Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, each year, an estimated 58,000 pregnant women pass through jails and prisons in the United States. H.R. 6878 would expand on existing programs within the Bureau of Prisons to provide certain health and wellness-related services for pregnant incarcerated women. This legislation will help these women receive necessary medical care, nutrition, and support while in Federal custody.

In addition, H.R. 6878 builds upon President Trump's leadership in the First Step Act, which prohibited the use of restraints on pregnant women in Federal custody.

H.R. 6878 would prohibit pregnant women in Federal custody from being placed in restrictive housing unless their behavior poses a serious and immediate risk of physical harm. It also would prohibit the use of solitary confinement for pregnant women in their third trimester.

The bill also expands data reporting on the health needs of pregnant incarcerated women and requires guidelines for the treatment of incarcerated women during pregnancy, labor, and postpartum recovery.

We all believe that pregnant incarcerated women should be well cared for while they are in Federal custody. However, I would like to note the concern that the bill could require the Bureau of Prisons to provide abortifacients to pregnant inmates. However, the word ``contraception'' is not defined in the bill, and the internal Bureau of Prisons policy does not define ``contraception.''

Because the word ``contraception'' is not defined, this ambiguity leaves open the reasonable interpretation that the term ``contraception'' could include abortifacients or other substances that induce abortion.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment allows certain women in Federal custody to receive counseling related to postpartum health conditions. Postpartum women in Federal custody will be eligible to receive counseling services related to postpartum health conditions.

After giving birth, many women struggle with postpartum depression and other psychological and physical conditions. This amendment will ensure that women in Federal custody have access to these services.

While many of us have concerns with some of the other language in the bill, this amendment is a commonsense amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.

I rise in support of S. 4900, which would reauthorize the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs.

In addition to extending the SBIR and STTR programs for 3 years, this bill contains several important provisions that safeguard our government and its research from foreign entities and enhance benchmarks for those companies that have received multiple awards.

Since 1992, the SBIR and STTR programs have helped promote public- private partnership and small business innovation by requiring agencies with sizable R&D needs to set aside a portion of their budget for small business participation.

As many of the speakers said before me, the return on investment has been nothing short of impressive. In the Department of Defense alone, between 1995 and 2018, the SBIR and STTR programs resulted in $28 billion in new product sales to the U.S. military, $347 billion in total economic output, and the creation of more than 1.5 million jobs.

But with this amount of participation comes the likelihood of malign influence and fraud within the program. This was evidenced by a DOD report that found China was using shell companies in its Thousand Talents Program to profit off federally funded research programs like these two we are talking about here this afternoon.

Having been part of the negotiating process during my time as a conferee for the COMPETES/USICA bill, the issue of combating foreign influence was certainly top of mind.

I am pleased that both sides were able to come to an agreement and understand the importance of safeguarding much of this research.

Not only will this bill require companies that apply for SBIR and STTR awards to disclose any ties to China, but it will also require Federal agencies to bolster their due diligence efforts to ensure our intellectual property is fully protected.

Most importantly, the bill also requires DOD to establish an open topic solicitation, allowing small businesses the opportunity to showcase how their innovations can be beneficial to the actual warfighter. The GAO believes this will be more than efficiently laid out and planned and that new companies can be bolstered with this small business innovation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6448, the so-called Invest to Protect Act.

All of the bills that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle rushed to the floor today are nothing more than kind of last-minute political items, obviously, a few weeks out from election day. They will use these bills to claim that they support funding the police.

However, the American people are not fooled. They saw Democrats across the country call for defunding of the police. There is video that continues to run ad nauseam with examples of that, and it was all in the wake of George Floyd's death.

We only need to look at the House Judiciary Committee Democrats' refusal to take up these bills in regular order. For further evidence that these bills are a political stunt, just this week, Judiciary Committee Democrats postponed a hearing on organized retail theft until after the election.

The simple truth is Democrats have no interest in putting forth a serious effort to reduce crime. All the money in these grant programs don't mean a thing if leftwing prosecutors continue to let violent criminals out with little or no bail.

That is why yesterday my colleagues and I introduced the Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our Streets Act after last year's horrific attack in my district at the Waukesha Christmas parade.

