Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, last week was National Gun Violence Survivors Week, when we reflect on the toll that gun violence takes on all of us.

It is disgraceful enough that our Republican colleagues are unwilling to confront gun violence as the leading cause of death among American children, but last week, several Members of this body chose to mock the somber week by wearing assault rifle pins.

Those Members paraded through the Halls of Congress and on this floor, celebrating the weapon of choice for military combatants, mass murderers, and those who have fetishized the Second Amendment.

This shameless gesture was received loud and clear by Americans, including

a mother in my district who recently lost her son to gun violence.

She called my office after seeing those Members, distraught by their casual cruelty and their dangerous promotion of violence.

I rise today as the voice in Congress for that brokenhearted mother to make this very clear: House Democrats are united in the fight to end senseless gun violence. We want to advance real solutions, and we will always stand up to extremist behavior that threatens the safety of our communities.

Recognizing Betsy Walls, Public Health Emergency Preparedness

Trailblazer

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a constituent whose decades of public health service have made our community stronger.

Betsy Walls is being recognized by the CDC and Prevention as a public health emergency preparedness trailblazer from Pennsylvania. She is one of 48 Americans being recognized for their tireless work to protect our communities from a range of public health threats.

Betsy's distinguished career in serving her community includes serving as a flight nurse for the Pennsylvania Air National Guard, where she retired as a lieutenant colonel; she spent 30 years at Delaware County Memorial Hospital, first as a staff nurse, then a head nurse, then an evening supervisor, and, finally, as director of staff education; and she served as director of personal health at the Chester County Health Department for 18 years.

Betsy's commitment to ensuring our community is ready and able to respond to disasters has touched thousands of lives. Our community owes Betsy Walls an enormous debt of gratitude for the strong foundation she has built to keep our communities strong and healthy for years to come.

Recognizing Philadelphia Eagles Changemaker Award Winner, Dr. Ruth

Abaya

The Philadelphia Eagles are headed to the Super Bowl this weekend, and I want to recognize the team's 2022 Inspire Change Changemaker Award winner, Dr. Ruth Abaya, an emergency physician at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and a scholar of the hospital's Center for Violence Prevention.

As our country works to tackle gun violence, Dr. Abaya is on the front lines, treating this issue like the public health crisis that it is.

In her role as program manager for the Injury Prevention Program at Philadelphia's Department of Health, she is helping to identify the most promising practices for violence prevention and intervention for young people in our region.

A public health approach to gun violence requires a comprehensive, multifaceted response driven by research and data. It means a focus on prevention, in addition to treatment. Dr. Abaya's work is moving us toward the solutions we need to face this crisis head-on and give our children brighter futures.

I am grateful for Dr. Abaya's dedication to making our community a safer place for everyone and to the Philadelphia Eagles for their support for her program.

This weekend, go Birds.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy) for yielding the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, here we are, 6 weeks into a new Congress, and the Republican majority has yet to bring substantive, serious legislation to the floor that does anything to address the serious issues confronting our great Nation.

Instead, we have seen Republican leadership buckle under time and again to the demands of a rightwing minority that seems more interested in stoking controversy and conspiracy theories than crafting actual legislation or governing.

Instead of delivering for the American people, we have seen precious time and taxpayer dollars wasted in power struggles and political stunts, rather than doing the people's business.

True to that pattern, today's rule provides for the consideration of three deeply problematic measures, measures that further the objectives of that extremist minority, measures that stoke division, that undermine government institutions, and that threaten fundamental American freedoms when they don't align with the radical right's ideology.

By caving to these fringe forces, Republican leadership is squandering precious time and taxpayer dollars that would be better spent working together on the issues most Americans want us to address lowering prices; housing, healthcare, and education needs; making our communities safer; and protecting our planet.

The first two resolutions under consideration today would nullify legislation recently passed by the democratically elected D.C. Council and, in the process, would undermine the fundamental right of citizens of Washington, D.C., to political self-determination.

H.J. Res. 24 would overrule the Local Resident Voting Rights Act, which was recently passed by the D.C. Council.

With this measure, the citizens of D.C. decided to join other municipalities around the country in allowing noncitizen residents to vote in local D.C. elections.

H.J. Res. 26 would nullify the Revised Criminal Code Act, the RCCA, which reformed D.C.'s criminal code. That code has not been comprehensively revised since it was first enacted in 1901.

The American people expect their Members of Congress to prioritize their most pressing kitchen table issues, but instead of focusing on lowering costs or creating better-paying jobs, we are here today to interfere with legislation duly enacted by the citizens of D.C. and their government.

Not only is that not what our constituents sent us to do, it is distinctly antidemocratic to substitute our policy judgment for the local policy judgment of D.C.'s elected officials.

The nearly 700,000 residents of the District of Columbia, a majority of whom are Black and Brown, are worthy and capable of self-government.

