Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the FBI and the Secretary of Homeland Security said the greatest threat to America is domestic terrorism, White racism, white supremacy, not babies who have come here innocently and through no fault of their own.

I rise with great enthusiasm to support H.R. 6 and to join my colleague, Congresswoman Roybal-Allard, in her work. For two decades, we have stood alongside each other.

The American Dream and Promise Act provides immigrant youth and current or potential holders of temporary protected status or deferred enforced departure the opportunity to become citizens.

This is the very same person. This person, his name is Alonso Guillen. He was a DACA. He died coming to Houston during Hurricane Harvey trying to save lives. Cesar Espinosa, who organized a civil rights organization, is a DACA recipient, and the EMS person who worked with us during Hurricane Harvey, or Liberians on deferred status, and TPS persons.

Let me just say, support this because it is the right thing to do. They are not terrorists. It is not amnesty.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary and on Homeland Security, as an original cosponsor of legislation to extend the full promise of America to Dreamers, and a representative of a state on the southern border, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6, the ``American Dream and Promise Act of 2019,'' and the underlying legislation.

The American Dream and Promise Act of 2019 establishes a roadmap to U.S. citizenship for (1) immigrant youth and (2) current or potential holders of (a) temporary protected status (TPS) or (b) deferred enforced departure (DED).

Ensuring a path to earned citizenship is a non-negotiable principle for me and the sine qua non of meaningful immigration reform legislation.

Indeed, providing a path to earned access to citizenship has been a central feature of every comprehensive immigration reform bill I have co-sponsored or sponsored in the Congress since 2007 when I became Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and introduced the ``Save America Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, (H.R. 1525),'' which I have reintroduced in each succeeding Congress.

Like H.R. 6, Section 501 of my legislation provides a path to earned legalization status to those undocumented immigrants who have resided in the United States for 5 years and meet other eligibility requirements.

Mr. Speaker, as we stand today on the precipice of passing the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019, I am thinking of the hundreds of thousands of young immigrants whose lives will be changed for the better by keeping our promise to them, so they can realize their dreams and making America better, stronger, and more prosperous.

And at this moment, I am thinking of Alonso Guillen, an heroic DREAMER who lived in my congressional district, and who came to the United States from Mexico as a child and died when his boat capsized while he was rescuing survivors of the flooding caused by Hurricane Harvey in the Houston area.

That is the type of courage, honor, and commitment to service we are talking when we speak of DREAMERS.

Mr. Speaker, Title I of H.R. 6, the Dream Act of 2019, contains provisions regarding relief for immigrant youth.

Title II of the bill, American Promise Act of 2019, contains provisions related to persons eligible Temporary Protected Stats (TPS) or Deferred Enforcement Departure; the third and final title contains general provisions that apply to both Titles I & II).

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 6 because it keeps America's word to the more than 800,000 young people we asked to come out of the shadows and walk proudly and unashamedly as legitimate members of the American community.

The legislation does this by providing conditional permanent resident (CPR) status and a roadmap to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status and, eventually, earned U.S. citizenship for immigrant youth who entered the U.S. before age 18, have four or more years of residency, and graduated from high school (or the equivalent).

H.R. 6 also provides an opportunity to apply for LPR status for people who currently have or who may be eligible for TPS or DED and who have three or more years of residency.

Mr. Speaker, individuals who are eligible for protection under the bill have lived in the United States for much of their lives; the average Dreamer came to the United States at the age of 8, while the average TPS- or OED-eligible person arrived in 1997.

Without permanent protections such as those in H.R. 6, the future of these immigrants, and their families, are at risk in the United States--as well as the fiscal and economic contributions they make.

Passing this legislation is the right thing to do and now is the time to do it; in fact, it is long overdue.

I am mindful also, Mr. Speaker, that in addition to helping restore America's reputation as the most welcoming nation on earth, the legislation the House will pass also positions America to better compete and win in the global economy of the 21st century.

According to expert studies, including one by the Center for American Progress, ending deferred action for childhood arrivals would result in a loss of $460.3 billion from the national GDP over the ensuing decade and would remove an estimated 685,000 workers from the nation's economy and workforce at a time when more, not fewer, workers are desperately needed.

And 10 states, including my home state of Texas, would stand to lose more than $8 billion annually in state GDP.

Mr. Speaker, immigrants eligible for protection under H.R. 6 are part of Texas's social fabric.

Texas is home to 386,300 immigrants who are eligible for protection under the Dream and Promise Act, 112,000 of whom reside in Harris County.

These individuals live with 845,300 family members and among those family members, 178,700 are U.S.-born citizen children.

Dreamers in Texas who are eligible for protection under the bill arrived in the United States at the average age of 8.

TPS- and DED-eligible immigrants in Texas who would be eligible for protection under H.R. 6 have on average lived in the United States since 1996.

