Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I missed Roll Call vote 56 on March 4, 2025. Had I been present, my vote would have been: Nay on Roll Call No. 56.

Mr. Chair, this bill is a Republican betrayal of the middle class and working families across the country.

If you are at home watching this, I want you to think about what Republicans want to slash from your life so that they can lower taxes for the biggest corporations and wealthiest billionaires like Elon Musk. They want to cut a minimum, the floor, of $880 billion from Medicaid, which covers healthcare for 72 million Americans.

Medicaid pays for nursing homes for five out of eight seniors across the country. It pays for healthcare for 38 million kids, including over 3 million kids in Texas and 1.2 million kids in Ohio. In fact, it pays for 64 percent of childbirths in Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise's home State of Louisiana.

Any Republican who votes for this resolution is voting for those cuts as well as devastating cuts to nutrition and Medicare.

Don't listen to Republicans who try to say that Medicaid won't be touched. I introduced an amendment to protect Medicaid, which they blocked during our budget markup because they intend to cut Medicaid.

Remember when Donald Trump said that he would tackle inflation and lower costs on day one? Well, here we are, a month in, and prices are rising. Musk has taken a literal chain saw to tens of thousands of jobs, putting families and local economies at risk.

This budget resolution makes it clear that the only people who Republicans are willing to fight for in this country are the wealthiest billionaires, who apparently now rule the country.

This is unbridled greed and corruption. Vote ``no'' on this disastrous budget resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I missed Roll Call Votes No. 28, No 29, No. 30, No. 31, No. 32, No. 33, No. 34, and No. 35 on February 4, 2025, February 5, 2025, February 6, 2025, and February 7, 2025 due to the passing of my father. Had I been present, my votes would have been:

Yea on Roll Call No. 28; Yea on Roll Call No 29; Nay on Roll Call No. 30; Nay on Roll Call No. 31; Yea on Roll Call No. 32; Nay on Roll Call No. 33; Yea on Roll Call No. 34; and Nay on Roll Call No. 35.

Mr. Speaker, do you remember when candidate Trump said that, on day one, he would end inflation and bring prices down for American citizens? That is, in fact, the number one reason he got elected.

Guess what, Mr. Speaker? He has done nothing on this. Republicans have spent no time on the floor trying to bring down prices for average Americans. In fact, the data that was just released yesterday says that prices have shot up because of many of the proposals that Donald Trump has put forward and the chaos he is inflicting on the economy.

Are we spending time on that here on the floor? No. We are wasting time on yet another attack on all immigrants, including U.S. citizens.

Once again, the majority is moving a bill to expand the Trump administration's mass deportation machine and trample on the core American principle of due process.

All of these bills that are being put forward utilize a very simple formula: first, take laws that are already on the books about deporting and making inadmissible to the United States people who are convicted of committing certain crimes and fool the American people into thinking somehow that is not already the law; and, second, dangerously expand those laws so that simply being accused of something or admitting to something that no one would reasonably consider being a crime makes it sufficient to now deport someone or make him inadmissible without any due process and without a fair day in court.

This is terrorizing communities across the country, and Donald Trump's obsession with using every lever of government to target immigrants has undermined our national security and our safety by forcing Federal law enforcement officials to abandon fighting drug trafficking or human smuggling and instead focus on arresting, detaining, and deporting immigrants who pose no threat to public safety. Many of them have lived and worked in this country for decades.

Already, we have seen the effects on U.S. citizens, with the unlawful detention of U.S. citizens, the targeting of Native Americans, and the arrest of countless people with no criminal records.

ICE agents are treating the act of speaking Spanish as probable cause for interrogation, and they are revoking all the crucial and successful legal pathways put in place by the Biden administration, like parole and temporary protected status, including, by the way, for Venezuelans and Cubans, who feel Trump's betrayal deeply.

This bill follows the same divisive, deceptive formula. H.R. 35 amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to create a new ground of deportability and inadmissibility for any noncitizen who admits fleeing from Border Patrol while operating a motor vehicle, whether or not they knew it was Border Patrol that they were fleeing from.

Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. Just as I said with the formula, being convicted of fleeing from Border Patrol or any law enforcement already makes a person deportable and inadmissible. That is current law. The key word here is ``convicted.''

Remember that when we talk about deportability, we are also talking about people who are in the United States lawfully. Many are green card holders and have lived in the United States for decades. If we are going to deport them, I hope that we would all agree that they should have basic due process rights and a day in court, just like any American would want for themselves.

That is why conviction is required for deportation. Convictions also mean that law enforcement can focus on the most serious criminals, not those who are simply accused and may well be innocent.

Let me also debunk the Republican argument that admitting to fleeing is the same as a conviction. That is simply not true. People may admit to fleeing without even knowing that the person chasing them is Border Patrol.

Let me give an example. Let's say that a woman is driving alone on a deserted road at night. She hears a siren. She sees an unmarked car behind her signaling that she should pull over. She had heard many stories about the men who prey on solo female drivers by pretending to be law enforcement, so she slows down and puts on her hazards. She even calls 911 to confirm that they have an officer in the area.

They confirm that one of their officers, who is deputized by CBP, is in the area, so she pulls over. When the officer comes up to her window, she says: I am sorry, Officer. I needed to keep driving while I confirmed that you were with law enforcement since you were in an unmarked car.

That constitutes an admission that she was intentionally fleeing from law enforcement. Under this bill, even if she is a lawful permanent resident who has been in this country for 10 years or 20 years, she has just rendered herself deportable. A conviction requirement importantly ensures that people have due process and that that essential context isn't missed.

Just last week, The Washington Post reported an uptick in people who are impersonating immigration enforcement officers to harass and attack people they suspect of being undocumented. One North Carolina man showed a woman a fake badge and told her that he would deport her if she didn't come to a motel and have sex with him.