Instead of seeking to undo the work of that democratically elected body, we should be holding hearings and considering whether it is finally time to address the issue of D.C. statehood.

As my colleague, Mr. Raskin, said in the Rules Committee yesterday, if my Republican colleagues insist on acting as a colonial overseer of the District of Columbia, the least they can do is hear from the people of D.C.

Those promoting these resolutions should have called a hearing or at least attempted to engage the D.C. Council and community leaders in some way.

If my colleagues think they have the best interests of the people of D.C. at heart, let's hear from the D.C. residents.

I believe they have made it quite clear they don't appreciate being made a pawn in national political battles.

We owe it to the people of D.C. to enact statehood, not this radical attempt to interfere with the district's Democratic process.

The subject of these disapproval resolutions, the Revised Criminal Code Act and Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act, should be irrelevant.

But just so we are clear, let's look at the legislative history of those two acts that our colleagues across the aisle want to overturn.

Under the D.C. Home Rule Act, which is a Federal statute, the democratically elected 13-member D.C. Council is required to enact a new law twice, with at least 13 days intervening between each vote, in order to pass legislation.

Legislation passed by the council and affirmed by the Mayor or with a veto override is then transmitted to Congress for a review period.

The legislation takes effect at the expiration of the review period unless Congress intervenes by passing a resolution of disapproval.

Congress has only overturned duly elected D.C. laws three times before the misguided efforts that we are forced to consider today.

Now, the D.C. Council passed the Revised Criminal Code Act by votes of 12-0 and 13-0. While the Mayor vetoed it, the council voted to override that veto by a vote of 12-1.

The Revised Criminal Code Act is the culmination of a 5-year process to revise and update D.C.'s criminal code, which, as mentioned previously, has not happened since it was first created over a century ago.

Everyone in the D.C. legal system, from prosecutors to judges to defense attorneys to scholars, agrees that this revision is long overdue.

Our colleagues across the aisle object to the revised criminal code that has been crafted with so much care to meet local conditions because they don't like some sentencing provisions that seek to match up the law with current standards.

They posit that harsher penalties would be a greater deterrent to the criminal conduct that they want to target when, in fact, the data shows that harsher penalties in some of the States that they represent does not, in fact, deter that conduct.

So think about this: Republican politicians from Georgia and Kentucky and Texas, who haven't bothered to take the time to hold a hearing or study this issue, have decided to parachute in and dictate to the 700,000 residents of D.C. that they know better than those residents and their elected Representatives how to run their city.

Can you imagine how those politicians would react if the D.C. Council tried to tell them how to run the jails in Athens, Georgia; Lexington, Kentucky; or Buffalo, New York?

What is particularly infuriating is that our Republican colleagues claim that they want to block the D.C. law because they want to be tougher on crime. But, once again, this is empty rhetoric. Overturning the D.C. criminal code will do nothing to increase public safety in D.C. or anywhere else.

As I mentioned at the outset, we are 6 weeks into the new Congress, and the Republican majority has not brought forward any legislation to address crime in America.

They won't consider legislation to block the flood of unregulated guns into American communities, they won't ban the weapons of war that take innocent lives in horrifying and predictably regular mass shootings, and they haven't taken any action to address the societal issues that produce violence.

The second resolution under consideration would vacate the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act, which the D.C. Council passed by votes of 12-1 and 12-0 after holding hearings and soliciting public comment.

This act would allow otherwise qualified D.C. residents who are not U.S. citizens to vote in local D.C. elections.

Qualified noncitizen residents could vote in races for Mayor, council, attorney general, neighborhood commissioners, school district, and local referenda.

Of course, this does not apply to Federal elections. Our colleagues are trying to paint this legislation as some radical new idea, but there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution--which I understand was read here on the floor today, so we could check--that prohibits noncitizens from voting in local, State, or Federal elections.

In fact, there is a long history in the U.S. of noncitizens being allowed to vote in those elections, and they have done so since at least 1704 in what would later become the U.S. At various points, 40 States have permitted noncitizens to vote. Congress only first prohibited noncitizens from voting in Federal elections in 1996.

Currently, there are at least 15 municipalities that permit noncitizens to vote in local elections. They do so in recognition of the fact that noncitizens, who are allowed to vote under such local laws, pay a variety of State, local, and Federal taxes, and they have an inherent interest in helping to shape policies in the communities where they live.

I strongly encourage all of my colleagues to oppose these profoundly undemocratic and paternalistic resolutions.

Now, today's rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 185, which would terminate the CDC requirement for proof of COVID-19 vaccination for foreign travelers to enter the U.S.

The CDC order was put in place to open the world back up and allow vaccinated foreign travelers to visit the U.S. while keeping our community safe.

Revising or revoking the COVID-19 public health guidance should be at the behest of public health experts with understanding and knowledge of global case trends, up-to-date data, and real-time safety information about emerging infections and COVID-19 epidemiology, not partisan politicians looking to settle political scores or curry favor with the disgraced former President and his base.