Immigrants eligible for the Dream and Promise Act own 43,500 homes in Texas and pay $340,500,000 in annual mortgage payments.

Eligible immigrants in Texas and their households contribute $2,234,800,000 in federal taxes and $1,265,200,000 in state and local taxes each year.

Annually, these households generate $10,519,000,000 in spending power in Texas and help power the national economy.

Mr. Speaker, let me highlight some of the more important provisions of the American Dream and Promise Act.

H.R. 6 helps young persons in the following ways:

1. Extends the length of conditional permanent resident (CPR) status from eight to ten years to give applicants more time to fulfill requirements;

2. Stays the removal of minors who are not yet eligible for relief but may become eligible in the future and who temporarily unenroll from school;

3. Permits people with CPR to obtain legal permanent resident (LPR) status without satisfying the employment, military, or educational tracks if their deportation would cause ``hardship'' to themselves or immediate family members (instead of ``extreme hardship'');

4. Includes apprenticeship programs as a qualifying education to obtain CPR status;

5. Eliminates the costly medical examination for applicants;

6. Establishes a fee ceiling of $495 for immigrant youth applying for CPR status;

7. Clarifies that people with CPR can access professional, commercial, and business licenses;

8. Permits people with CPR who obtain a certificate or credential from an area career and technical education school to obtain LPR status; and

9. Updates the criminal background bars and inadmissibility requirements.

Additionally, H.R. 6 provides LPR status to CPR holders who (1) serve in the uniformed services for two years; (2) complete two years at or obtain a degree from an institution of higher education; or (3) work 75 percent of the time in CPR.

Another important feature of this legislation is that makes it easier for states to provide in-state tuition to immigrant students and establishes that CPR-holders are eligible for federal loans, work study, services, and grants.

For persons with TPS or DED status, the American Dream and Promise Act provides much needed relief.

First, H.R. 6 provides LPR status for people with TPS or DED (and those who were eligible but did not apply) who apply within three years from the date of enactment if they (1) had at least three years of continuous residence (as well as residence since the date required the last time that the person's nation of origin was designated) and (2) were eligible for or had (a) TPS on September 25, 2016, or (b) DED on September 28, 2016.

This protection covers nationals of 13 countries: El Salvador, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Liberia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

I believe similar protections should be extended to Guatemalan nationals in our country, which is why I will soon reintroduce the ``Continue American Safety Act,'' which extends TPS status to Guatemala and I look forward to working with my colleagues to achieve this outcome.

Second, H.R. 6 classifies people with TPS or DED as inspected and admitted for the purposes of Immigration & Nationality Act (INA) section 245(a), making it easier to obtain LPR status through existing channels (e.g., a family-based petition).

Third, H.R. 6 stays the removal or deportation of an individual while an application is pending.

Fourth, the American Dream and Promise Act establishes a fee ceiling of $1,140 for people with TPS or DED applying for LPR status.

Fifth, the legislation provides greater transparency by requiring the Secretary of the Homeland Security (DHS) to provide an explanation for and report within three days of publishing notice to terminate TPS designation for certain nationals.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6 is exceptional legislation and a welcome development but is not a substitute for undertaking the comprehensive reform and modernization of the nation's immigration laws supported by the American people.

Only Congress can do that and passage of H.R. 6 shows that this House has the will and is up to the challenge.

Comprehensive immigration reform is desperately needed to ensure that Lady Liberty's lamp remains the symbol of a land that welcomes immigrants to a community of immigrants and does so in a manner that secures our borders and protects our homeland.

Mr. Speaker, let us build on the historic legislation that is the American Dream and Promise Act and seize the opportunity to pass legislation that secures our borders, preserves America's character as the most open and welcoming country in the history of the world, and will yield hundreds of billions of dollars in economic growth.

I urge all Members to join me in voting for H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2021.

Madam Speaker, as I stood on the floor of the House for H.R. 6, this is not amnesty. I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) for her leadership, and Mr. Nadler as well.

Madam Speaker, let me explain to you that under the American Dream and Promise Act, which immigrants are eligible for, they would have 43,500 homes and $340 million in mortgage payments.

Today, I rise in support of H.R. 1603 because this would allow farmworkers, agricultural workers, to be able to gain legal status and to be able to seek a certified agricultural worker status.

Dr. Ruiz, our colleague, indicated that he was raised by farmworkers. He saw the bent hands, the bent banks, and the broken hands, and he saw the patriotism. This is not amnesty. I will tell you what it is not. It is not the Trump policy of caging children in cages. It is not the Trump policy of turning young 11-year-olds back across the border to be raped.

I hope my colleagues who are talking about abortion and talking about rape voted for the Violence Again Women Act to really protect immigrant women.