He ended up being arrested and charged with impersonating law enforcement, kidnapping, second-degree forcible rape, and assault. In this environment, it is not surprising that people keep driving away when unmarked cars tell them to pull over, claiming to work with Border Patrol.

U.S. citizens should also be aware of the fact that the new criminal penalties in this bill would subject U.S. citizens to draconian mandatory minimums for something as minor as failing to immediately stop when hailed by an unmarked police car.

Mr. Speaker, this bill applies to anyone within 100 miles of the border. That is two-thirds of the population of the United States, cities like Jacksonville; Charleston; Green Bay, Wisconsin; Grand Forks, North Dakota; and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Fear is already pervasive. People are afraid to go to work and school. Businesses are hurting. Local economies and communities and States, from Nebraska to Ohio to Texas, are hurting.

Mr. Speaker, this bill plays on fear. It is cruel. It is unnecessary. It is dangerous for all Americans' due process rights. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I missed Roll Call Votes No. 18, No. 19, No. 20, No. 21, No. 22, No. 23, No. 24, No. 25, No. 26, and No. 27 on January 21, 2025, January 22, 2025, and January 23, 2025 due to the passing of my father. Had I been present, my votes would have been: Yea on Roll Call No. 18; Yea on Roll Call No. 19; Nay on Roll Call No. 20; Nay on Roll Call No. 21; Yea on Roll Call No. 22; Nay on Roll Call No. 23; Yea on Roll Call No. 24; Nay on Roll Call No. 25; Yea on Roll Call No 26; and Nay on Roll Call No. 27.

Mr. Speaker, here we are, once again, with my Republican colleagues bringing a bill to the floor that does absolutely nothing to address the needs of the American people.

My Republican colleagues made lots of campaign promises to lower costs for everyday Americans, but not a single bill so far has done anything like that. Instead, this week appears to be a week where they say they are protecting women, yet their actions tell a different story.

Today, we are discussing a bill that takes the Violence Against Women Act, a bill meant to protect victims of domestic violence, and weaponizes it against domestic violence victims.

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why 200 local and national advocacy organizations for survivors of domestic violence from across the country with deep expertise in this area have come out so strongly to oppose this bill.

I am talking about the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the Asian Pacific Institute on Gender-Based Violence, and groups that serve domestic violence survivors in more than 40 States across the country.

Let me be very clear once again. Under our current laws, those who are convicted or admit to domestic violence or crimes listed in this bill are already deportable and inadmissible to the country. There is actually no gap in the law that needs to be fixed.

Instead, in a perverse move, this bill would make it easier to label survivors of domestic violence as perpetrators to make them removable from the country and eliminate existing legal safeguards that protect survivors. Once again, this is a bill that widens the highway to Donald Trump's mass deportation plans.

I want to talk through an example. The police show up to a domestic violence call. The victim was attacked by her abuser, and she fought back in self-defense. Maybe the abuser has some scratches on his face.

It is common practice for the police to arrest both parties in that situation when responding to a domestic violence incident. The police write a report, describing how the victim hit her abuser in self- defense.

Under this bill, that is an admission constituting the elements of domestic violence, and this woman is now inadmissible and subject to deportation. Even if she is never charged, even if a judge later rules that she did not commit any crime, that so-called admission in the police report that she responded in self-defense to hit her abuser is enough to make her inadmissible under this bill.

Again, that is why more than 200 advocacy organizations for domestic violence survivors, deeply ensconced in the material of what happens every day across the country far too often, are all deeply opposed to this legislation. They know that this expansive bill that eliminates the existing safeguards for domestic violence survivors will harm those exact survivors and create a chilling effect for reporting future crimes, empowering abusers to go after immigrant women and children.

Right now we are only talking about immigrant survivors. Is this bill the start of a dangerous road, watering down protections for all victims of domestic violence across the country? Who is next?

The Violence Against Women Act is a landmark piece of legislation, a testament to a time when Democrats and Republicans could actually come together and legislate on issues of fundamental importance to this Nation, despite our differences.

The initial iteration of VAWA passed the House by voice vote. Can you imagine that? It passed by voice vote. It reshaped how we as a country talk about gender-based violence and how we treat survivors.

The Violence Against Women Act recognized that we cannot be serious about eliminating violence against women if we are not equally serious about eradicating violence against everyone, regardless of immigration status.

There are so many reasons why individuals in domestic violence situations are unjustly forced into the criminal legal system. We have seen the data. Too often survivors are arrested alongside their abuser, and they are charged and even convicted of crimes involving violence which later prove to be in self-defense or unjustly charged. This bill makes it more likely that we harm the very people we want to protect.

Mr. Speaker, here is the cruel irony. In the same week that Republicans are putting forth the nomination of a Secretary of Defense who won't even say that sexual assault is disqualifying, Republicans want to fool you into thinking that they care about domestic violence and sexual assault survivors.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Despite VAWA's bipartisan history, we now have to fight tooth and nail to reauthorize it. It was Republicans who let the Violence Against Women Act languish and expire for 3 years. The leader of the Republican Party is once again a man who was found liable for sexual misconduct and bragged about grabbing and forcibly kissing women without their consent.

Last year, we celebrated the 30th anniversary of VAWA's enactment. Today, we have to watch our colleagues across the aisle make another cheap attempt to divide us and play gotcha politics. We should work together to eradicate domestic violence.

My bill, the WISE Act, would strengthen protections for survivors. I wish we could do that here and not this harmful, misleading bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from over 200 local and national domestic violence organizations who oppose this bill.

National Task Force To End Sexual & Domestic Violence

January 13, 2025.

Honorable Members of the House, The undersigned groups that

serve and advocate on behalf of victims of domestic violence,

sexual assault, dating violence, stalking, and human

trafficking, write to voice our opposition to HR 30.