This bill would upend our current COVID-19 travel protocol, and worse, tie the hands of our public health experts by prohibiting any future order to require COVID-19 vaccinations as a condition of entering the United States.

As I said last week when the majority brought several bills to the floor attacking COVID-19 emergency declarations and vaccines, we shouldn't jeopardize our progress in fighting COVID with political stunts.

This is just the latest bill inspired by anti-vax conspiracy theories that has been rushed to the floor, uninformed by any hearings or any scientific evidence.

It is dangerous to repeatedly mislead the public about the efficacy of these vaccines that are proven to save lives.

This bill increases the risk of spreading new variants, just as hospitals and public health infrastructure are trying to rebuild.

Once again, an extremist fringe is putting politics over science and undermining public health experts at the expense of the American people, and Republican leadership is letting them get away with it.

We need Republican leaders to embrace science and promote the public

good, instead of undermining them to score political points.

I am disappointed that my colleagues continue to waste this body's time and taxpayer dollars on frivolous bills and resolutions.

Mr. Speaker, the resolutions and bill we are considering today do not address the issues we were elected to address for the American people.

We have now been in this Congress for over a month and have yet to take up any serious legislation. I hope my colleagues can work in a bipartisan manner to address the problems our constituents sent us here to solve.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from The Sentencing Project advocacy group, which is signed by over a dozen civil rights organizations opposing the Republican efforts to obstruct the enactment of the District of Columbia's Revised Criminal Code Act.

It states: ``Washingtonians know best how to address criminal justice policies in their community and deserve the right to determine their own laws. Local leaders are better positioned and retain more expertise to address safety and justice issues in the District than Congress.''

The Sentencing Project,

February 6, 2023.

Re Oppose efforts to obstruct the District of Columbia's

Revised Criminal Code Act.

Hon. Kevin McCarthy,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Chairman Jim Jordan,

Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), our esteemed colleague.

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

I am afraid we have to dig into the weeds a little bit with Rules Committee process right now.

Earlier, the gentleman from New York said that with this rule, the new majority has tied the number of times that more minority amendments were made in order than majority amendments.

While I am certainly supportive of minority amendments, that sounded wrong, so we asked our staff to check. They haven't had much time while we have been speaking, but they have already found at least two times that the Democratic majority did this in the last Congress, H.R. 302 and H.R. 963. Perhaps our colleagues need to check their facts.

What I do know is that this rule contains the 18th and 19th closed rules of this new Congress. That is already over 30 percent of what we did during the first year of the Democratic majority. So it is more like a return to Republican habits, just like they ran the most-closed Congress in history last time they had control.

I am also astonished to learn that it was the possibility of family separation that inspired our colleagues to introduce H.R. 185, when the issue of family separation due to our outmoded, broken immigration system has not served to inspire any urgency to reform that system.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that H.R. 185 does not take effect unless it is certified that it won't decrease Social Security benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, Social Security is the bedrock of our Nation's social safety net. Since its inception, it has lifted millions of our seniors out of poverty. Protecting the benefits that Social Security provides should be a priority for this Congress, for everyone in this Congress, as my Republican colleagues demand reckless cuts in exchange for paying our Nation's bills.

Democrats are going to continue to push to ensure that these vital benefits are protected and will continue to give Republicans every opportunity to ease the American people's anxiety by demonstrating with their votes, including on this measure, that they do not intend to cut Social Security.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, these measures today do nothing to address the important issues facing American families. These resolutions are misguided and unserious at best and deeply undemocratic at their core. House Republicans continue to waste precious time and taxpayer dollars on power struggles and political stunts.

Republican leadership's acquiescence to the fringe forces in their party is a disservice to the American public. With all of the challenges this Congress should contend with, an extremist overreach to nullify democratically passed legislation and rolling back lifesaving COVID protections is a waste of precious time and resources.

My Democratic colleagues and I are here to work on behalf of the American people and are ready to do the serious work of delivering for them, fighting for better jobs and safer communities. We will oppose extremist attempts to stoke division, to undermine government institutions, and to threaten fundamental American freedoms.

I invite my colleagues to work across the aisle, to work together on the issues that matter to all of our constituents: lowering prices; addressing housing, healthcare, and education needs; making our communities safer; and protecting our environment.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Billy Raymond, a letter carrier in my hometown.

In October, Francis Raymond, better known as Billy, will celebrate 30 years of carrying mail along the same postal route.

Billy is well known to residents on his longtime Delaware County route and vice versa. Billy knows the names of the kids and dogs on his route, and he greets them on his rounds.

Four years ago, Billy was honored as a member of the prestigious Million Mile Club. That club celebrates postal workers who have safely driven over 1 million miles or served the Postal Service for more than 30 years.

The United States Postal Service plays a critical role for our country, connecting family, friends, businesses, and government agencies across the Nation, and Billy Raymond is a critical part of that connection in Pennsylvania's Fifth District.