I rise to support this legislation because it will provide dignity, opportunity for an enhanced economic engine, as the farmworkers take certified status because they can do it over and over again.

Where is the bread on our table coming from?

The hardworking farmworkers who are out there every day in these fields working to provide for the American people and the people around the world.

We are the breadbasket of the world and, because of their work, we are able to feed many. So I rise in enthusiastic support. I wish my colleagues would have been as enthusiastic and as angry about caging children as they are today about us fixing the immigration system.

Madam Speaker, I ask for support of H.R. 1603.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1603, the bipartisan ``Farm Workforce Modernization Act,'' which will stabilize the agricultural sector and preserve our rural heritage by ensuring that farmers can meet their labor needs well into the future.

First, the bill establishes a program for agricultural workers in the United States (and their spouses and minor children) to earn legal status through continued agricultural employment.

Specifically, the bill creates a process for farm workers to seek Certified Agricultural Worker status, a temporary status for those who have worked at least 180 days in agriculture over the prior 2-year period.

Certified Agricultural Worker status can be renewed indefinitely with continued farm work (at least 100 days per year).

Applicants must undergo background checks and pass strict criminal and national security bars.

Dependent status is available for spouses and minor children.

The bill does not require workers to do or apply for anything else in order to stay and work in the United States.

But long-term workers who want to stay have the option of earning a path to lawful permanent residence by paying a $1,000 fine and engaging additional agricultural work, as follows:

1. Workers with 10 years of agricultural work prior to the date of enactment must complete 4 additional years of such work.

2. Workers with less than 10 years of agricultural work prior to the date of enactment must complete 8 additional years of such work.

The Farmworkers Movement in this country was started and led by a great leader, Cesar Chavez who said:

We cannot seek achievement for ourselves and forget about

progress and prosperity for our community. Our ambitions must

be broad enough to include the aspirations and needs of

others, for their sakes and for our own.

The Texas Farm Workers Union (``TFWU'') was established by Antonio Orendain and farmworker leaders of the Rio Grande Valley active with the United Farm Workers (UFW) after a disagreement with UFW leadership over direction of a melon strike in south McAllen, TX in 1975.

In August 1975, nearly ten years after he began organizing farm workers for the United Farm Workers in the Rio Grande Valley of South Texas.

Antonio Orendain worked for Cesar Chavez in the Chicago UFW national grape and lettuce boycott office.

Farmworkers undertake some of the toughest jobs in America.

They have earned the opportunity to build their lives without the fear of being uprooted from their families and their communities.

The bipartisan Farm Workforce Modernization Act empowers the economic and physical well-being of immigrant families while providing much- needed labor security for our nation's farms.

The agricultural industry relies on the labor of 2.4 million farmworkers--about half of whom are undocumented.

This bill would protect thousands of families from deportation.

This is a big step in making our immigration system more humane and more efficient.

I know the farming and agricultural communities in the state of Texas farm and my district borders communities that farm.

What we are doing here is the right thing and attempting to reinforce the breadbasket that the United States happens to be to the world.

I have heard the clamoring of farm workers for a very long time but I have also heard the need for fairness and the improvement of conditions that they are working in with adequate compensation.

This bill regularizes people who want to be regularized and who want to contribute to helping the agricultural industry in this great nation.

I would like to thank my Judiciary Committee colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and in particular, Chairman Nadler and Subcommittee Chairwoman Lofgren, for their work in shepherding this important legislation to the floor.

I am reminded of our tenure here on the Judiciary Committee and our record of being fair and bipartisan on immigration reform for at least 2 decades.

I urge all members to join me in voting for H.R. 1603, the Farm Workforce Modernization Act of 2021.

Will the gentleman yield?

Let me say that we can respect each other's differences, and I thank the gentleman for explaining that. Amnesty is not related to people working to earn their status, and that is what this bill does, just as the DACA bill does. They earn their status.

Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for his leadership, and I thank the ranking member as well.

Madam Speaker, I stand here today to recognize the hardworking Burmese Americans who are here, who are fighting every day for their friends and their relatives in their native land.

On February 1, 2021, hours before the Burmese Parliament was to convene in a new session, Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the Burma ruling party; and President Win Myint, the duly-elected head of government, were deposed in a military coup.

How shameful.

As that coup was done, violence prevailed. And as violence prevailed, people lost their lives.

This is a worthy act of condemnation. I also support H. Res. 134, the resolution condemning the coup in Burma, and condemning the still detaining of Aung San Suu Kyi to her place of residence. She is in danger.

So I rise today to support H.R. 1112, which declares: ``It is the policy of the United States to instruct, as appropriate, representatives of the United States Government to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United

States at the United Nations to hold accountable those responsible for the military coup in Burma.''