We oppose this legislation as it would expand the

circumstances under which domestic violence, child abuse and

neglect, stalking, and sex offenses would constitute grounds

of inadmissibility, as well as expand the definition of

domestic violence to be considered for inadmissibility or

deportability grounds. These measures would negatively impact

immigrant survivors of domestic and sexual violence, and fail

to alleviate the primary barriers to safety and stability

experienced by survivors seeking relief under the Immigration

and Nationality Act.

We are especially troubled that this legislation fails to

include waivers that take into

account the needs of the victim or their family, and that it

will limit the discretion that judges can exercise where the

equities warrant, including situations where survivors who

are inadvertently caught up in the criminal legal system will

be harmed.

Unfortunately, immigrant victims are particularly

vulnerable to being arrested and prosecuted for domestic

violence if they acted in self-defense or are accused by an

abuser of being a primary aggressor. A well-known tactic of

abusers to maintain power and control over their victims is

to report (and threaten to report) their partner to

authorities, including local law enforcement, child

protective services, ICE, and others--falsely claiming that

their partner (the victim of their violence) is the one who

is violent, neglectful, etc. These false reports (and the

threats of them) are too often highly effective at keeping

victims trapped in violent relationships.

Moreover, we know that parents of color are

disproportionately accused of child abuse offenses, including

abandonment and neglect. Domestic violence survivors are not

infrequently charged with child neglect for having ``failed

to protect'' their children from witnessing or exposure to an

adult's violence committed against the non-abusive parent,

resulting in doubly penalizing the survivor and the children

for violence committed by someone else. This legislation

creates grounds of inadmissibility for these offenses without

requiring a conviction, in circumstances where an individual

admits that they committed acts that would constitute a

crime.

Language and cultural barriers, fear of the abuser and the

authorities, confusion, intimidation, a lack of awareness of

rights, and a lack of access to advocates and other

resources, all may prevent an immigrant victim from being

able to communicate what really happened. Once in custody

and/or facing trial, and desperate to be released and

reunited with their children, these same factors--combined

with poor legal counsel, particularly about the immigration

consequences of criminal pleas and convictions--could lead to

ineligibility for status, or the deportation of wrongly

accused victims who may have pled to or been unfairly

convicted of domestic violence charges.

The legislation's expansion of the definition of domestic

violence, which was expressly included in the Violence

Against Women Act to allow for the provision of a greater

array of victim services, to include circumstances that may

not involve violence, physical force, or threats of such is

also likely to sweep more survivors into the scope of the

ground of inadmissibility or deportability. This will result

in more victims being deported and/or bar them from obtaining

lawful status. In so doing, it invites additional scrutiny of

survivors during the course of their efforts to obtain

immigration protections and safety from violence.

Furthermore, expanding the grounds of inadmissibility or

ineligibility for status with no waivers would increase the

risk that victims will decline to seek assistance from law

enforcement or services if they fear that it will result in a

family member being barred from legal status. When creating

penalties, balance is key. Deterrence is critically important

but will be ineffective if consequences are so severe that

survivors will not come forward.

Although we are grateful for the efforts of lawmakers to

seek to address the impact of domestic violence, sexual

assault, dating violence, and stalking, we believe the best

way to do so is by expanding accessibility of survivor-based

immigration relief and related benefits to noncitizen

survivors, and by eliminating the cap on visas available to

petitioners for U and T nonimmigrant visas and the number of

cases eligible for final adjudications of VAWA Cancellation

of Removal. Rather than rushing to enact additional

immigration pe4alties that could cause harm to survivors, we

urge Congressional representatives to consult with service

providers and survivors themselves to develop legislation

that is responsive to their experiences and needs.

As a diverse coalition of organizations serving and

advocating on behalf of victims of domestic violence, sexual

assault, dating violence, and stalking, we thank you for

paying vigilant attention to how this bill, by expanding the

ways in which domestic violence arrests cad prevent people

from accessing or maintaining legal status, can ultimately

have devastating consequences for immigrant victims of

domestic violence.

Sincerely,

National Organizations

Asian Pacific Institute on Gender-Based Violence, ASISTA

Immigration Assistance, Esperanza United, Tahirih Justice

Center, AF31RM, Alliance of Tribal Coalitions to End

Violence, American Friends Service Committee (AFSC),

Americans for Immigrant Justice, American Muslim Health

Professionals, Autistic Self Advocacy, Black Women's

Blueprint, BWJP, Caminar Latino-Latinos United for Peace and

Equity, Caring Across Generations, Center for Constitutional

Rights, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Coalition for

Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), Center for Popular

Democracy, Coalition on Human Needs, Coalition of Labor Union

Women, AFL-CIO, Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the

Good Shepherd, U.S. Provinces, Freedom Network USA, Futures

Without Violence, Gender-Based Violence Consulting, Human

Trafficking Legal Center, IAmProSe, Immigrant Legal Resource

Center, Japanese American Citizens League, Jewish Women

International, Joyful Heart Foundation, Just Solutions,

Justice in Aging, Justice and Joy National Collaborative

(formerly National Crittenton).

Justice for Migrant Women, Legal Momentum, Lovelace

Consulting, Mujeres Latinas en Accion, National Advocacy

Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, Nationat Alliance

to End Sexual Violence, National Association of Social

Workers, National Center on Domestic Violence, Trauma, and

Mental Health, National Council of Jewish Women, National

Employment Law Project, National Indigenous Women's Resource

Center, National LGBTQ Institute on Intimate Partner

Violence, National Network to End Domestic Violence, National

Resource Center on Domestic Violence, National Survivor

Network, National Women's Law Center, Planned Parenthood

Federation of America, Public Advocacy for Kids (PAK),

Reframe Health and Justice, Refugees International, Respect

Together, Safe Havens Interfaith Partnership Against Domestic

Violence and Elder Abuse, SAGE Empowerment, Sahiyo U.S.,

Sisters of Mercy of the Americas Justice Team, South Asian

SOAR, The National Domestic Violence Hotline, UltraViolet

Action, VALOR, Youth First Justice Collaborative, YWCA USA.

