in the landmark original production A Raisin in the Sun, which opened at Broadway's Ethel Barrymore Theater on March 11, 1959. The production became an artistic and commercial success on Broadway, and Richards became the first African American to be nominated for the Tony Award for Best Direction.

Richards went on to become one of the most respected and innovative directors in the industry. He helped to bring the works of playwrights such as August Wilson, Lorraine Hansberry, and Athol Fugard to the stage, shaping the landscape of American theater in the process.

Beyond his contributions to the world of theater, Lloyd Richards was a dedicated and passionate educator. As the dean of the Yale School of Drama, he nurtured and inspired generations of talented artists, instilling in them the values of integrity, hard work, and dedication.

I am grateful that thanks to the incredible advocacy of the Committee to Celebrate Lloyd Richards, the corner of 47th Street and Broadway in Manhattan will be co-named ``Lloyd Richards Way'' on June 29, 2024. This is a fitting tribute to a man who dedicated his life to the art of theater and left behind a legacy that continues to inspire and influence artists worldwide.

I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of Lloyd Richards and in celebrating his contributions to American theater. May his name and his legacy continue to inspire future generations of artists and educators for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New York, the Honorable THOMAS R. SUOZZI, be permitted to take the oath of office today.

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

Mr. Speaker, as dean of the New York delegation, it is my distinct honor to rise today to welcome my good friend Congressman Tom Suozzi back to the people's House.

The people of New York's Third Congressional District have elected a Representative with the experience, character, and commitment to solve problems confronting everyday Americans and deliver for his constituents.

Tom is also a great family man. He is a devoted father, husband, and public servant who upholds the values instilled in him by his family. He has devoted most of his adult life to public service: first as the mayor of his hometown, Glen Cove, for 8 years; then as the county executive of Nassau County for 8 years, before serving as a United States Congressman for 6 years.

From working tirelessly to secure investments for the Northport VA Medical Center in Long Island to helping secure billions in Federal support for New York in pandemic relief and infrastructure funding, Tom's outstanding record in Congress speaks for itself.

Tom loves New York, he loves his country, and his love for public service runs deep. He is the kind of person we need serving in this House at this moment, and it gives me great pleasure to reintroduce him as our colleague, the gentleman from New York, Tom Suozzi.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to Mr. Suozzi.

Mr. Speaker, due to a personal matter, I was not able to vote for the first suspension yesterday. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 32.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the sham impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas.

This resolution is filled with false and misleading statements that amount to nothing more than policy disagreements. Even if it were based in truth, however, policy disagreements are not a legitimate basis for impeachment.

Impeaching a Cabinet Secretary is serious. Unfortunately, House Republicans are not. This sham impeachment ran roughshod over due process and completely bypassed the Judiciary Committee, the committee of jurisdiction for impeachment.

This is not a serious effort, nor is it a serious resolution.

Republicans allege that Secretary Mayorkas should be impeached simply because he failed to meet the impossible standards set out in our laws, standards that no administration, not even President Trump's, has ever come close to meeting.

For example, they allege that Secretary Mayorkas failed to detain everyone that the law requires to be held in mandatory detention. To do so would require Congress to appropriate over $35 billion a year, a number 10 times higher than President Trump ever requested for detention. That is why the Trump administration released over 500,000 people at the U.S.-Mexico border and released 1.1 million people from immigration detention into the United States.

Did we hear calls from the Republicans to impeach Secretaries Kelly, Duke, or Nielsen? Of course not.

The resolution also takes aim at the Secretary's use of his parole authority, but Republicans never complained when President Trump used his parole authority for tens of thousands of Cubans and military families.

So, what is different now? Could it be that it is an election year and Republicans have no record of accomplishments to run on?

With no ideas, no agenda, and no ability to govern, they are cheapening the serious and awesome power of impeachment to score a few cheap political points. That is shameful.

Our immigration system has been broken for decades. Impeaching a Cabinet Secretary because you do not like their policies will not repair it. Only bipartisan reform can do that.

Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill is just another page from the majority's tired old playbook of inventing perceived gaps in the law and providing overly broad legislation to fix them.

DUIs are a serious problem. Over 13,000 people died in alcohol impaired driving traffic deaths in 2021, and all of those deaths were preventable. However, instead of working on proven solutions like improving access to public transportation and ride-sharing programs so that people have an alternative to driving drunk, Republicans are laying the blame for this problem at the feet of immigrants.

Let me be clear. No one here wants to see individuals who are true threats to public safety eligible for immigration benefits. However, our immigration laws already exclude public safety threats from being able to get visas or legally remain in the country. Under our current laws, this includes those who have committed serious DUI offenses.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, a noncitizen who is convicted of or admits to committing a crime involving moral turpitude, or a CIMT, is generally inadmissible. Likewise, a noncitizen who is convicted of a CIMT, where a sentence of 1 year or longer may be imposed, is deportable.