The legislation also directs that not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this act that Congress gets a report from the Secretary of State as relates to the military coup in Burma, and provide a description of the efforts taken by the United States to help the people of Burma restore their democratic form of government.

I want to cite a constituent in my district--first of all, the people from Burma who have been generous in their help of Houstonians, their fellow Houstonians, in Hurricane Harvey, in the freeze, in COVID-19-- Mr. Mouton, who has provided resources to all of the people in the area representing the community of those from Burma. He has been generous in his support when people have been in need. That is what people from Burma here in the United States do.

So this statement that we are making is to say that we are standing with the freedom fighters. We are standing with those who believe in democracy.

And I want to salute the Parliament. The Parliament and the duly elected members of the Burmese Parliament who have taken it upon themselves to continue serving as representatives of the people through alternative methods of communicating and convening is courageous and laudable and inspires the respect of freedom-loving people everywhere.

It is our goal, as we stand on the floor of the House, for the American peoples' voices to be heard through H.R. 1112, the Protect Democracy in Burma Act of 2021, and H. Res. 134, the resolution condemning the coup in Burma, and to support the American-Burmese community.

Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary and the Member of Congress for the Eighteenth Congressional District of Texas, the home of a large and vibrant Burmese community, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1112, the ``Protect Democracy In Burma Act of 2021,'' which condemns the military coup in Burma and calls for the unconditional release of detained democratically-elected leaders and civil society members and declares it the policy of the United States to support a return to Burma's democratic transition.

Madam Speaker, on February 1, 2021, hours before Burmese Parliament was to convene in a new session Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of Burma's ruling party, and President Win Myint, the duly elected head of government, were deposed in a military coup on February 1, 2021.

As part of the military coup, the Burmese military declared martial law, suspended the civilian led government, and detained newly elected Members of Parliament in the capitol, Naypyidaw, thereby usurping the role of the democratically elected government and parliament.

The inability of newly elected Members of Parliament to begin their official mandate due to the Burmese military's actions directly threatens the democratic trajectory of Burma's Parliament, and thereby the country.

By preventing the Parliament from completing its work, the Burmese military has rendered impossible and effectively nullified the international collaborative relationships that have supported and strengthened the institution, including the Burmese parliament's partnership with HDP.

Because of the Burmese military's seizure of government through the detention of State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi, President Win Myint, and other government leaders, Burma is not represented by a democratically-elected government.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 1112 declares it to be the policy of the United States to instruct, as appropriate, representatives of the United States Government to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States at the United Nations to hold accountable those responsible for the military coup in Burma.

The legislation also directs the representatives of the United States Government to engage with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and ASEAN member states to promote a return to Burma's democratic transition and democratic values throughout Southeast Asia and support the centrality of ASEAN within the regional architecture of the Indo-Pacific.

Finally, the legislation directs that not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate a report on the military coup in Burma and a description of efforts taken by the United States to help the people of Burma restore their democratic form of government.

Madam Speaker, the will and determination of those duly elected Members of the Burmese Parliament who are taking it upon themselves to continue serving as representatives of the people through alternative methods of communicating and convening is courageous, laudable, and inspires the respect of freedom loving people everywhere.

That is why I strongly support H.R. 1112, the ``Protect Democracy in Burma Act of 2021,'' and urge my colleagues to join me in voting for its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I was in the United States Congress when the first hate crimes legislation was written. It was written after the heinous killing of James Byrd in Texas, where a Black man was dragged through the streets of Texas and decapitated.

Tomorrow, the President of the United States will go to Georgia, where eight people were killed, six of whom happen to be Asian women. Yet a captain in the Cherokee Sheriff's Department said that the perpetrator had a bad day.

Mr. Speaker, wrapped in racism, white supremacy, and hatred, the Georgia law says that if you kill women, it may be a gender hatred crime. I want a full investigation. I believe in the Constitution due process, but this is a hate crime. People are dead, Asian women are dead, and this perpetrator should be held accountable.

If you are in law enforcement, the best role that you have is as a fact finder and someone who can offer sympathy that makes sense, not that the perpetrator had a bad day and this is what he did. I am having a bad day because we still have hatred in this country.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong. support of H.R. 1085, legislation awarding three congressional gold medals to the United States Capitol Police and those who on January 6, 2021 displayed selfless and heroic service in defense of American democracy in protecting the U.S. Capitol from the violent assault of domestic terrorists.

The United States Capitol Police dates back to 1800 when the Congress moved from Philadelphia to Washington, D.C. and a lone watchman was hired to protect the Capitol Building.

In 1827, President John Quincy Adams asked that a regular Capitol Police force be established and on May 2, 1828, Congress passed an Act that expanded the police regulations of the City of Washington to include the Capitol and Capitol Square.

The United States Capitol Police expanded its force after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and again following the historic merger with the Library of Congress Police in 2009.