February 4 is Thank a Letter Carrier Day, so I want to thank Billy Raymond for his dedication and to extend a broader thank-you to all the hardworking postal workers serving at the 60 post offices across my district.

Mr. Speaker, as chair of the Congressional Youth Mentoring Caucus, I rise to recognize National Mentoring Month to celebrate the impact of youth mentoring and ask caring adults across the country to consider becoming mentors as our youth face the overwhelming challenges of our time.

One-third of young people in the United States don't have a meaningful connection with a responsible adult outside their homes, but such connections can have a powerful, positive impact on their economic mobility, mental health, violence prevention, and identity development.

I have been a youth mentor since college, and it is incredibly rewarding. I have been honored to participate in and celebrate the personal and professional growth of scores of young people.

This week, we welcome mentors from across the country to Capitol Hill, including visitors from the Philadelphia region who work with MENTOR and Big Brothers and Big Sisters, and we heard about the work they do to support young people in our communities every day.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all adults to consider how they can serve their communities and the next generation by becoming mentors through sports, career exploration, school, or faith-based programs.

Mr. Speaker, pro bono work is a professional responsibility and an ethical commitment expected and often required of all lawyers. Every October since 2009, legal organizations nationwide have participated in the American Bar Association (ABA) Standing Committee on Pro Bono and Public Service's National Celebration of Pro Bono to recognize the increasing need for pro bono services during harsh economic times and the unprecedented voluntary response of attorneys to meet this demand. Legal services and pro bono programs across the country have held over 12,000 events in the 13 years since the National Celebration began.

A justice gap has long existed in this country between those who can afford to hire a lawyer to help them with their civil legal needs and those who cannot. To help reduce this gap, in 2016, the Committee launched ABA FreeLegalAnswers.org--the first and only online national pro bono legal advice portal--providing modest-means individuals with access to quality legal advice from pro bono attorneys licensed in their state. This access is often the only resource available to those unable to use traditional legal aid due to income, geographic or physical limitations have. Typically offering brief advice and information online in areas such as family law, housing, and consumer rights, Free Legal Answers' pro bono attorneys are able to respond quickly to questions and prevent larger legal crises from developing. ABA Free Legal Answers providers also respond to questions arising from disasters, including hurricanes, wildfires and the COVID pandemic, and help eligible individuals with an internet connection or mobile phone, including disaster survivors, veterans, and other vulnerable populations.

Since its launch, over 11,000 pro bono attorneys have registered to respond to the nearly 250,000 civil legal questions that have been posted on ABA Free Legal Answers from over 40 states. While this milestone is a sobering testament of the overwhelming need for pro bono legal services, I hereby applaud the tremendous impact made by ABA Free Legal Answers' pro bono attorneys and ask all licensed attorneys to register as volunteers with ABA FreeLegalAnswers.org during our ongoing celebration of critical pro bono services.

Offered By: Ms. Scanlon

Amendment No. 83: Page 2, beginning on line 9, amend

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the importance of promoting inclusion and equity in sports by promoting women and girls' sports, and to commend the efforts of our neighbors to the North in promoting such inclusion and equity with the addition of an all-female division at this year's Quebec International Pee-Wee Hockey Tournament, one of the largest pee wee hockey tournaments in the world.

The United States and Canada enjoy both a vibrant rivalry and partnership in the sport of ice hockey. Each year, that rivalry and partnership is on display at the Quebec International Pee-Wee Hockey Tournament.

From February 8 through 19, 2023 the 2023 Quebec International Pee- Wee Hockey Tournament will feature 120 teams, including an all-female division for the first time in its 62 year history.

We applaud this significant development.

The United States and Canada are the closest of friends, partners, and allies, sharing common values and goals, such as promoting representative democracy where all may develop their skills and talents to the benefit of society as a whole, including in women and girls' sports.

In 2022, the United States celebrated the 50th anniversary of the passage of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 that prohibited sex discrimination in education and opened new athletic opportunities for girls and women.

Similarly, Canada's Physical Activity and Sport Act states that the Government of Canada's policy regarding sport includes the principle to ensure the full and fair participation of all persons in sport.

Accordingly, my Congressional colleagues and I congratulate the 2023 Quebec International Pee-Wee Hockey Tournament on the ilusion of an all-female team division this year for the first time in the tournament's history. We express our appreciation to the people and Government of Canada for their long history of friendship and cooperation with the people and Government of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, the American people expect Congress to address the issues they care about, kitchen table issues like being able to afford prescription drugs or get a good-paying job and addressing the gun violence that is plaguing our neighborhoods.

But instead of getting to work for the American people, House Republicans, held hostage by MAGA extremists, spent their first week engaging in power struggles and brawls and political stunts. Instead of lowering costs for American families, they voted to help wealthy tax cheats and greedy corporations avoid paying their fair share of taxes, a move that would raise the Federal deficit by over $100 billion.