There is substantial case law demonstrating that serious DUI offenses are considered CIMTs under current law. DUI where the maximum possible penalty is a year or more and where there is serious bodily harm; hit- and-runs; an aggravated DUI; and a DUI involving driving with knowledge of an invalid, suspended, or revoked license are all CIMTs and are, therefore, already deportable offenses.

This means that under current law, the people who are drinking and driving and putting people at risk of harm are already removable. Nonetheless, the majority is not satisfied with this. They want to deport everyone who has ever received any conviction for any DUI offense. Here is the problem with this approach: every State has a different standard for how they define and prosecute DUIs. Some States will charge people with a DUI even if they are not actually driving a car.

For example, prosecutors in Virginia convicted a man of DUI who was inebriated and asleep in the driver's seat of his car with the keys in the ignition so he could listen to music in his driveway. This case, in which the driver never even left his driveway or even turned his car all the way on, went all the way to the Virginia Supreme Court. We cannot rely on prosecutorial discretion in this type of case.

Under case law, the man in this case would not ultimately be subject to removal based on this conviction if he was a noncitizen. Nevertheless, if this bill were to be enacted, such a conviction would lead to the deportation of even a longstanding green card holder.

Remember, Mr. Speaker, we are talking here about longstanding green card holders, not illegal aliens. These are people who entered the country legally, who may have been here for 20 or 30 years, who have American citizen spouses and children.

If this bill were enacted, such a conviction of sleeping in your own car inebriated in your own driveway going nowhere would get you deported.

If this bill fixed a serious gap in the law, I would be supportive. Nevertheless, this bill doesn't do that. It puts people who are here legally at risk of removal for making even a minor mistake that harmed no one, all at a time when immigration courts have historic backlogs and the Republicans are refusing to provide DHS with the resources it needs to enforce the laws currently on the books.

This is purely for show, but I would expect nothing less from a party that has admitted they would rather wait to fix the problems in our immigration system so that President Trump can preserve the issue for his campaign than actually work toward meaningful reform now.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), the ranking Democrat on the Immigration Subcommittee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the last few speakers on the Republican side spent most of their time not addressing this bill but addressing the general crisis at our southern border.

The fact is there is a crisis. We all know that. The fact is that one of the major problems--and Republicans say this all the time, and they are right--is catch and release.

Someone is caught or more usually turns themselves in to a Border Patrol officer, claims asylum, and is given a court date 4 years, 5 years down the road. Why? Because we do not have enough asylum officers. We do not have enough asylum judges.

President Biden requested $14 billion to increase the number of Border Patrol men and women and to increase the number of asylum judges and immigration judges so that you wouldn't have catch and release; so that people who claimed asylum would have their cases adjudicated in weeks, not in years.

Those who are entitled to asylum would be admitted to the country and could work and those who are not could be swiftly removed, deported from the country.

Do our Republican colleagues want to do that? No. They don't want to give the President the means of alleviating this problem. They want a campaign issue, and they are very open about it.

You have in the Senate a painstakingly negotiated and extraordinarily conservative--so we hear, I haven't seen the text yet--strong immigration bill negotiated by such liberals as Senator Lankford and Senator Graham, and they are going to pass it, in all likelihood.

The Republicans in the House say we won't even look at it. Why? Because the former President, President Trump, said don't pass anything. I want a campaign issue.

They don't want to solve the problem. They want to keep the problem going as a campaign issue, and they said it themselves.

Don't get up here and talk about the problems on the southern border when you won't give this President any of the authority or the means that he seeks to deal with it when you say, as Speaker Johnson said, you are not going to even look at the bill from the Senate because it isn't perfect. Since when do we insist on perfect legislation?

Now, Mr. Speaker, let's get to this bill. DUIs are a serious problem, and no one who poses a threat to public safety should be eligible for immigration benefits, but that is already the case under current law.

This legislation is a gross overreach that would lead to absurd consequences and deportation for people who pose no threat to our country, such as the examples we heard of someone who, rather than driving drunk, is in his own car inebriated with the key turned on, listening to music in his own driveway, posing a threat to no one.

Even for people who have been here many years, with American citizen spouses and children, that would lead to automatic deportation while doing nothing that our laws do not already do to deter people from driving under the influence--driving under the influence as opposed to sitting in their driveway under the influence.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, before I address the specifics of this bill, I want to address what we heard from the Speaker a few minutes ago.

The Speaker said that section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act cannot be used to ``shut down the border.''