This bill takes three steps to push back on radical leftwing bail laws. It conditions the Byrne grant program funding on meeting the Federal pretrial release factors as a floor. It reduces grant funding by 75 percent unless State and local jurisdictions develop and maintain a public safety report.

The problem in Waukesha was that later on the DA said, boy, we didn't know what was going on in other States. We didn't know that there were any other crimes committed there. And then judges did not have enough information prior to setting bail.

We can't let people off the hook just by saying that we just didn't have enough information. Six people died in the Waukesha Christmas parade because no one took the time to figure out that this individual who was before them was absolutely one of the most dangerous people living in Wisconsin.

States would be further incentivized to report this information to the National Crime Information Center. It would bring transparency, and it would change the bail system.

Mr. Speaker, there are solutions to these issues; but, unfortunately, there is a faction of the Democratic Party that simply continues to run the opposite way. I don't know if it is to assure their constituencies that they are with them, but that time is over.

Unfortunately, as we are in the middle of September right before the November elections, the Democrats finally woke up.

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

Mr. Speaker, human trafficking, especially the sex trafficking of children, is an abhorrent crime, and all convicted offenders should face serious criminal penalties.

This bill would provide increased criminal penalties for human trafficking or coercing a minor to engage

in illegal sex acts in school zones or near school-sponsored activities, as my colleague from Texas stated.

Texas recently enacted a similar law. According to the Texas State Senate bill report, 55 percent of young sex trafficking survivors in Texas were trafficked while at school or during school activities.

The Justice Department's Office of Justice Programs reports that the average age of entry into prostitution is, unbelievably, 12 to 14 years old and that traffickers are known to recruit at schools and in after- school programs.

However, this legislation doesn't address a root cause of this serious problem, our unsecure southwest border. Tragically, we know that human smuggling and trafficking occurs daily at the southwest border.

Under Democrat leadership, this Congress has failed to fix the completely broken immigration system or to address the Biden border crisis, which cartels and other organized criminal organizations have exploited to smuggle and traffic children into our country.

Cartels and criminal organizations continue to take advantage of the Biden administration's complete failure to secure the southwest border.

We should focus Congress' efforts on securing our southwest border to prevent the type of human trafficking this legislation seeks to address.

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

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

I would just once again like to emphasize the idea that although human trafficking is at the forefront of what we are discussing here today, we must continue to focus on the southern border and making sure that we secure that soon.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, human trafficking is a terrible and tragic evil. We should do all we can in Congress to fight trafficking and help victims.

This legislation would change the law to direct the Secretary of Transportation to post the contact information of the National Human Trafficking Hotline in locations where victims may be able to see them and seek help.

Because this horrific crime often involves border crossings, Republicans added an amendment in committee directing the Secretary of Homeland Security to post the contact information of the National Human Trafficking Hotline at ports of entry.

It is well documented that human traffickers often use the transportation industry for both recruiting and operations. In 2020, the latest year for which data is available, 10,583 incidents of human trafficking were reported to the U.S. National Human Trafficking Hotline, and 16,658 victims of trafficking were identified.

We hope this legislation will help to raise awareness about human trafficking and assist victims in seeking help by posting hotline information in places where they may see it.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 169, the Artistic Recognition for Talented Students Act.

The Constitution authorizes Congress ``to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.''

Our copyright system is designed to help fulfill that mandate by promoting the work of authors, musicians, artists, and other creators.

Creative industries contribute hundreds of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy every year. This bill makes it easier for some of our brightest young creators to obtain copyrights on their award-winning work. This is essentially the same as the bill that passed the House under suspension of the rules last year.

Promoting and encouraging the next generation of American creators ensures that our creative economy will remain strong for decades to come.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a reason why the Founders chose to enshrine the freedoms of the press in the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is an important part of a functional and informed democracy.

Over the years, versions of this bill have received widespread support from across the political spectrum. In fact, the first version of this bill was introduced by none other than Vice President Pence when he was a Member of this body.

Liberty depends on the freedom of the press. Good reporters are committed to holding our government accountable. A critical aspect of the freedom of the press is the pursuit of truth without intimidation or coercion from the government.

Administrations of both parties have unjustly targeted journalists, but none more so in recent years than the Obama administration. The Obama administration's control on the flow of information has been described as ``the most aggressive . . . since the Nixon administration.''