In addition to the more than 2,000 sworn members of the force, the United States Capitol Police Department has over 350 civilian personnel who provide operational and administrative support and its diverse workforce is comprised of employees from nearly all 50 states and the U.S. territories.

The United States Capitol Police embodies the best in American policing and serves as a model in security, urban crime prevention, dignitary protection, specialty response capabilities, and homeland security.

As ambassadors of the Congress, officers of the United States Capitol Police Department are often the first face that visitors and employees encounter, leaving a lasting impression that is reflective of the Legislative Branch and its role in America's democracy.

Officers of the United States Capitol Police Department each day proudly protect the legislative process, the symbol of the nation's democracy, the people who carry out the process, and the millions of visitors who travel here to see democracy in action.

No finer example of the selfless devotion to duty, love of country, and fidelity to their oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the officers of the United States Capitol Police Department's than their valiant, heroic, and courageous response to the January 6, 2021 assault on the Capitol Building by thousands of domestic terrorists, insurrectionists, and rioters sent there by the President of the United States to ``fight like hell'' to disrupt and derail the constitutionally required Joint Meeting of Congress to open, count, and publicly confirm the vote tally of the presidential electors and announce the persons who had been elected President and Vice- President of the United States.

District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser and the Metropolitan Police Department have a distinguished record of protecting all groups, regardless of their beliefs, who come to the nation's capital to exercise their First Amendment rights peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

At the direction of Mayor Bowser, and in advance of the scheduled demonstrations, mutual aid was requested by the Metropolitan Police Department from several area police departments to be on standby in the District, including neighboring law enforcement departments, the Metropolitan Transit Police and non-law enforcement agencies such as the District's Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency and the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department.

The sustained assault on the Capitol precipitated an equally unprecedented response, necessitating the urgent request of the United States Capitol Police for the Metropolitan Police Department to come defend the Capitol to which the Metropolitan Police Department responded immediately with several Civil Disturbance Unit Platoons and proceeded to deploy to the west front of the Capitol and arrived within minutes.

The violent mob overran protective measures at the Capitol and by 1:50 p.m., Metropolitan Police Department had declared the assembly to be a riot and immediately began working to achieve the objectives of stopping domestic terrorists from entering the Capitol building and removing those that were already inside, secure a perimeter so that the Capitol could be cleared for lawmakers to resume the Joint Meeting of Congress to demonstrate to the nation and the world the robustness and vitality of America's democracy, and making arrests of anyone violating the law.

During the height of the siege of the Capitol, approximately 850 Metropolitan Police Department members were at the Capitol, with another 250 in the area to directly support the response and aftermath.

Madam Speaker, people around the country and the world were shocked and moved by the video of a Metropolitan Police Department Officer being beaten by a crowd of insurgents, including one wielding an American flag, and of another in agony as he was crushed between a door and a riot shield but also awed by their bravery in the face of this unprovoked and vicious attack, bravery that was matched that day by countless other unheralded Metropolitan Police Department officers.

The January 6, 2021 siege of the Capitol assault resulted in one of the worst days of injuries for law enforcement in the United States since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Madam Speaker, officers of the United States Capitol Police Department, the Metropolitan Police Department of Washington, D.C., and other uniformed law enforcement officers stood their ground in defense of American democracy while being attacked by the angry mob of domestic terrorists with metal pipes, discharged chemical irritants, and other weapons.

At least 138 officers, 73 from the United States Capitol Police Department and 65 from the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, sustained injuries during the attack on the Capitol Building, several of which required hospitalization.

The injuries sustained ranged from bruises and lacerations to more serious damage such as concussions, rib fractures, burns and even a mild heart attack.

One United States Capitol Police Department officer died from injuries sustained while physically engaging with protesters and two officers involved in the response have died by suicide.

Dozens, if not hundreds, of officers whom law enforcement officials estimate will suffer in years to come with post-traumatic stress disorder and the dozens who contracted the coronavirus from the unmasked domestic terrorists and rioters who stormed the Capitol.

At least 38 Capitol Police officers have tested positive or were exposed to the coronavirus as well as nearly 200 National Guard personnel who were deployed to protect the Capitol.

Madam Speaker, the seven hours between the urgent call for help from the Capitol Police to Metropolitan Police Department and the resumption of work by both houses of Congress will be indelibly etched in the memories of every law enforcement officer who was on the scene, as it is in the minds of the Senators, Representatives, congressional and support staff, and members of the media corps who were forced to seek safety behind locked doors.

Despite being overwhelmed and outnumbered, the indomitable forces of American

democracy, symbolized by the resolve of the officers of the United States Capitol Police Department, prevailed and the seditious attack was quelled, the Capitol Building preserved, and the lives of United States Senators and Representatives protected, as well as those of congressional and support staff, and order was restored so that the Joint Meeting of Congress was resumed and completed its constitutionally required duty of counting and announcing the votes of the presidential electors, an essential step in the peaceful transfer of power that has been a hallmark of American democracy and the example to the world for more than two centuries.