State, Territorial, and Local

Alabama:

AshaKiran.

Arizona:

Arizona Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence,

William E. Morris Institute for Justice.

Arkansas:

Arkansas Coalition Against Sexual Assault.

California:

California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, Coalition

to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking, Al Otro Lado, Asian Law

Alliance, Community Solutions, Empower Yolo, Haus of a

Stranger, Healthy Alternatives to Violent Environments,

Immigration Center for Women and Children, Justice At Last,

Los Angeles LGBT Center, Maitri, North Coast Rape Crisis

Team, Peace Over Violence, Project Sister Family Services,

Rape Counseling Services of Fresno, Reach the Valley (REACH),

Verity, Wild Iris Family Counseling and Crisis Center, YWCA

Golden Gate Silicon Valley.

Colorado:

Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault, Violence Free

Colorado, American Friends Service Committee, Colorado

Companeros: Four Corners Immigrant Resource Center, Colorado

Immigrant Rights Coalition, El Corazon LLC, Swan Counseling

Services, Denver Justice and Peace Committee.

Connecticut:

Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

Delaware:

Delaware Coalition Against Domestic Violence (DCADV).

District of Columbia:

DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Asian Pacific

American Legal Resource Center, Bend the Arc: Jewish Action,

The Person Center.

Florida:

Florida Legal Services, Inc.

Georgia:

Georgia Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Clayton County

Association Against Family Violence, Inc., Columbus Alliance

for Battered Women, Inc. d/b/a Hope Harbour, International

Women's House, Northwest Georgia Family Crisis Center, Inc.,

Raksha, Inc.

Hawaii:

Domestic Violence Action Center, Maui Economic Opportunity,

Inc.

Idaho:

Idaho Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence.

Illinois:

Illinois Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Illinois

Coalition Against Sexual Assault, Illinois Accountability

Initiative, Illinois Alliance for Reentry and Justice, Arab

American Family Services, Legal Aid Society of Metropolitan

Family Services, The Porchlight Collective SAP.

Indiana:

Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Inc., Indiana

Coalition to End Sexual Assault and Human Trafficking

(ICESAHT), Family Service Association, ASSIST Indiana, Inc.,

The Caring Place, Sheltering Wings, The Center for Women and

Families, Inc., The Stepping Stone Shelter.

Iowa:

Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence, EMBARC Iowa.

Kansas:

Kansas Coalition Against Sexual & Domestic Violence.

Kentucky:

Kentucky Association of Sexual Assault Programs, ZeroV.

Louisiana:

Louisiana Foundation Against Sexual Assault.

Maine:

Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence, Maine Coalition

Against Sexual Assault, Preble Street.

Maryland:

Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault, Network Against

Domestic Violence, The Human Trafficking Prevention Project,

University of Maryland SAFE Center.

Massachusetts:

Jane Doe Inc.

Michigan:

Michigan Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence,

SafeHouse Center.

Minnesota:

Violence Free Minnesota, Transforming Generations.

Mississippi:

Mississippi Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

Montana:

Montana Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence.

Nebraska:

Nebraska Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence,

Catholic Charities of Omaha, Parent-Child Center, Rape and

Domestic Abuse Program, Willow Rising.

Nevada:

Nevada Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence,

Immigration Center for Women and Children--Nevada Office.

New Jersey:

New Jersey Coalition to End Domestic Violence.

New Mexico:

Tewa Women United.

New York:

New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence,

Brooklyn Defender Services, Co-Counsel NYC, Catholic

Migration Services, Jahajee Sisters, Her Justice, Inc.,

Hope's Door, Northern Manhattan Improvement Corporation, Safe

Horizon Immigration Law Project, The Legal Aid Society,

Turning Point for Women & Families, urban justice center |

domestic violence project, Violence Intervention Program,

Womankind.

North Carolina:

North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence, NC

Coalition Against Sexual Assault, Family Abuse Services,

Families First, Inc., Friend to Friend, Kearah's Place Inc.,

Our Voice, Ruth's House, Safelight Inc., Shining Light in

Darkness, UCare, Inc.

Ohio:

Ohio Alliance To End Sexual Violence, Ohio Domestic

Violence Network, Advocating Opportunity.

Oregon:

Oregon Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence.

Pennsylvania:

Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence,

Pennsylvania Immigration Resource Center, Pennsylvania

Coalition to Advance Respect, Citizens Against Physical,

Sexual, and Emotional Abuse, Inc. (CAPSEA, Inc.), Congreso de

Latinos Unidos, Domestic Violence Services of Southwestern

Pennsylvania, Family Services Incorporated, Laurel House,

Lutheran Settlement House, SEAMAAC, Inc., Safe Monroe,

Turning Point of Lehigh Valley, Inc., Victims Resource

Center, Women's Center of Greater Pittsburgh, Women In

Transition, The Women's Center, Inc., WRC.

Puerto Rico:

Casa Juana Colon, Centro de la Mujer Dominicana, Inc.

Rhode Island:

Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

South Carolina:

South Carolina Coalition Against Domestic & Sexual Assault.

Tennessee:

Tennessee Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence.

Texas:

Daya Inc., Houston Immigration Legal Services

Collaborative, Mosaic Family Services.

Utah:

Utah Coalition Against Sexual Assault, Utah Domestic

Violence Coalition.

Vermont:

Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence,

AWARE, Inc., Mosaic Vermont, NewStory Center, Safeline, Inc.