Instead of creating better-paying jobs, they launched a new committee to chase down conspiracy theories and settle scores for the disgraced, twice-impeached former President.

Instead of working to make our communities safer, they doubled down on their crusade to criminalize women's healthcare and end reproductive rights across this country. The party that once claimed to stand for family values has no interest in solving the most pressing issues facing American families.

I am disappointed but never discouraged.

No matter what political stunts House Republicans pull, my colleagues and I will remain focused on delivering for the people we represent. We will keep working to create better-paying jobs and opportunities for our children, to lower costs for families, and to make our communities safer.

Political Violence is Never the Answer

Mr. Speaker, as political violence rises in our country and abroad, our Nation's leaders should be united in condemning political violence in all forms, as well as the vile rhetoric that fuels it.

From Charlottesville to Pittsburgh to El Paso, we have seen the tragic results when lies spill blood and words echo as gunshots. These attacks ripple through communities stealing innocent lives, traumatizing survivors, and inflicting pain on those left behind.

The underlying drivers of domestic violent extremism, antigovernment sentiment, racism, misogyny, and anti-Semitism are constant as threats and attacks move from one community to the next.

We all have a moral responsibility to combat this scourge of hateful rhetoric, to ensure that every American can live free from bigoted speech and hate-fueled violence.

But the resolution presented by Republicans today continues that pattern of stoking grievances and chaos in our communities rather than helping our communities work together to ensure domestic tranquility.

Their resolution is far from a clean condemnation of political violence. By condemning only vandalism and violence against anti- abortion facilities, it gives tacit approval to the far more frequent attacks against abortion clinics and other medical centers disfavored by the radical right.

Political violence is never the answer.

I look forward to working with our colleagues across the aisle when they are ready to take seriously the very real threat of political violence, condemning such violence in all forms, rather than using this issue to stir up more division, chaos, and ultimately more violence.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose this grotesque attempt to politicize abortion care and criminalize doctors.

Politicians should not be in the business of mandating that women carry dangerous or unwanted pregnancies to term. They should stay out of the doctor's office when Americans are exercising their fundamental right to decide when or if to have children.

But rightwing extremists have made it their first order of business in this new Congress to attack abortion rights and spread disinformation.

This bill is deliberately misleading. It is harmful to both people facing pregnancy complications and to the doctors who provide their care. If passed, it would cause more maternal deaths in this country, which are already a national shame.

Congress has a responsibility to legislate honestly, and this bill is not honest. The American people deserve better than having Congress waste time on political stunts, pretending to fix problems that do not exist.

Americans don't want MAGA extremists to criminalize women's healthcare, and they don't want politicians in their doctor's offices.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share the story of an admirable family in my district who has provided decades of service to their friends and neighbors through the U.S. Postal Service.

John Keller worked at the U.S. Postal Service for 34 years, including 15 years as postmaster of the Ridley Park Post Office.

Now retired, his twin sons, Joe and Mike Keller, have worked for the U.S. Postal Service for 23 years each and are now both postmasters in Pennsylvania's Fifth Congressional District.

Our Postal Service is an essential part of our Nation's infrastructure. The Postal Service delivers medicine to veterans, birthday presents from grandma, and, even in this day and age, holiday greetings from friends across the world.

The Postal Service keeps us connected with our communities, families and friends, businesses, nonprofits, and public agencies all over the country, and provides jobs to over 500,000 Americans; 3,000 in Pennsylvania's Fifth District alone.

We are so grateful to the Keller family and to all of our Postal Service workers for everything they do for us every day.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1510 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

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

Today, the Committee on Rules met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1510, providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 8404, the Respect for Marriage Act. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary that the House concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 8404 and provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, tonight's rule provides for the consideration of the Respect for Marriage Act, and I am proud to support this rule to move that bill to the floor.

The Respect for Marriage Act will repeal the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act once and for all and ensure that all across America, families in same-sex and interracial marriage are afforded the respect and legal rights and protections they deserve.

Passage of this bill is a critical step to protect the rights and freedoms of all Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation or race, following the Supreme Court's recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. That decision and recent statements by the Supreme Court's new rightwing majority have left families across the country and in my district worried about the future of marriage equality.

The Respect for Marriage Act will ensure long-term stability and important statutory protection for all marriages. The Respect for Marriage Act will safeguard the protections laid out in Obergefell v. Hodges, as well as prior case law, that protect important fundamental privacy and liberty rights, all of which were improperly called into question in the Dobbs decision and related dicta.

This is a matter of respecting the fundamental rights, freedoms, and liberties of our neighbors, family members, and fellow citizens. Everyone should have the right to marry the person they love and live free from discrimination, regardless of where in this great land they live or travel.

In addition to securing the respect for those marriages, this bill will also secure respect for families across America and in all of our communities and families.