Madam Speaker, the gold coin authorized to be minted by this legislation and displayed at the United States Capitol Police headquarters, to the Metropolitan Police Department of Washington, D.C., and exhibited on display by the Smithsonian Institution conveys the thanks and appreciation of a grateful nation for the selfless and heroic service exhibited by these sentinels of the republic in defense of American democracy in responding to the January 6, 2021 assault on the U.S. Capitol by domestic terrorists.

This tribute is, as President Lincoln noted at Gettysburg, ``altogether fitting and proper'' for heroes of the republic.

The action we are taking today should encourage all educational and media institutions throughout the United States to teach and celebrate the story of the heroism of the officers of the United States Capitol Police Department, the Metropolitan Police Department, and all other law enforcement officers who, out of true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, selflessly risked their lives to protect the Capitol Building and its personnel, the Congress, and the spirit and fact of democracy in America.

Madam Speaker, I urge all Americans to read, celebrate, and revere the Constitution of the United States, fidelity to which is the surest best means of forming a more perfect union, establishing justice, ensuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessing of liberty to them and their posterity.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1652, or the ``VOCA Fix Act of 2021,'' a critical piece of legislation designed to curtail and prevent future cuts to an already diminished federal victim service grants program.

This legislation must pass, because VOCA grants provide compensation to victims of crime at critical moments of desperate need.

VOCA funds could help compensate the only surviving victim of Robert Lee Haskell who, driven by vengeance, fatally shot six members of his exwife's family in Texas, including four children.

The survivor of Haskell's rampage, a girl of only fifteen, was shot in the head and only survived by playing dead.

VOCA funds could help compensate the wife and two children of a man killed in a home intrusion in Harris County, Texas, after an intruder entered the family's home, ordered the wife and children to lock themselves into a room, and then proceeded to shoot their husband and father.

VOCA funds could help compensate a woman who was abducted in Houston and forced to drive to an ATM at gunpoint, where she withdrew cash to give to her abductors.

VOCA funds could help compensate innumerable victims and survivors of federal crimes, but only if we pass this legislation.

VOCA grants have been vital in their support of traditional victim service providers across the nation, particularly for those organizations serving victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, trafficking, and drunk driving.

VOCA grants also fund victim compensation, which helps survivors pay medical bills, missed wages, and in the most severe cases, funeral costs.

However, the ``federal grants used to support victim services through VOCA have decreased significantly over the past several years.

Further drastic cuts to VOCA funding are expected, as the non- taxpayerfunded pool from which these grants originate, the Crime Victims Fund, is running dry.

The Crime Victims Fund serves as an example of true justice, because the money used to support victims comes not from taxpayer dollars but rather from the criminal fines and penalties paid by federally convicted offenders.

The Crime Victims Fund has shrunk rapidly in recent years and continues to decline, because rather than prosecuting cases, the Department of Justice increasingly settles cases through deferred prosecution and non-prosecution agreements, and the monetary penalties associated with these agreements are deposited into the Treasury rather than the Crime Victims Fund.

These agreements deny funding to victim services, which is contrary to the spirit of VOCA: monetary penalties from crimes should go to serve victims of crimes.

The crimes from which these penalties are derived are the same, whether they are prosecuted or settled, and the funding should be going to serve victims.

The VOCA Fix Act of 2021 fixes this by ensuring that monetary penalties associated with deferred and non-prosecution agreements go into the Crime Victims Fund instead of into the Treasury.

This simple fix will prevent future funding cuts that jeopardize programs' abilities to serve their communities and will help address the many growing and unmet needs of victims and survivors, including survivors of domestic violence.

This legislation not only recognizes that it is the victims of crime that bear the brunt of the drastic cuts being made, but also that we must protect those victims that have the courage to come forward and work together with the authorities to bring justice to their offenders.

Victims who cooperate with authorities often fear for their own safety and face pain at revisited trauma, and this legislation recognizes that rather than putting victims in further danger, we create for them a safe environment--both physically and emotionally.

Victims may be intimidated by law enforcement or other government agencies, but if we want victims to fully and freely cooperate with the authorities, we must ensure that victims feel protected and that there is no risk of becoming retraumatized.

We must also make sure that if victims cooperate with authorities, then measures to ensure the safety of victims will be provided in our government agencies working in tandem with victim service providers.

Tomorrow, the House will vote on H.R. 1620, which will reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994.

We are doing so because we recognize the urgency and dire need faced by the victims and survivors throughout this country during a significant moment of ongoing domestic violence caused by this pandemic and experienced by both women and men.