Former President Trump agreed with him. He tried to do exactly what Speaker Johnson says in 2018. That action was immediately enjoined and declared unlawful.

You cannot use section 212(f) of the INA to shut down the border, but the Speaker knows this. That is why he had the House pass H.R. 2. If 212(f) were sufficient, why did we need a bill?

The Republicans passed H.R. 2, but the Republicans should know that this is a bicameral institution, and there is also a President.

H.R. 2 can go nowhere. The Senate won't even look at it, but we know that conservative Republicans in the Senate and Democrats in the Senate have been negotiating for a very, very strong, very powerful, very conservative immigration bill, which they have come up with, much too conservative for many Democrats--I am not sure I am going to vote for it--far more conservative than anything we have considered on the floor besides H.R. 2.

Yet, the Speaker says he won't hear of it. Why? Because the former President said he wants the issue. He was very clear, as was Mr. Nehls: Don't pass anything so that former President Trump can campaign on immigration in the fall.

Don't solve the problem. Save the problem as a campaign issue. That is what they are doing. If they weren't doing that, they would seriously consider the Senate bill.

What is even more pernicious is that they have joined together the close the border issue, the border issue, which is a valid issue, but they have lumped it together with aid to Israel and aid to Ukraine.

I was on the steps of the House with the Speaker and many others touting our solidarity with Israel. Yet, what are we going to do?

Trump and the Speaker, doing Trump's bidding, don't want us to pass an immigration bill, which they have tied up with aid to Israel and aid to Ukraine.

We are not going to aid Israel. We are going to let Putin take over Ukraine. We are not going to send arms to Taiwan. We are not going to send humanitarian aid.

We are going to abandon Ukraine. We are going to abandon Israel. We are going to abandon Taiwan. We are going to abandon our Pacific allies.

Why? Because President Trump wants a campaign issue on immigration. This is shameful. Shameful. The Speaker knows it to be the case, and I challenge the Speaker to bring the Senate bill to the floor. Let's see what happens.

When the Senate passes a very conservative bill, which they seem on track to do, bring it to the floor of the House, and let's see what happens. I bet it passes, but let's see what happens.

Mr. Speaker, addressing this bill, let's be clear: Social Security fraud is a serious issue. It is also largely already a deportable offense.

If H.R. 6678 closed an actual gap in current law, Democrats would gladly support it. Unfortunately, this bill represents another unserious attempt by my Republican colleagues to target and scapegoat immigrants, and to score cheap political points, while doing nothing to fix our immigration system.

While I have several concerns with this bill, I would like to focus on the issue of deportability because that is the most troubling aspect of this legislation.

H.R. 6678 eliminates the requirement that we first charge and convict a person for Social Security fraud before we make them deportable.

This is concerning and stands in stark contrast to most other criminal deportability grounds within our immigration laws.

Barring a few exceptions, criminal offenses require a conviction to render a noncitizen deportable. This is especially important given who would be most impacted by this legislation.

This section of H.R. 6678 is not about deporting undocumented immigrants who are, of course, already deportable, and it is not about preventing people from entering the United States.

The deportability provisions in this legislation target lawful, permanent residents, people who have put down roots in our communities, many of whom have U.S. citizen spouses and children and who have truly established themselves here in the United States.

A lot of these individuals are eligible to become U.S. citizens today. This bill would make these people deportable without even requiring that they be convicted of a crime.

Do we really want to be deporting lawful, permanent residents without due process and without them having their day in court?

Additionally, if this bill were to become law, it would result in absurd consequences. It would actually be easier to deport someone for offenses related to Social Security fraud than it is to deport someone for murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor, because for those crimes, a conviction is required. Is this really what my Republican colleagues are looking to accomplish?

For years, Republicans have claimed that they support legal immigration. They are opposed to illegal immigration, as we all are, but they support legal immigration, so they say.

By stripping people of their due process and playing political games with this bill, they are showing us that it is all just empty rhetoric.

We should be working together in a bipartisan way to modernize our broken immigration system. Instead, we are wasting our time with a bill that has no chance to become law and does nothing to address the real problems facing this country and that destroys due process for legal permanent residents.

Members should oppose this overbroad legislation that would deport people who have never even been charged with a crime.

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

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bentz says that the person to be deported has to be shown to have been guilty by clear and convincing evidence. I always thought the standard of proof for a crime was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. This just shows again how destructive of due process this bill is.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal) the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Mrvan).

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in closing. This legislation does nothing to improve our immigration system while making a mockery of basic due process. That is why it should be defeated.

I urge all Members to oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

As I have repeatedly said, fraud, regardless of whether it is Social Security fraud or fraud related to COVID loans or grants, is a serious issue. This amendment, however, suffers from the same defect as the underlying bill. As written, it would eliminate the requirement that we first charge and convict a person for a fraud offense before we make them deportable.