The issues addressed by this bill have been thoroughly debated in this body, in the Senate, and by the American public. The Respect for Marriage Act will ensure long-term stability and important statutory protections for all.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense legislation and to reaffirm the fundamental right to marriage equality.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, families in my community are justly skeptical of process arguments which have been regularly weaponized to roll back the rights, the freedoms, the liberties that they so richly deserve to exercise. So I think at this point, there has been plenty of process. There has been amendment process in both Chambers, and it is time to pass this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, we believe that the gentleman's amendment is both duplicative and unnecessary.

The Senate spent months crafting a bipartisan compromise to amend H.R. 8404 to address the religious liberty concerns that were raised by Republicans in the House and Senate. Sections 6 and 7 of this legislation ensure no impact on religious liberty.

Adopting this new and unnecessary amendment would unsettle the Senate's carefully crafted compromise and delay the enactment of this necessary, historic, and bipartisan legislation.

If the House passes this legislation, it will be sent straight to the President's desk to become law. This Congress is coming to a close, and we don't have the time to make changes to this legislation.

This bill has gone through both the House and Senate and through the American public, and I believe it needs to be signed into law as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters in support of this legislation from the Interfaith Alliance, from U.S. Jewish organizations, and from eight leaders of faith-based organizations representing tens of millions of Americans and hundreds of religious institutions.

November 28, 2022.

Hon. Tammy Baldwin,

Hart Senate Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Susan Collins,

Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senators Baldwin and Collins: The Respect for Marriage

Act is a simple way to provide legal stability for all

married couples and their families. Within our communities,

we approach matters of marriage, family, and identity

differently. This bill recognizes this diversity of belief

while ensuring that same-sex and interracial couples are

treated with equal respect by federal and state governments.

As faith-based organizations, we recognize that the First

Amendment right to religious freedom is a cornerstone of our

democracy. The bipartisan substitute amendment provides

important clarification around the interaction between the

Respect for Marriage Act and the robust religious freedom

protections guaranteed under federal law. Crafted in the

spirit of collaboration, the amendment protects the right to

believe as we choose while leaving intact the core mission of

the legislation to respect marriages.

The freedom to marry who one loves is a matter of human

dignity and supported by a majority of almost every major

religious tradition in the United States. We urge the Senate

to adopt the bipartisan amendment in full, without further

amendment needed to protect religious freedom.

Respectfully,

Interfaith Alliance, ADL (The Anti-Defamation League), Bend

the Arc: Jewish Action, Center for Faith, Justice, and

Reconciliation, The Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran

Church in America, Faithful America, Hindu American

Foundation, Hindus for Human Rights, Jewish Women

International, Keshet.

Muslims for Progressive Values, National Council of Jewish

Women, NETWORK Catholic Social Justice Lobby, Presbyterian

Church (USA) Office of Public Witness, Reconstructionist

Rabbinical Association, The Sikh Coalition, Sojourners, Union

for Reform Judaism, Unitarian Universalist Association,

United Church of Christ.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have one additional speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform.

Mr. Speaker, I would again inquire whether my colleague has any further testimony.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, tonight's vote should be an easy one. The Respect for Marriage Act passed the Senate with broad bipartisan support, and the bill is supported by over 70 percent of Americans. It provides critical safeguards for a right that many Americans have already exercised and rely upon for the protection and prosperity of their families.

The Respect for Marriage Act is historic legislation to protect the marriages of same-sex and interracial couples. I don't think history will look kindly on those who, when given the

ability to protect the rights and freedoms of their constituents, chose to say no.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the LGBTQ community, my cousins, my dearest friends and neighbors, religious communities across the country, and, of course, the city of brotherly love and sisterly affection, which I am so proud to represent, I stand in strong support of the Respect for Marriage Act, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule and the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, this week I proudly joined Senator Durbin and Senator Blumenthal in introducing the Corporate Crime Database Act, bicameral legislation that requires the Department of Justice to collect, aggregate, analyze, and publish comprehensive data on Federal corporate criminal enforcement actions.

While the Department of Justice regularly collects data on nearly every type of street-level crime, there is currently very little reporting of corporate and white-collar crimes.

A Federal corporate crime database is critical to bolstering corporate crime law enforcement and holding wrongdoers accountable. But the last thorough DOJ report on corporate crime was in 1979.

Without data or transparency, lawmakers, journalists, and the public are left in the dark about the size and scope of corporate crime in America and the effectiveness of the Federal Government's response.

By requiring the DOJ to collect and analyze information regarding enforcement actions, publish a database of the enforcement actions, and submit an annual report to Congress, the Corporate Crime Database Act will deter future crimes and protect victims.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense legislation to curtail corporate crime.

Mr. Speaker, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley), and I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I come today before the House first in strong support of Congresswoman Bass' bill, the One Stop Shop Community Reentry Program Act.

Each year, hundreds of thousands of people are released from custody after serving their time, and reentry services are a crucial tool to help these individuals find success when they return home.