Virginia:

Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance,

Ayuda.

Washington:

WA State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, API Chaya,

Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, YWCA of Walla Walla.

West Virginia:

West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

Wisconsin:

End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin, Wisconsin Coalition Against

Sexual Assault, ASTOP, Inc. Sexual Abuse Center, BeLEAF

Survivors, Benedict Center, Deaf Unity, FREE, Freedom, Inc.,

FRIENDS, Inc., Embrace Services, Inc., Reach Counseling,

Roots4Change Cooperative, UNIDOS Against Domestic

ViolenceStepping Stones, Inc., We All Rise AARC.

Wyoming:

Wyoming Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual

Assault.

Mr. Speaker, Laken Riley was, by all accounts, a remarkable young woman, whose life was tragically cut short by a horrific act that should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. My heart goes out to her family and loved ones who grieve her death.

I understand, as a mother myself, fully why in the face of such senseless violence, especially against someone so young, there is an urge to do something, anything, to feel like you are actually helping to fix the problem.

Unfortunately, this bill does nothing to fix the immigration system or to prevent future tragedies like this. It is simply an attempt to score cheap political points off of a tragic death, and in the process, it unfairly sweeps up many more innocent lives with no due process.

Let us be clear: This is the Republican playbook over and over again. Scare people about immigrants, never propose anything that actually solves an outdated and arcane immigration system that desperately needs Congress to allocate resources and update legal pathways to make the immigration system work for everyone.

My Republican colleagues simply want to preserve a broken immigration system as a campaign issue so that they can scapegoat and demonize immigrants all to distract the American people from their real goals of making working people pay for another Republican tax scam that benefits billionaires and the wealthiest.

Just look at the rules package that they just passed. Out of the 12 bills included in that, not a single one does anything to secure the border, to fix

the broken immigration system, to lower costs for working people, to address the housing crisis, tackle the extraordinary levels of income inequality in this country, or tamp down on inflation.

Those were the promises of the Trump campaign, but not a single one of those things is actually included in the first bills that they are bringing to the floor without hearings.

Let's talk about what this bill actually does. This bill goes far beyond subjecting those who are convicted to or admit to committing a theft offense to mandatory detention. What this bill actually does is subject any undocumented immigrant to mandatory detention for merely being 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.

Under this bill, a DACA or TPS recipient could be subjected to mandatory detention for crimes that are extremely low-level or for something that is not even a crime without even having had a fair day in court, without a conviction.

Let's be clear, we are talking about people who have been in this country for decades. Many of us in Congress are parents. Imagine your child is with a group of kids grabbing an after-school snack at a 7- Eleven and one of them chooses to just snitch a little candy bar off the shelf.

The shop owner calls the police, and all the kids are arrested for shoplifting. If your child is a DACA recipient, someone who has lived here nearly their entire life, they are now subject to mandatory detention under this bill.

Unfortunately, there are countless real-life examples of people getting wrongfully arrested for crimes that they didn't commit. In 2019, a man in New Jersey was arrested for shoplifting and trying to hit a police officer with a car because facial recognition software falsely identified him as the perpetrator.

He spent 10 days in jail, even though he was actually 30 miles away from where the crime was committed. If he had been a DACA or a TPS recipient, and this bill had been enacted, he would be subject to mandatory immigration detention even though he was innocent of the crime of which he was accused.

People deserve to have their day in court and are innocent until proven guilty. That seems to be something that the majority has forgotten or doesn't seem to care about unless the alleged criminal is the President-elect.

The upcoming administration is poised to bring back their no-priority immigration enforcement priority guidelines in which a convicted murderer would be the same priority for deportation as an undocumented mom who has been living in this country for 20 years.

Mr. Speaker, imagine how much money a sweeping mandatory detention proposal like this will cost the Federal Government at a time when Republicans are talking a big game about cutting budgets, but not this one. Why? Because this is a great boon to those for-profit detention companies who make enormous profits for mandatory detention when there are far more effective and cheaper ways to address the issue.

Who pays for all this? The taxpayers. Even in a Republican trifecta, ICE has limited resources to detain and remove folks. However, in this bill, like President Trump's enforcement priorities, we seek to use those resources on people who committed low-level crimes or even no crime at all. That makes no one safer and costs a lot of money.

Finally, this bill also bizarrely attempts to give State attorneys general the authority to try and stop the administrations from carrying out important policy priorities by giving them standing to sue in Federal court under various sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act. That entire section of the bill, likely unconstitutional.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this overly broad, deeply flawed legislation.

THE SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President-elect.

Mr. Speaker, I missed Roll Call vote No. 474 on November 20, 2024. Had I been present, my vote would have been Yea on Roll Call No. 474.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill, which would give Donald Trump, and any future President, unfettered power to punish civil society groups, news outlets, hospitals, and universities with zero due process.

This bill is an authoritarian play by Republicans to expand the sweeping powers of the executive branch, to go after political enemies, and to stifle political dissent. It allows Republicans to empower Donald Trump to go after enemies at will, to put hospitals that provide reproductive care to women out of business, to label environmental advocates as ecoterrorists, to target humanitarian organizations or the foundations that support them, to punish news organizations and think tanks that put out research or policies that contradict Donald Trump, and to obliterate civil liberties groups who seek to protect those very liberties from authoritarianism.

Mr. Speaker, Americans want checks and balances, not a blank check for a President to label anyone as a terrorist.

Mr. Speaker, Americans want checks and balances, not a blank check for any President to label anyone as a terrorist without evidence.

Providing material support to terrorist groups is already a crime and can be criminally prosecuted, but this bill removes all due process protections.

That is exactly why the same bill failed on the House floor last week, but instead of moving on and taking on the real economic issues that are facing Americans today or working simply to fund the government, Republicans are fixated on giving unchecked powers to the Trump administration.