Let's remember who would be most impacted by the deportability provisions in this amendment. This is not about deporting undocumented immigrants, who are, of course, already removable. It is not about preventing people from entering the United States.

The deportability provisions in this amendment target lawful permanent residents, people who have put down roots in our communities, many of whom have U.S. spouses and children. This bill would make these people deportable without even requiring that they be convicted of a crime. Do we really want to be deporting lawful permanent residents without any due process?

Additionally, this amendment, just like the underlying bill, would lead to absurd consequences. It would actually make it easier to deport someone for fraud related to COVID loans or grants than it is to deport someone for murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor, because for those crimes, a conviction is required. Is that really what the author of this amendment is trying to accomplish here, make it easier to deport people for COVID fraud than for murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor? Is that really what Mr. D'Esposito wants?

This is not sound policy, and it makes no sense. I hope my Republicans colleagues will realize how shortsighted this amendment is. I oppose this amendment, and I urge all Members to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, the other gentleman from New York has not put forward any evidence that immigrants, documented or undocumented, were involved in defrauding the COVID relief funds. Moreover, everything he said basically was irrelevant to this bill.

We are not talking about the southern border crisis. We are not talking about the general policies of the Biden administration or the Trump administration or H.R. 2 or the Senate bill. All of that is beyond the scope of this bill.

What we are talking about in this bill is not making, as the gentleman said, illegal immigrants, but lawful permanent residents, deportable for fraud on COVID loans or grants without being convicted of a crime, something you cannot do for lawful permanent residents accused of murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor, because for those things a conviction is required.

This bill would set aside due process and say no conviction is required to deport someone for the crime of COVID fraud, although such a conviction is required for much more serious offenses. It makes no sense and it is abhorrent to our legal system to make people have heavy penalties, people who have lived in this country for many years, to be deportable without any due process and without conviction of a crime.

For that reason, this amendment and this bill should be defeated.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, on October 7, 2023, Hamas committed a horrific assault on innocent civilians in Israel, murdering 1,200 people, including 32 Americans, killing the most Jewish people in a single day since the Holocaust.

Even now, Hamas continues to hold innocent men, women, and children in captivity. Not a day goes by that I don't think of the hostages:

Of Kfir Bibas, who turned 1 in captivity, and his family, whose lives Hamas has used as a tool of psychological torture;

Of U.S. citizens, like Hersh Goldberg-Polin, whose arm was blown off at the Nova music festival, and Keith Siegel, whose wife was released while he remains in Gaza;

Of peace activists, like Oded Lifshitz, who spent so much his life helping Palestinians get access to lifesaving healthcare;

Of the young women, like Noa Argamani and Agam Berger, who Hamas has used to torment and taunt their parents.

Every day since October 7 has been a nightmare from which we have been unable to wake up. It has been far too much suffering, too many lives have been lost, on both sides of the conflict.

H.R. 6679 has an important goal, ensuring that no one involved with the planning or commission of the October

7 attacks can enter the United States or receive any immigration benefits.

Our current laws already achieve this goal, however. Hamas has been designated as a terrorist organization by the State Department since 1997.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, or the INA, any noncitizen who has engaged in terrorist activity, provided material support to terrorists, or is a member of a terrorist organization, or a group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity is inadmissible to the United States.

Furthermore, the national security-related bars in the INA are very broad. To bar an individual, the Secretary of Homeland Security merely needs ``reasonable grounds to believe'' that the applicant presents a risk to national security or is otherwise seeking to engage in ``any unlawful activity'' in the United States.

This authority already applies to those who engage in or endorse terrorist activity, as well as those who provide material support to groups that take up arms against government forces. This is an extraordinarily broad provision that has barred even those who are forced to help armed groups.

As such, this bill is largely redundant to current law. I certainly support the aim of this legislation. No individual who is involved in these heinous attacks should find refuge in the United States.

That is why I intend to support the bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. But I do have some concerns about the drafting of this bill.

For decades, when Congress wishes to prevent specific bad actors from entering the United States or accessing an immigration benefit, we have used bipartisan visa sanctions legislation. That approach would have the same effect the majority is attempting to achieve with this bill.

Today, however, the majority has chosen to directly amend the INA to impose visa sanctions. This is beyond bizarre.

Even after the September 11 attacks, we overhauled whole swaths of our immigration system, including creating the Department of Homeland Security, but we did not amend the INA to bar the people involved in the planning and commission of those attacks from entering into the United States. We used visa sanctions.

During markup, I asked the majority to work with us to improve the legislation and ensure there were no unintended consequences.