However, in many cases, returning individuals are not given adequate support to succeed as they reintegrate in our communities. Too often they struggle to access safe and affordable housing, educational opportunities, and steady employment. This bill will provide critical, accessible, and comprehensive resources to these individuals including job training and help to obtain IDs, housing, mental health services, and more.

Importantly, this bill would also expand services that I have direct experience to know are critical to increasing the success of reentering citizens.

Prior to coming to Congress, I had the opportunity to work with returning citizens in the cutting-edge Federal reentry court started in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by U.S. Magistrate Judge Tim Rice and now Third Circuit Judge Felipe Restrepo.

We saw in that courtroom how mentoring and legal assistance often were the key to successful reentry by returning citizens. The additional services provided by the reentry court and related nonprofits resulted in a two-thirds reduction in recidivism by participants in that program.

So in addition to supporting the underlying bill, I am proud to offer my colleague, Ms. Pressley's, amendment to the One Stop Shop Community Reentry Program Act.

This amendment will ensure that the grant program is evaluated for its effectiveness. We know that it is not enough to create a grant program, we must also ensure effective implementation of that program and that the critical government resources we make available are meeting the needs of the intended recipients and are a productive use of taxpayer resources.

This additional provision will require evaluation of the grant program and allow recommendations to improve the program and reduce any barriers to access.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would simply encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of Representative Pressley's amendment and the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today during National Survivors of Homicide Victims Awareness Month, a time when the pain and grief of loss should be honored with action, to read the words and the plea of a heartbroken mother and a Pennsylvania 5 constituent, Molly Collington, who lost her son, Sam, to gun violence a year ago on November 28, 2021.

By all accounts, Sam Collington was a remarkable young man who left an outsized impact on our community.

His mother, Molly, shared her story with me earlier this fall when I met with her and her colleagues at Delaware County's Moms Demand Action chapter. I was deeply moved by her advocacy in the face of unimaginable loss and grief, and I am sharing her words with her permission now.

``My name is Molly Collington. I am Sam Collington's brokenhearted mother.

``Sam was the best son any mother could ever ask for. He was kind, smart, reliable, and without a doubt, one of the funniest people to ever walk this Earth.

``Sam was murdered on November 28, 2021. The day began with Sam loading up his father's car with clean laundry, some leftover turkey, and supplies to carry him through the rest of the semester.

``He was returning to his apartment at Temple University after the Thanksgiving weekend. He planned to drop the items off at his apartment, then return home to watch HBO with me, sleep in his own bed, and then take the train back to school Monday morning. That did not happen.

``Because on his street, near his apartment, was a career criminal with an illegal gun waiting to steal the car of the next person that drove down the street. The next person was my Eagle Scout son, Sam. Sam was shot four times and died less than 30 minutes later at Temple Hospital.

``Sam was so knowledgeable about our country and all its history. He knew every single President and could talk for hours about politics. So it was no surprise when he told his father and I that he wanted to study political science at Temple University after high school. His fervor for politics and government started very young. He proudly served as his high school's president for his junior and senior year.

``During his time at Temple, he served as the president of the Political Science Society, never missing an opportunity to make each day count.

``He planned to attend law school and study constitutional law. He was an activist.

``He campaigned for local politicians and interned at city hall where he worked with elections. He was responsible for getting hundreds of people

registered to vote, on and off campus. He was a poll watcher.

``He even went on a `Bernie Journey' where he rode with fellow Temple students on a schoolbus to North and South Carolina to campaign for his favorite politician, Bernie Sanders.

``Sam truly believed in the `not me, us' mantra, which is why he was so outspoken in his love of politics and striving for a better world.

``Sam had a larger-than-life personality. As one of his professors pointed out: `It is impossible to be involved in the Political Science Department and not know Sam Collington.'

``He became known on campus as `Poly-Sci Sam.'

``To lose a child is the greatest pain any parent can ever experience. Every day, my heart breaks all over again. To lose a child like Sam, knowing that he was destined for something big, is absolutely soul-crushing. How his father, sister, and I are still standing seems impossible to believe. He made us better people just by knowing him. We are destroyed without him, his cheerfulness, his wit, and his intelligence.

``One of the hardest parts is knowing my son's murder was preventable. Our children should be able to go to school safely. We should not have to worry about making sure they know where the closest exits are at the movie theaters, supermarkets, concerts, and churches.

``I implore our elected officials to do more to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

``We must do better. We have to do better. We are failing our children.

``They say time heals all wounds, but I can tell you without any doubt whatsoever, not this one.''

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1464 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislation days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1464, providing for consideration of S. 4524, the Speak Out Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary as well as one motion to commit.

The rule further provides the majority leader or his designee the ability this week to en bloc requested roll call votes on suspensions. The rule also provides roll call votes on suspension bills considered on November 14 or 15 may be postponed through November 18.