Although local victim services agencies are there to help, they are facing record numbers of clients as well as the economic consequences of the pandemic.

Without the VOCA Fix Act of 2021, survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault will inevitably lose access to victim support services, leaving victims and survivors without options for safety and vulnerable to further victimization.

Madam Speaker, the time is now to deliver access to the services victims and survivors so desperately need during a critical moment when the need for victim assistance has skyrocketed and programs are being forced to cut lifesaving services for victims.

Madam Speaker, we have just been engaged in presenting to the public the Violence Against Women Act. But all of it stands on the shoulders of the equal rights amendment, which has been long overdue.

What an amazing journey that this legislation has taken, and how sad it is to acknowledge that we are one of only a few nations that does not have an equal rights amendment in its constitution.

I remember going to Afghanistan and working with the women of Afghanistan to include the rights of women in their Constitution. I want to say that again: To include the rights of women in their Constitution.

So let me speak clearly to vital points of this resolution. This is not an abortion bill. However, we realize that the right to choose is embedded in the Constitution in the Ninth Amendment. But this is not that.

It is a bill that says that women have a right, as Alice Paul said so many years ago, to be able to have rights of equality under this flag, under this Constitution. Are we suggesting that that should not be?

In addition, let it be very clear that any court decision that was issued, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, that is, the Commonwealth of Virginia v. Ferriero, we can explain that case, because the Court said the only authority to extend the deadline was Congress, and here we are. Congress is now intending to extend that deadline.

Nothing in the Constitution prohibits that. It is not embedded in the amendment. And by Article V, we are able to deal with deadlines. Deadlines are a simple process of statutory authority, and that is what we are doing today.

I don't think my friends on the other side of the aisle want to leave without recognizing the fact that women make 80 cents for every $1 a man earns, and that they are treated unfairly in the workplace.

If you want equal dignity, if you want the rights of women to be promoted, vote for the ERA.

Madam Speaker, I strongly support H.J. Res. 17. H.J. Res. 17, introduced by Representative Jackie Speier with 209 co-sponsors, would take a critical step towards ensuring that the Equal Rights Amendment, or ``ERA'', becomes part of the Constitution.

The resolution provides that notwithstanding the ratification deadline of 1979 that Congress set for the ERA and later extended to 1982, the ERA ``shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution whenever ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States.''

The purpose of the ERA is simple and fundamental: It ensures that everyone is treated equally under the law, regardless of sex or gender. Almost one hundred years ago, Alice Paul, who helped lead the campaign to secure women's right to vote, proposed the first version of the ERA.

She and her fellow suffragists knew that if women were to achieve true equality, our Nation's founding document needed to be amended to reflect that core principle. Nearly a century later, it is long past time to make that dream a reality.

In 1971 and 1972, the House and Senate, respectively, passed the ERA by well more than the constitutionally-mandated two-thirds majority in each chamber.

It contained these simple words: ``Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.'' In the years that quickly followed, dozens of States ratified the ERA through their legislatures.

By the end of the 1970s, the ERA was just a few States short of full ratification. But then progress slowed, and the deadline Congress had set for ratification passed. A well-organized counter-movement scared the American people into thinking that a guarantee of equality would somehow harm women who stay at home to raise their children or would erode American families. What had started as a matter of broad consensus became another divisive wedge in the culture wars.

Today we know better. We know that in the year 2021, it is unacceptable that women still make only 80 cents for every dollar men earn. We know that when women are treated with equal dignity and respect in the workplace, in the home, by our institutions of government, and in our society at large, all of the American people stand to benefit. And we know that a simple but fundamental guarantee of equality should be welcomed rather than feared.

Thankfully, the momentum for ERA ratification has picked back up. Nevada ratified the ERA in 2017, and Illinois followed suit the next year. Then, in January 2020, Virginia made history and became the 38th State to pass a resolution ratifying the ERA. So long as these last three ratifications are valid, the ERA will become law.

Unfortunately, a federal district court ruled two weeks ago that these states were too late because the ratification deadline that Congress set had expired already in 1982.

Importantly, that court affirmed that Congress has the power to set ratifications deadlines, as Article V of the Constitution, which governs the constitutional amendment process, does not itself provide for ratification deadlines of any kind. Of course, the power to set deadlines necessarily includes the power to remove those deadlines.

By removing the ratification deadline that Congress set previously, H.J. Res. 17 ensures that the recent ratifications by Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia are counted and that the ERA becomes part of our Constitution.

We are on the verge of a breakthrough for equality in this country, despite all the obstacles in our current political and social climate. This resolution will ensure that no deadline stands in the way. Therefore, I strongly support H.J. Res. 17 and urge its passage by the House.