The Biden administration isn't proving to be much better.

In a free country, we need to make sure that the government cannot unmask journalists' sources without good cause. This bill provides those protections and recognizes the importance of independent journalism to our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would inform you and my colleague from Texas that I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, it appears that this bill has wide, bipartisan support among Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.

There is a motion to recommit that I would like to offer. If we adopt the motion to recommit, we will instruct the House Committee on the Judiciary to consider the amendment to H.R. 1808 which excludes Active Duty and retired military from the ban on assault weapons.

I, therefore, ask unanimous consent to include the text of the amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, just imagine a 17-year-old makes a decision to enlist in the Army, the Marine Corps, or the Navy. And then that 17-year-old goes through 8 weeks of basic combat training at one of the basic training centers in Fort Jackson or Fort Knox or Fort Benning. Then they are given a service weapon, an M16 typically, and then they are taught to assemble and disassemble that weapon down to the bolt.

They will go through training with a drill sergeant on a range and they are taught how to fire their service weapon in live-fire exercises. Then the 17-year-old will go on to AIT to be taught their specialty and continue to be on Active Duty or the Reserves or in the National Guard and then potentially deployed.

What this bill seeks to do is prevent this member of the military who comes home, either to the Reserve unit or National Guard unit or on Active Duty, from purchasing a rifle that they can use on their own.

My colleagues who support the bill are saying: We trusted you to join the service. We encouraged you to join the service. But then when it comes down to it, we really don't trust you to go out and purchase that weapon.

It makes no sense.

If the majority is going to snub every veteran in this country by saying: We don't trust you. Then how can the U.S. Government ask someone to enlist when they don't trust them to have the same responsibility with their own personal weapon?

Mr. Speaker, if we adopt the motion to recommit, we will instruct the Committee on the Judiciary to consider my amendment to H.R. 1808 to ensure that the Nation's Active Duty members and veterans will be trusted.

Mr. Speaker, it is so amazing to me that the majority rejected this in the Judiciary Committee. They talk a good game when it comes to veterans, but when it comes right down to it, they don't trust them.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

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

Mr. Speaker, what a great day for the babies and--as the Speaker described it--the Trump-McConnell Supreme Court.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the House amendment to S. 2938. This bill could have had strong bipartisan support if it had focused solely on mental health and school safety. The Supreme Court made it clear yesterday that the Second Amendment includes the right to carry a gun for self-defense purposes outside the home.

This bill flies in the face of that ruling. Specifically, the bill fails to define what constitutes a willful violation that would warrant a revocation of a Federal firearm license. This is especially important given the Department of Justice's zero tolerance policy and the over 500 percent increase in license revocation proceedings that have occurred under this administration.

Current extreme risk protective orders that exist in 19 States do not come close to providing adequate due process protections. We cannot support the use of taxpayer funds to implement more such unconstitutional laws without specific and ironclad assurances that due process rights will be protected.

In the wake of the tragic shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School in February 2018, I worked with my colleagues in the Wisconsin legislature to protect against school shootings. We worked to pass Act 143 which appropriated $100 million in school safety grants. That is where this bill should be going.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to focus on bipartisan solutions that will not infringe on our constitutional rights.

Madam Speaker, due to unforeseen travel delays, I was unable to be recorded for votes on Monday, June 13, 2022. Had I been present, I would have voted: YEA on Roll Call No. 256; YEA on Roll Call No. 257; and YEA on Roll Call No. 258.

Madam Speaker, due to a family commitment, I was unable to be recorded for votes on Thursday, June 9, 2022. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 255.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 7910.

I thought I would take this opportunity to do my own fact check on some of the inaccurate claims my colleagues on the other side of the aisle presented at last week's markup.

My Democrat colleagues will often claim there are loopholes in the current background check system, sometimes specifically citing the Charleston loophole. This is simply not true. Federal firearms licensees cannot transfer a firearm without performing a background check on the purchaser.

The FBI is notified immediately if a prohibited person attempts to purchase a weapon, and the FBI has 3 days to follow up. The 3 days for follow-up prevent the FBI from sitting on their hands and not following through with background checks as a way to deny a person a firearm by bureaucracy and, therefore, take away their Second Amendment rights.