Unfortunately, they ignored our request. By not working with us, I worry that the majority signals an unseriousness about this issue that ensures that this bill will not become law.

Despite these concerns, I will vote ``yes'' on the legislation, and I urge everyone else to do so.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said, no member of Hamas or anyone associated with the horrific attacks of October 7 should be allowed to enter this country. Although that is already the law, I support the goal of making sure this is crystal clear.

Though I have concerns about how this legislation was drafted and whether it would achieve its stated goal, I will support this bill with the hope that we can further improve it as it moves through the legislative process. I plan to vote ``yes,'' and I urge everyone else to vote ``yes.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I support the gentleman's amendment, and I think it helps improve the underlying bill.

I wish the majority had worked with us on this legislation to make it a visa sanctions bill. If they had, this amendment would not be needed because we would already have the data this amendment requires to be reported.

However, given our concerns related to the drafting of this legislation and the potential for unintended consequences, I welcome this amendment so that Congress can unequivocally confirm that the number of people impacted by this bill is minimum.

The Congressional Budget Office has already said this bill has no budgetary impact because it essentially restates current law. This amendment will help confirm the accuracy of that analysis.

Mr. Speaker, I therefore support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for the reasons I stated a few minutes ago, I support this amendment. I urge everyone to vote for it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement.

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

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 5585, the Agent Raul Gonzalez Officer Safety Act, would establish harsh criminal and immigration penalties for flight, while operating a motor vehicle, from a pursuing U.S. Border Patrol agent or other law enforcement officer assisting in the pursuit.

Let me make clear: The death of Agent Gonzalez in the performance of his duties is a tragedy, and our hearts go out to his family and friends. However, H.R. 5585 is not the best or even a viable answer to the perceived problem this bill claims to solve.

High-speed vehicle pursuits can be incredibly dangerous, often ending in horrific accidents with serious injuries or even the deaths of individuals being chased by law enforcement, as well as innocent bystanders and law enforcement personnel.

According to a report by the ACLU of Texas, Border Patrol-involved vehicle pursuits resulted in 107 deaths, not including law enforcement officers, between January of 2010 and November of 2023.

Following public outcry as the number of deaths continued to rise, CBP conducted a review of its vehicle pursuit policy. The review resulted in a newly revised directive published in January of last year, just 1 month after Agent Gonzalez was killed. The net effect of the new policy is to discourage the number of high-speed pursuits.

When weighing the potential risk to the safety of the public and law enforcement officers, many jurisdictions have determined that the risks are far too great to justify a vehicle pursuit. I hope CBP agents will be encouraged to adhere to the agency's updated policy.

I have many concerns with the criminal aspects of this legislation, but most troubling is its inclusion of mandatory minimum sentences. For more than a decade, mandatory minimums have been widely condemned for many reasons, including their disproportionate application of cases involving people of color and the resulting mass incarceration and overpolicing of marginalized communities. We must continue to resist every urge to add to the list of Federal criminal offenses subject to mandatory minimum penalties, because they have served to perpetuate injustice and inequity within our criminal justice system.

Turning to the immigration provisions of this bill, the justification for such harsh penalties is similarly lacking. People who are convicted of fleeing law enforcement are already deportable and inadmissible.

One of the many ways someone can become inadmissible and deportable is if they are convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, commonly called a CIMT. Courts have previously determined that knowingly fleeing or eluding law enforcement is a CIMT.

However, this bill makes a significant change by not requiring that an individual actually be convicted of the crime to render them deportable. Under current law, to be deportable for a CIMT, there must be a conviction, but this bill would erase that conviction requirement, allowing someone to be rendered deportable even if they have never been convicted of a crime.

Deportability is not about undocumented immigrants, who are already removable. This is about people who are here legally, who in many cases have put down roots, have American citizen spouses and family and children.

By and large, we are talking about lawful permanent residents, people who have put down roots in our communities, as I said, many of whom have U.S. citizen spouses and children who have truly established themselves here in the United States.

If they are convicted of evading or fleeing law enforcement, they are generally already removable. Rendering such a person deportable without requiring a conviction raises serious due process concerns.

While the inclusion of mandatory minimum sentences is enough reason to vote no on H.R. 5585, the unjustifiably harsh immigration provisions render the bill a complete nonstarter.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I would remind the gentlewoman and others that people who engage in high-speed chases with the Border Patrol are already deportable. The question on this bill is not whether they should be deported. The question is whether they should be convicted of the crime of engaging in a high-speed chase before being deported or whether we throw due process out the window.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

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

Mr. Chair, the gentlewoman from, I think, Texas a moment ago said that this bill was necessary for the safety of our people. The truth is the safety of our people is already provided for by the current law, which makes engaging in a high-speed chase with Border Patrol agents a deportable offense already.