Lastly, the rule provides standard recess instructions for the district work period from November 21 through November 28 and deems passage of House Resolution 1463.

Madam Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of the Speak Out Act, a straightforward, bipartisan bill, that passed the Senate unanimously, to prevent nondisclosure agreements from silencing victims of sexual assault and harassment.

Over the past 5 years, we have seen numerous cases of women and men disclosing their experiences of sexual harassment in the workplace. As more people came forward, others felt empowered to share their experiences, and offenders who had long gotten away with such reprehensible conduct increasingly faced consequences to their actions.

While many high-profile cases focused on movie executives, actors, TV personalities, professional athletes, and elected officials, sexual assault and harassment has been endemic in American workplaces for a very long time. The silencing of survivors with nondisclosure agreements has played a significant role in allowing such misconduct to continue.

Over the span of multiple congressional hearings, we have heard firsthand accounts of how harassment affects workers in all industries, from farms to offices to restaurants to colleges. Sexual harassment is pervasive in U.S. workplaces. It is not a problem unique to athletes and celebrities that we see on TV.

However, the one thing that many of the stories have in common is that the perpetrators are often people in positions of power, CEOs, bosses, managers, and executives, and these people have access to expensive lawyers and PR teams to exploit flaws in our legal system to protect themselves and silence those they have abused.

Now, thanks to the courage of survivors and the increasing power of women and other historically underrepresented groups in the workplace, there is a newfound recognition of the social and economic consequences of a status quo that enables or excuses such misconduct, and there is new momentum to ensure that the American workplace environment is safe and fair for all.

I am so encouraged that this Congress has been able to come together and pass legislation to address this problem. Earlier this year, Congress passed bipartisan legislation that now prevents companies from using forced arbitration agreements to resolve cases of sexual assault or harassment.

Forced arbitration clauses are widespread in employment contracts and generally prevent workers from suing their employer in court. Arbitration proceedings overwhelmingly benefit the employer because the employer decides the venue, terms of mediation, and even the arbitrators themselves. Forced arbitration, combined with nondisclosure agreements, meant that victims were kept silent and forced into settlements over which they had little control and kept predators from facing accountability for their actions.

Even more concerning, the silencing of survivors of abuse through forced arbitration and nondisclosure agreements thwarts an important tool for preventing future misconduct. Abusers

who are not held responsible are free and, in a sense, encouraged to offend again. Given the stigma that victims of such abuse often encounter, they are less likely to come forward if they think the abuse they endured was an isolated incident.

With the passage of the Speak Out Act, both of these legal gimmicks will be banned in cases of sexual assault in the workplace, freeing workers and making corporations take responsibility for actually creating a safe work environment. These laws won't end sexual harassment and abuse in the workplace overnight, but it will now make it easier for victims to seek justice and deter bad behavior.

As a woman, and the mother of a daughter, like at least a third of women in the American workplace, both of us have experienced or witnessed such workplace behavior, so I wholly support this legislation.

In my view, passing the Speak Out Act should be an easy task for the House of Representatives. It is a simple, sensible bill, and it passed unanimously in the Senate, an institution not always known for finding consensus.

Here in the House, the Speak Out Act should receive similar treatment, passage with an overwhelming, if not unanimous, majority. But we have been forced by the obstruction of a number of our more extreme Republican colleagues to expend the time needed to pass a rule, engage in hours of debate, and take four votes to pass the bill in the House, when we have numerous pressing items demanding Congress' attention before year's end.

The fact that the bill passed with all 100 Senators in support, in an evenly divided Senate, should tell you that if there were serious problems with the bill, they have already been resolved. Anyone who has actually read the legislation knows that.

NDAs are meant to protect trade secrets and business dealings. Why would anyone try to enable their use in covering up sexual assault?

I am here to get results for my constituents, and that includes measures to ensure that our workplaces are free from sexual assault and abuse.

Madam Speaker, I strongly encourage all my colleagues to support today's rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am looking forward to the fact that by the end of the week, the Speak Out Act will be signed into law.

While these reforms to the nondisclosure agreements and forced arbitration agreements will only go so far, they will create a more even playing field for survivors of sexual assault and harassment. Thousands of people will be freed from the unfair burdens of NDAs, and I sincerely hope this brings justice and closure to those who need it.

I also recognize that there is a lot more this Congress should do to support both workers and victims of sexual assault.

We can't ignore the disproportionate power that most employers hold over their employees, which can often lead to unfair outcomes for workers. Whether it is NDA agreements that silence victims, contracts that undercut workers' pay or rights, forced arbitration clauses, or egregious noncompete agreements, there is much more work to do to guarantee an even playing field for all workers in this economy.

I am proud of the work House Democrats have accomplished for workers this Congress. Although the Senate filibuster has greatly curtailed the scope of what we should do, Democrats and President Biden have secured multiple wins for workers over the past 2 years, and the Speak Out Act is another victory in that column.

Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support today's rule.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.