Weaponizing the government is the foundation of Trump's Project 2025. It is step one of Trump's project in action.

With this bill, the only guardrail against authoritarian abuse toward any voice of dissent to his agenda will be Trump's imagination.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on abusive, unchecked Presidential powers. I did last week, and I will this week, and at any other time it comes up.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for yielding. I am so grateful for his leadership every single day on behalf of hardworking Americans across his district and across our country.

Mr. Speaker, something is wrong in this country. Families go to the grocery store and they can't afford milk or eggs or cereal that their kids like. Poor and working-class people are struggling under the weight of inflation. They can't make ends meet, and at the same time, the richest 1 percent and corporate CEOs are still taking home record profits.

A recent poll confirmed that two-thirds of Americans think: one of the biggest problems facing us today is that a handful of corporations have too much power. The numbers back this up.

Despite rising costs that are squeezing poor and working people across the country, corporate profits are bigger than ever. It is a simple story of corporate monopolies price gouging consumers.

Let's start with eggs because I like to eat eggs every morning. I think there are a lot of people who like eggs and look at the price of eggs. It is a staple.

Before the pandemic, the price of a dozen eggs hardly ever went over three bucks, but in 2022 and 2023, we saw record-high prices for eggs.

Now, according to Farm Action, this price increase was because dominant egg producers used inflation and avian flu as a cover-up to extract profit margins as high as--wait for it--40 percent on a dozen eggs.

This should come as no surprise because there is a long record of collusion in the egg industry. In 2023, a jury found that Cal-Maine and other egg producers actually did collude to fix egg prices.

Let's look at diapers, another issue that is so big for so many families across the country.

Bloomberg reported in July 2021 that the cost of Pampers nearly doubled from 25 bucks for 200 diapers to $40 for 168 diapers, and that price increase was just in 6 months. More money for fewer diapers.

It is true that there was a shortage of some diaper materials during the pandemic, but--guess what--those shortages stopped, and you didn't see the prices stabilize. You didn't see the prices of key materials coming back to normal.

When you go to the store and you see diaper brands like Huggies and Luvs and Pampers, the real story is, turn them around and see who they are owned by because all of these different brands that are on your grocery shelves are owned by only two companies: Procter & Gamble and Kimberly-Clark, accounting for about 70 to 80 percent of the market. Even as the cost to make diapers has gone way down, these companies are still keeping the prices high, and they are reporting record profits.

Mr. Speaker, I will go to healthcare because it is another place where my constituents and people across the country are talking about the high cost of healthcare. We have seen big insurers, private equity, and other big corporations buying up hospitals and other healthcare providers. My home State of Washington has been particularly affected. A handful of healthcare systems now control 90 percent of the hospital beds in the State of Washington.

Some studies have found that these mergers are especially bad for people in rural areas because it actually causes smaller clinics to eliminate services like obstetrics or pediatrics, or even to close entirely. All of this has led to unprecedented corporate control over healthcare in my home State and across the country.

People across the State and across the country are seeing the negative effects of this increased corporate power in their daily lives. A family physician who worked at a clinic in my district testified that the quality and availability of care decreased after the clinic was bought by a large national healthcare network. Another witness testified that the price that her insurer paid for monthly infusions to manage her chronic illness nearly tripled from $24,000 to $74,000 per visit without any increase in the quality of care.

The president of the Washington State Nurses Association testified that he had seen increased costs and decreased access to care for his patients. All of these stories confirm what we now know: Corporate greed in healthcare or in any industry raises costs and makes life harder for Americans.

It does not have to be this way. As elected officials, it is our job to ensure that government is keeping these corporations in line and keeping prices low for the American people.

I will tell you a story about what government can do when we fight corporate power. In 2015, two grocery store chains merged: Albertsons and Safeway. They wanted what corporations always want in these big mergers and that is more money for themselves, their CEOs, and their shareholders. They said that the deal would be better for people in my home State of Washington and across the country. They claimed that the merger would pass on savings to consumers and not line the pockets of CEOs, but what actually happened?

Well, here is what actually happened: Instead of streamlining, dozens of stores were closed. Those closures created food and pharmacy deserts, making it harder for many people in already underserved communities to get fresh food or get their prescriptions. Older adults, students, people with disabilities, people in rural communities, low- income residents, those are the ones that suffered the most. Workers at the stores that closed, by the way, also lost their jobs. Despite all of those corporate promises, workers and consumers were the ones who suffered. That is what happens when government does not challenge corporate power and monopolies. We lose.

When Albertsons announced in 2022 that it was going to merge this time with Kroger, people were rightly worried. They were worried that the prices would go up, they were worried that there would be fewer choices and deserts in their communities, and that more grocery stores would close. When asked about the merger, one Washingtonian told The Seattle Times that she was worried that her local store would close. She said: If there are no other grocery stores that I can walk to, I don't know what I am going to do. This is my store. Another said that he worried that the merger would make it so that these guys' prices would go sky-high. Workers worried that it would be harder for them to bargain for better pay and working conditions, that store closures would mean layoffs, and that their families would face uncertainty and hardship once again.

This time something was different. My colleagues and I urged the Biden administration to challenge the proposed deal, and the Federal Trade Commission agreed that we could not allow another bad merger to go through.

The FTC and many State attorneys general, including in my State, challenged the deal. While that challenge is still in court, we have delayed and will continue to work on blocking this bad deal.

This is just one of the stories of what can happen when an administration, when a government takes on corporate greed the way that the Biden-Harris administration did, the way that Democrats have done on everything from egg prices to collusion by landlords driving up rental prices.