What this bill does is to remove due process protections; due process protections that we recognize as very important throughout our law. The truth of the matter is this is a diversion.

Everybody on that side of the aisle knows this bill is going nowhere in the Senate. This bill is not intended to go anywhere in the Senate. Everyone knows that a serious and very harsh overall immigration bill is being negotiated in the Senate, by Democratic Senators and by very conservative Republican Senators; a bill that is much more conservative than I would like to see, which I may not vote for, but which will probably get 75 or 80 votes in the Senate and could be signed by the President, establishing a very harsh regime that the other side of the aisle would probably like, that Senator Lankford likes, that Senator Tillis likes, not notable liberal Members.

We have a former President who has said--and I appreciate his honesty--he doesn't want a solution to the problem. He doesn't want our border problem fixed until he is the President again because he wants the issue.

What we are really dealing with is should we enact legislation that may solve the border problem, or should we keep it as an issue so that Donald Trump can campaign on it, and we can all debate that issue during the campaign but take no action? That is what we are really debating.

This bill and the three bills that will come this week are diversions. They are minor bills. They don't really do anything to keep our safety.

As I said, for instance, on this one, engaging in a high-speed chase with the CBP is already a deportable offense. All they want to do in this bill is remove some due process provisions for our longtime residents.

However, this is pitiful, and it is minor-league stuff compared to major legislation that will actually solve our

border problem, and that legislation is pending in the Senate. The Senate will probably pass it next week.

Moreover, we are told that it won't even be allowed to come to a vote in the House. Why? Because Marjorie Taylor Greene has said that if the Speaker brings any immigration bill that the Senate passes to the floor, she will move to vacate the chair. Why? Because our former President wants a campaign issue.

Senator Tillis has said this is shameful. Senator Romney has said this is more than shameful. Yet, that is what we are hearing. That is what we are seeing from our friends on the Republican side of the aisle--a total disinterest in the public interest, a total disinterest in the public safety, a total interest only in rhetoric and campaign material. They have said it by their own admission.

So let's not waste our time with this bill, which is irrelevant. It is not a good bill either because it dispenses with due process, but it is irrelevant because it is not going anywhere in the Senate; neither are the other three bills that were reported out of the Judiciary Committee that are also going nowhere in the Senate that we will waste our time on in the next few days.

Why waste our time? Why not deal with something real? Why not deal, if not with immigration, at least on something else real?

This Congress, with the exception of continuing resolutions and the debt ceiling crisis, has passed not one single bill into law--not one. And even the continuing resolution to prevent the government from shutting down, half on March 1 and half on March 8, passed with 107 Republicans voting yes, 106 Republicans voting no, and the Democrats all voting yes. We pulled the fat out of the fire.

So let's not waste our time with this. Let's not waste our time with this unnecessary legislation. Let's do something serious about immigration. Let's do something serious about anything.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I won't oppose the amendment, but I do want to make two points.

First, the data collected under this amendment is unlikely to be of much value without any understanding of the circumstances surrounding the charging decisions. Although I will not oppose it, I am concerned that without additional information, such a report could draw misleading or false conclusions.

Second, and more important, this amendment does absolutely nothing to improve the underlying bill. Therefore, whether or not this amendment passes, I still urge strong opposition to the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank Amy Rutkin for nearly twenty-five years of outstanding service to the constituents of New York's 12th Congressional District and the House Judiciary Committee.

The decision to hire Amy as my Chief of Staff in 1999 was--as all my best decisions are--at the suggestion of my wife, Joyce, who had met her while working on the same New York City Comptroller race. While Amy hadn't previously worked on the Hill, upon meeting her, I knew she possessed the intellect, tenacity, and problem-solving skills necessary to step directly into the Chief of Staff role.

Previously, Amy had served as Director of Government Relations and Public Policy at Hadassah; as a Policy Analyst for New York Governor Mario Cuomo; and as Associate Director of Public Affairs at Planned Parenthood. This experience demonstrated our shared passion for advocacy and fighting for the principles we both believe in: women's and LGBTQ+ equality, civil rights, progressive Zionism, and much more.

While Amy grew up in Arizona and earned her undergraduate degree at Brandeis University in Boston, Massachusetts, she became steeped in the world of New York City politics when she studied at my alma mater, Columbia University, going on to graduate with a master's in public administration.