Another claim frequently made by my colleagues is that banning so- called assault weapons, a term they rarely define, would reduce mass shootings. Despite automatic weapons already being illegal to the general public, the left uses the term ``assault weapons'' to describe scary-looking guns, regardless of the actual characteristics of the firearm. Even weapons mischaracterized as assault weapons are used in less than 1 percent of all homicides.

Many of my colleagues claim mandating so-called safe storage of firearms is a commonsense approach to reducing gun violence. Not only does a requirement to keep a firearm within the home unloaded or locked up not comply with Supreme Court precedent, but it also puts them at a disadvantage.

Listen, if you want to accomplish something today, pass what many States have done, and that is to make resources available to secure schools. Madam Speaker, $100 million, and over 1,300 Wisconsin schools have removed themselves from the list of the most vulnerable with State dollars. Let's do that today and really accomplish something.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas (Mr. Williams) for yielding me time. I thank my colleagues, specifically Mr. Crow, for co-leading H.R. 7622, the Small Business Workforce Pipeline Act of 2022.

The bill would allow small business development centers to provide information and assistance to small businesses on how to establish and improve work-based learning opportunities. It also would enhance apprenticeship programs, pre-apprenticeship programs, and other job training programs that many of us are very familiar with.

I hear all the time from Wisconsin small businesses back in my district about how the country's labor shortage is affecting not only the recruitment of skilled employees but, in particular, manufacturing and, in my district, light manufacturing.

The latest National Federation for Independent Businesses' economic trends report showed that while optimism in recovering to prepandemic employment levels is increasing, we still are very much behind the eight ball. Sixty percent of manufacturing firms report unfilled job openings.

Apprenticeships and other job training programs provide a solution to address the needs of the manufacturing sector. Apprenticeships are among the most successful forms of workforce development, and through paid and on-the-job training programs, alongside classroom education, we can make significant strides.

This bill would directly benefit manufacturers and other businesses in Wisconsin's Fifth District by having apprenticeships and other job- training materials readily available to them.

Madam Speaker, I support the passage of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 963.

H.R. 963 undermines freedom of contract as well as consumer choice by banning informed, consenting adults from freely entering into contracts to arbitrate disputes.

Arbitration generally works well and is a fair and effective way to resolve disputes. While civil litigation can be long, complex, and costly, arbitration provides a cheaper and efficient process to resolve disputes in a timely manner.

Banning predispute arbitration agreements would mean Americans spend more time in court with no guarantee of better outcomes. Banning arbitration agreements during a time of significant inflation and in the middle of a supply chain crisis will effectively lower Americans' income.

While larger companies may be able to deal with the expense of a slew of new lawsuits, this change will cause harm to smaller businesses that may not survive lengthy and costly litigation battles.

Because postdispute arbitrations are rare, banning arbitration agreements will flood the court system. For one thing, some claims that are addressed through arbitration now may be individualized, making them unsuitable for class treatment.

Even where claims can't be combined, a plaintiff may still be worse off as a class member than he would be with the claim in arbitration. This is because the benefits of arbitration, particularly lower litigation costs, coincide with lower revenue for others, such as trial lawyers.

Banning certain predispute arbitration clauses and similar policy will benefit trial lawyers, not necessarily consumers.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Madam Speaker, instead of setting one standard and having everyone play by the same rules, the Democrats have singled out the unions for favorable treatment.

This legislation bans predispute arbitration for nonunion employees while preserving these benefits for union employees. This discrepancy makes no sense and, unfortunately, smacks of political favoritism.

Arbitration offers a faster and cheaper path to resolution of a dispute. Taking this path away from nonunion employees leaves these workers to the mercy of--like we said earlier--the high-priced trial lawyers, while union workers maintain the benefit of arbitration.

My amendment would remove this carve-out for union employees and restore parity between union and nonunion workers.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle already shut down my amendment to limit attorneys' fees to a reasonable amount so that consumers are protected. I am disappointed by that. They also rejected my amendment to reduce the cost of this bill by exempting contracts for critical supplies that have been affected by the Biden administration's supply chain crisis.

Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment to protect workers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I inform the gentleman from New York that we have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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