I will be honest, I am worried that the Trump administration may not keep up these fights against corporate power, especially as we see the proposed cabinet being stacked with people who have close ties to Wall Street. We certainly saw the last Trump administration conduct the largest corporate tax giveaway in history, putting hundreds of millions of dollars into the hands of big corporations like Verizon and Facebook and Amazon while shorting regular Americans.

We have seen the extreme conservative appointees on the Supreme Court accept lavish gifts from their big business buddies, while overturning government efforts to clamp down on corporate power.

We cannot allow the next administration to repeat these mistakes. We need to hold their feet to the fire. We need to make sure that they are working in the interest of all Americans, not just big corporations and the wealthy. We don't want a situation where the wealthiest in this country, once again, get gold bars and working people get maybe 8 weeks of groceries. That is bread crumbs. That is not what middle-

class working people and poor people across America deserve.

That is why I have a lot of real solutions to these problems. My Stop Corporate Capture Act would give the people, not big corporations, a say in government. My Stop Anticompetitive Healthcare Act would give the government the power to challenge hospital mergers and protect access to quality healthcare. Of course, my Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act would make sure that the ultra-wealthy pay their fair share.

When we take on corporate power, we win for the working people. When we lower prices, we win for working people. We allow people to put food on their table. We can raise wages, so Americans don't have to work three jobs to get by. We can stop corporations from being so big that they don't care if they are failing consumers, and we can make sure that government works for all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague Representative Deluzio from Pennsylvania for his leadership on this issue and on so many issues facing us today.

Mr. Speaker, on November 12th the House of Representatives took an important step by passing H.R. 82 and eliminating two harmful provisions that unfairly deny workers, their spouses, and their children the Social Security benefits they deserve. These provisions--the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and Government Pension Offset (GPO) penalties--unfairly target Social Security benefits earned by public service workers, including teachers, police officers, firefighters, and hundreds of thousands of federal retirees.

WEP unfairly penalizes retirees who have spent careers in public service but who have also paid into Social Security at some point. More than 6 million public employees are or would be affected by WEP and around 800,000 Americans would have benefits reduced or eliminated by the GPO. Social Security keeps millions of seniors, children, disabled individuals and their families out of poverty, which is why it is crucial that Congress act to remedy these penalties. That is why I voted for H.R. 82.

That is also why I cosponsor Rep. John Larson's Social Security 2100 Act, which would repeal WEP and GPO while providing the appropriate pay-for measures needed to strengthen and preserve Social Security. The Social Security 2100 Act would improve Social Security's Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) so it reflects the inflation experienced by seniors, cuts taxes for middle-income beneficiaries among other important measures, and do so by ensuring millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share of Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes.

Conversely, H.R. 82 would fully repeal WEP and GPO without a pay-for. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that this would move up the date of insolvency for the combined Social Security Trust Funds. Given that the President-elect and House Republicans are unwilling to support commonsense solutions to strengthen Social Security, it is crucial that we work to prevent benefit cuts for Social Security recipients, especially our most vulnerable citizens.

Congress must achieve the goals of protecting American federal workers while also preserving the crucial benefits that all Americans are entitled to through Social Security. H.R. 82 would cost the Social Security Trust Fund $200 billion over 10 years, and it is imperative that Congress act to fill in this gap.

I urge the Senate to address H.R. 82's pay-for shortcomings as this bill moves forward.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Dr. David Baker on winning the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. The Nobel Prize award recognizes Dr. Baker's tremendous achievement in utilizing computational protein design to turn amino acids into proteins. He has made significant strides in the field of biochemistry through his groundbreaking research and has trailblazed various methods to build new proteins.

Dr. Baker is currently a Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Washington in Seattle. He is the eighth University of Washington faculty member to receive a Nobel Prize. Dr. Baker's research has been described as visionary. His lab pioneered the field by developing much of the world's most popular and effective software for computational protein design. Dr. Baker's research has helped analyze database information about existing proteins to develop new proteins that do not exist in nature.

His success has allowed for the creation of novel proteins to tackle some of the greatest challenges in medicine, technology, and sustainability. He has deepened scientific understanding of protein prediction and made immense contributions to biochemistry research. Dr. Baker's career has been remarkable--to date, he has published more than 640 peer-reviewed research papers, been awarded more than 100 patents, and co-founded 21 biotechnology companies.

I was proud to secure $550,000 for the Institute for Protein Design at the University of Washington where Dr. Baker's lab is housed. I am committed to ensuring that Washington's 7th Congressional District remains a hub for science and innovation. Scientists like Dr. Baker are at the forefront of innovation and must have the resources to continue to change our understanding of the world.

On behalf of Washington's 7th Congressional District, I would like to congratulate Dr. David Baker on receiving the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. I am so proud to recognize his tremendous contributions to science and innovation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Grace Nordhoff and her service to

the writers, readers, and creative minds of the Pacific Northwest. Grace grew up in the Seattle area. She attended college and lived in North Carolina for 25 years. During her time in North Carolina, Grace worked on the publishing staff of an alternative newspaper, earned her Master of Social Work and founded a bakery cafe. Since moving back to Seattle, Grace has been involved in her family's legacy business, the Skinner Corporation. She has also been a dedicated volunteer with the Seattle Public Library where she worked at the Central Library's welcome desk.

Grace has spent decades championing literary causes. She served on the boards of the Durham Library Foundation, The Seattle Public Library Foundation and Hedgebrook. Grace has also served on the board and been a critical leader in ensuring the success of Hedgebrook, a literary nonprofit working to support visionary women writers whose stories and ideas shape our culture now and for generations to come. Hedgebrook, founded by Nancy Nordhoff (Grace's mother), has been the home to a host of storied women writers, offering a space of solace, welcome and nurturing for women to make their voices heard. Over the years, Hedgebrook has welcome a range of women writers, from Gloria Steinem to V Ensler to Naomi Shihab Nye and Sarah Ladipo Manyika.