Despite a promise not to stay in the position ``a day over four years,'' Amy was quickly thrown into the center of some of our nation's most significant challenges, and her commitment to seeing those challenges through kept her fighting alongside me for nearly twenty- five years. Barely two years into her taking the Chief of Staff role, the 9/11 terrorist attacks devastated my district, which then stretched from the Upper West Side of Manhattan through the heart of the World Trade Center and to parts of Brooklyn. We knew immediately that the air in Lower Manhattan wasn't safe to breathe--despite assurances from the Bush Administration--and in the years following, Amy dedicated herself to leading efforts in Congress to care for the victims, work that culminated in the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. This landmark legislation upheld our promise to our nation's heroes who responded to the attacks as well as to all those who had been impacted by the toxic dust in the disaster area--a monumental feat that affected thousands of lives. Thanks to her persistence and dedication, Amy's impact on our 9/11 families can be felt far and wide.

Years later, in 2017, our work together would face its biggest test as I entered the race to become Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee. Thanks in great part to the strong record I had built over the years with Amy's advice, I earned the trust of my colleagues to become the Ranking Member, a goal we had discussed for many years finally coming to fruition. I was proud to appoint Amy as Chief of Staff to the Committee, a role she seamlessly assumed following our victory.

Becoming Ranking Member--and later, Chairman--of the Judiciary Committee brought with it great opportunities for legislative action that Amy and I had talked about for years. It came with a caveat, however; Donald Trump was the President, and there was mounting pressure to launch an impeachment inquiry as he was fundamentally threatening and degrading our democracy.

Amy navigated the complexities of leading an impeachment with a steady hand, facing a demanding schedule and non-stop media attention, managing a staff of some of our nation's finest minds, and working closely with the House Leadership team. This experience earned her the acclaim of former Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who praised her ``wise counsel'' and ``razor-sharp instincts,'' an assessment I couldn't agree with more.

After the Impeachment concluded in early 2020, unbeknownst to anyone at the time, we would be back again the following year for yet another impeachment after President Trump led the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol. While under vastly different circumstances--this time, the Members were the direct victims of the President's crimes--Amy built on past experience to give President Trump the dishonor of being the only President to be impeached twice.

Impeachments aside, Amy's tenure leading the staff of the Judiciary Committee allowed us to realize several legislative goals we had worked on together for two decades.

For example, back in 2009, when same-sex marriages were under attack, Amy was critical in helping author the Respect for Marriage Act to protect marriage equality, a bill that was seen as fanciful at the time. Although the Supreme Court later recognized marriage equality in the Obergefell decision, this right came under renewed threat when Justice Thomas urged revisiting that precedent in the Dobbs case, which overturned decades of precedent protecting the right to reproductive freedom. Amy seized the moment and jumped into action to revive efforts to pass the Respect for Marriage Act. Within months, we were on the White House Lawn together with President Biden as he signed the bill into law. A dream that seemed impossible just a decade earlier had become a reality largely due to Amy's relentless tenacity for LGBTQ+ equality.

Fighting for civil rights has always been at the core of my political philosophy, but it was never more urgent than in the wake of George Floyd's murder in 2020, when our country was clamoring for change to our nation's approach to policing. Amy worked in tandem with then- Representative and now-Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to advance the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act through the House, not once but twice. On their work together, former Congresswoman Bass said, ``Let me say in no uncertain terms that the United States House of Representatives would not have been able to pass the most comprehensive police reform package in United States history--the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act--two different times, without Amy's steady guidance and leadership.''

Simply put, under Amy's leadership, the House Judiciary Committee was as productive and consequential as it has ever been in the years I served as Chairman. These accomplishments allowed me to run in a difficult primary last cycle on a record that was unmatched, and I am thankful to Amy not only for helping to develop this record, but also for amplifying to constituents the impact of my work in Washington.

Even now in the minority, Amy continues to influence the issues she is most passionate about. In the wake of the October 7th attack on Israel, she has doubled down on her work supporting my role as the most senior Jewish Member of Congress and she is a visible demonstration that you can be both progressive and Zionist. She is relentless in her work supporting our informal group of Jewish Members of Congress--and her success in bringing together voices from across the political spectrum speaks volumes to her understanding of the complexities of the Jewish community and her deep connection to the values that bind us together.

I would be remiss if I did not mention Amy's children, Phoebe and Zoey. Both of her children were born during her tenure in the office, and for me and the rest of our team, it has

been a pleasure watching them grow up and hearing their stories and jokes about their dog, Rufus.

As Amy moves on to the next chapter in her life, I am forever grateful to have had her by my side for nearly twenty-five years as my most trusted advisor. With her brilliant political instincts, keen understanding of policy, and strong moral compass, she has been essential in bringing about so many of my accomplishments throughout my tenure in Congress.

I want to thank her for her many years of service and her friendship over the years. My district, the Judiciary Committee, and the lives of millions of people are better off for having had Amy fighting on their behalf.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6918, the so called Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act.

This bill would achieve the exact opposite of its purported goal of supporting parenting women and families--instead, it would divers funding away from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, or TANF. TANF provides cash assistance directly to struggling families with children to pay for essential needs. Hypocritically, this extreme GOP bill would siphon off funding intended for our neediest families to prop up a network of unlicensed, unregulated Crisis Pregnancy Centers run by anti-choice activists.

If the GOP was truly the ``pro-life'' party, they would know that TANF is the only federal assistance program that struggling families can use to buy diapers for their babies. Families who receive direct cash assistance

through TANF can purchase diapers for their children at their nearest store. Some of my Republican colleagues have argued that many Crisis Pregnancy Centers provide diapers for families. However, if parents had to instead rely on Crisis Pregnancy Centers for essential childcare needs, they could be forced to travel long distances to centers that might not be accessible through public transportation. Additionally, an investigation by this very body found that 87% of anti-abortion counseling centers provide false or misleading information about reproductive care.

If the GOP was in touch with the needs of their constituents, they would know that diaper need is a crisis in America that can overwhelm families who are already financially struggling. An average monthly supply of diapers for a single child costs $80 to $100. As of 2023, half of U.S. families report not being able to afford enough diapers to keep their child clean, dry, and healthy, and 3 in 5 parents report missing work or school because they can't afford the diapers required to leave their baby in childcare. Tell me, how is taking away the only federal funding for diapers pro-life?

I strongly oppose this farce of a bill that would only harm struggling families.

Ms. JACKSON LEE, Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak in strong opposition to the proposed legislation, H.R. 6918--Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act.

This legislation, in my view, represents a concerning step in the wrong direction.

It has been characterized by critics as part of a broader effort by conservative Republicans to limit women's reproductive freedom.

With nearly 18 months having passed since the pivotal Roe v. Wade decision was overturned, the introduction of this bill signals a continued push towards what some view as a national ban on abortion.

I believe that reproductive rights are a fundamental aspect of individual autonomy, and any legislative measures that may restrict or impede these rights warrant scrutiny.

Furthermore, the potential allocation of federal funds to support such measures raises serious concerns about the appropriate use of taxpayer dollars and the role of government in personal healthcare decisions.

I am committed to advocating for policies that uphold and protect the reproductive rights of individuals, recognizing the importance of a balanced and inclusive approach that respects diverse perspectives.

This legislation seeks to undermine a woman's right to access abortion services by employing tactics that involve misleading information, deceptive practices, and attempts at shaming individuals seeking reproductive care.

We as Democrats, in response, remain steadfast in our commitment to enshrine reproductive freedom as a legal right through the Women's Health Protection Act (H.R. 12).

This comprehensive legislation aims to safeguard individuals' access to essential reproductive healthcare services and protect them from deceptive practices that may obstruct their right to make informed choices about their reproductive health.

We must advocate for a legislative approach that prioritizes the autonomy and well-being of individuals seeking reproductive care while countering efforts to curtail their rights through disinformation and coercion.

In addition, H.R. 6918 raises significant concerns as it proposes funding for what are commonly referred to as ``crisis pregnancy centers'' or anti-abortion centers (AACs).

These entities have been criticized for engaging in deceptive practices that aim to manipulate women during their pregnancies, potentially hindering their ability to access comprehensive reproductive care.

In light of these considerations, I firmly oppose H.R. 6918 and will work to ensure that the legislative process reflects a careful examination of its potential impact on the rights and choices of individuals.

In my home state of Texas where abortion have been completely banned, our state has continued to struggle with maternal mortality and morbidity, and the rates are only expected to increase as the years go by.

In 2013, when Texas first started tracking deaths and severe illness or injury from pregnancy and childbirth, Black women were twice as likely as white women and four times as likely as Hispanic women to die from pregnancy-related causes.

This number has only increased as more women are being denied lifesaving abortion measures and face inadequate care after birth.

Another undermining aspect of this bill is in its use of TANF, or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

TANF plays a crucial role as it is a vital resource for families across the country.

This bill, however, introduces a concerning element by potentially creating a loophole that could divert essential funding away from its intended purpose, channeling it toward anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers.

These centers have faced scrutiny for their practices, with critics arguing that they may engage in deceptive tactics, potentially impacting the comprehensive support available to families.

By allowing TANF funding to be redirected to such centers, there is a risk that the intended assistance for struggling families may be compromised.

TANF's importance cannot be underestimated as it provides financial support, job preparation, and other essential services to low-income families.

The proposed diversion of funds to anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers raises questions about the broader impact on the social safety net and the potential limitations it might place on the availability of diverse and comprehensive resources for those in need.

As discussions on this bill unfold, it is crucial to assess how any changes may affect the original objectives of TANF and the families it is designed to support.