Hedgebrook benefited immensely from Grace's dedication. Grace served on the Board for 15 years where she offered transformational guidance in organizational development. She played a pivotal role in the strategic planning process and helped to lead the Sustainability Campaign to renew the retreat. During her tenure. Hedgebrook's annual budget increased from $600,000 to $1.7 million, transitioned from a private foundation to a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, created its annual fundraiser ``Equivox'' and expanded its donor base across the country.

Grace and her family have personified Seattle philanthropy. She has been a dedicated supporter of women's voices in the arts, literature, politics and education. Our region has greatly benefited from Grace's dedication to supporting her community.

On behalf of Washington's 7th Congressional District, I would like to commend Grace Nordhoff's work and her many accomplishments in service to literary causes and the Pacific Northwest.

Mr. Chair, here we are, wasting time again on the floor on a bill that has no chance of becoming law, when, meanwhile, Republicans have failed to pass a continuing resolution that would keep our government funded. Some in your party are even calling for a government shutdown, which would have detrimental effects on Americans across the country.

Are we dealing with that issue? No. Republicans couldn't pass their own bill, a partisan bill, to continue to fund the government, and we are not trying to do anything on that. Instead, we are here talking not about a bill that actually works for real solutions for our outdated immigration system, but we are once again talking about a bill that demonizes immigrants.

This is something that Republicans have refused to put forward, real solutions to our broken immigration system, because, in their own words, they want to keep immigration broken so that they can continue to demonize immigrants and continue to try to make this an election issue.

Here we are today, once again, debating a bill inspired by Trump's Project 2025 that would strip billions of dollars in vital Federal funds from States and localities across the country, including in my home State of Washington.

Under this bill, jurisdictions that want to keep the proper division between Federal enforcement and local law enforcement are penalized for doing just that, taking away any Federal funds that might ``benefit'' undocumented immigrants. That makes absolutely no sense on multiple levels.

First of all, community trust policies in these jurisdictions foster cooperation and trust between immigrant communities and local authorities. That is crucial for effective policing and public safety.

When immigrants feel safe reporting crimes and working with law enforcement, it actually strengthens public safety for everyone. That is why members of the Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force, which is made up of law enforcement officials from across the country, have expressed concern with this bill, stating that when local police are viewed as colluding with immigration authorities, ``undocumented residents may fear that they, or people they know or depend upon, risk deportation by working with law enforcement,'' and that ``this fear undermines trust between law enforcement and the communities we serve,'' which actually can facilitate an increase in violent crime.

That is law enforcement talking about what this bill would actually do. It would hurt our ability to protect public safety.

On top of that, local jurisdictions have neither the money, the training, nor the time to enforce Federal immigration laws, particularly when it undermines their own ability to build community trust and do their necessary work.

H.R. 5717 is just bad policy. It implements Trump's extreme Project 2025 agenda by stripping localities and States across the country of billions of dollars in Federal funding for education, transportation, infrastructure, law enforcement, and healthcare just because those funds might benefit undocumented immigrants, forgetting that they actually benefit everybody in the community.

Let's remember that undocumented immigrants are interwoven into our communities. Approximately 1.1 million U.S. citizens are married to undocumented immigrants, and over 600,000 U.S. citizen children live in mixed-status households where at least one person is undocumented, not to mention the DACA recipients who work in public schools, hospitals, and small businesses.

Attempts to punish cities and States for using funding in a way that benefits undocumented people take away the very necessary funding that communities across the country have been asking for, and it will inevitably also harm U.S. citizens and American communities in those same localities.

Welcome to Donald Trump and Stephen Miller's America, where the Federal Government tries to coerce State and local governments to adopt the most anti-immigrant policies. If they refuse to do so, well, then that entire community is going to be stripped of Federal funding for the most essential services.

We have recently seen how dangerous this rhetoric and this policy can be. For the past few weeks, Republicans have relentlessly pushed debunked myths about how Haitian immigrants have supposedly invaded Springfield, Ohio, and are eating people's pets.

Sadly, that led to the city having to evacuate city hall and lock down multiple hospitals due to bomb threats. Parents are afraid to send their kids to school as Springfield elementary schools were evacuated 2 days in a row because of the bomb threats.

Mr. Chair, my Republican colleagues love to talk about so-called immigrant crime and chaos at the border, but the reality is that their callous disregard for the truth, for conspiracy theories and lies and demonization of immigrants, has brought crime and chaos to the residents of Springfield, Ohio, putting their well-being and security at risk.

Mr. Chairman, we are better than this. America is better than this. We

can fix the immigration system without ripping communities apart and stripping away billions of dollars in vital Federal funding. We can solve the problems at the border without fear-mongering and scapegoating immigrants who are helping to build our communities across the country.

Unfortunately, that would require bipartisanship, compromise, and a commitment to actually solving the problem, all of which my Republican colleagues have made clear they have zero interest in doing.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous bill.

Mr. Speaker, I missed Roll Call votes 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, and 417 on September 9, 2024, September 10, 2024, September 11, 2024, and September 12, 2024 due to illness. Had I been present, my votes would have been as follows: Nay on Roll Call No. 401; Nay on Roll Call No. 402; Nay on Roll Call No. 403; Nay on Roll Call No. 404, Yea on Roll Call No. 405; Nay on Roll Call No. 406; Yea on Roll Call No. 407; Nay on Roll Call No. 408; Yea on Roll Call No. 409; Yea on Roll Call No. 410; Nay on Roll Call No. 411; Yea on Roll Call No, 412; Nay on Roll Call No. 413; Yea on Roll Call No. 414; Nay on Roll Call No. 415; Yea on Roll Call No. 416; and Nay on Roll Call No. 417.