Madam Speaker, I include the following letters of endorsement for H.R. 1620, the Violence Against Women's Act (VAWA) into the Record.

Letters are from: The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, The National Center on Violence Against Women in the Black Community, YWCA, End Sexual Violence, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, National Congress of American Indians, LegalMomentum: The Women's Legal Defense and Education Fund, JWI, and Casa de Esperanza.

March 8, 2021.

Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee,

Hon. Brian Fitzpatrick,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Jerrold Nadler,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairwoman Jackson Lee, Representative Fitzpatrick,

and Chairman Nadler: The National Coalition Against Domestic

Violence, (NCADV) applauds you for introducing the Violence

Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2021. The Violence

Against Women Act (VAWA) is one of the three pillars of the

Federal response to domestic violence. First passed in 1994

under the leadership of then-Senator Biden, VAWA has been

reauthorized three times since then, most recently in 2013.

VAWA's authorization lapsed in 2018.

Every reauthorization included critical updates to enhance

America's response to domestic violence and other forms of

gender-based violence. These enhancements reflect the

evolution of our understanding of the dynamics of violence

and the needs of impacted communities. The Violence Against

Women Reauthorization Act of 2021 is the successor bill to

these previous reauthorizations and is a slightly updated

version of the H.R. 1585/S. 2843, the Violence Against Women

Reauthorization Act of 2019, which passed the House of

Representatives with strong bipartisan support before dying

in the Senate.

Like its predecessor, the updated 2021 bill invests in

prevention; keeps guns out of the hands of adjudicated dating

abusers and stalkers; promotes survivors' economic stability;

ends impunity for non Natives who commit gender-based

violence on Tribal lands by expanding special tribal criminal

jurisdiction beyond domestic violence; and increases

survivors' access to safe housing. The Violence Against Women

Reauthorization Act of 2021 also recognizes the disparate

impact of gender-based violence on communities of color due

to systemic racism and increases funding for culturally

specific organizations serving these communities. The

Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2021 expands

VAWA's life-saving provisions to increase access to safety

and justice for all survivors.

It is particularly critical to reauthorize and improve VAWA

as we continue to battle the COVID-19 pandemic. In a recent

survey of domestic violence programs, 84% reported that

intimate partner violence has increased in their community

during the pandemic. Fifty percent reported the use of

firearms. against intimate partners has increased, and one-

third reported intimate partner homicides have increased in

their communities. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization

Act of 2021 responds to the needs of survivors and supports

the programs that serve them.

We thank you, again, for your leadership, and we urge the

House to pass the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act

of 2021 as a matter of upmost urgency.

Sincerely,

The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1620, the ``Violence Against Women Act of 2021,'' that will reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994.

The Violence Against Women Act is landmark legislation first enacted in 1994 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton which has-- through policy reforms, interstate cooperation and grant allocation-- been pivotal in providing a national response to protecting half of the population.

Equally important, it has ushered in a seismic transformation on how society perceives violence against women.

VAWA was enacted in response to the prevalence of domestic and sexual violence, and the significant impact of such violence on the lives of women.

I remember those days well because I was serving on the board of the Houston Area Women's Center (HAWC), at that time the sole shelter in the Houston area offering sanctuary to victims and women at risk of domestic violence.

Despite its import, VAWA has been expired since September 30, 2018, and we as a body are now called upon by survivors to reauthorize it.

VAWA has a proven success record--in the quarter-century since it passed, domestic violence has decreased by approximately two-thirds, and intimate partner homicides decreased by approximately one-third.

However, despite these gains, domestic violence and sexual assault cases I have rapidly increased during this COVID-19 crisis, where perpetrators are spending significant amount of time at home with their victims.

This landmark, transformative legislation is needed now more than ever.

Police departments around the country have reported increases in domestic violence: 18 percent increase in San Antonio; 22 percent increase in Portland, Oregon; 10 percent increase in New York City.

A recent meta-analysis of 18 different studies concerning domestic violence during the pandemic found that domestic violence cases have increased an average of over 8 percent across the country.

In the United States, an estimated 10 million people experience domestic violence every year, and more than 15 million children are exposed to this violence annually.

According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, about 20 people per minute are physically abused by an intimate partner.

About 1 in 4 women and 1 in 9 men experience severe intimate partner physical violence, sexual violence, and/or partner stalking with injury.

Today, in Texas, 35.10 percent of women and 34.5 percent of men are subjected to domestic violence.

We cannot forget the victims of domestic violence like Yashica Fontenot, who was murdered in Harris County, Texas, by her husband just one day after Christmas last year while she was trying to escape her relationship.

Nor can we forget Debra Seidenfaden, who was murdered by her husband in Houston after an argument.

Nor can we forget the Houston woman who was tied up and sexually assaulted in her own home just last week; or the Houston woman who was shot multiple times by her husband at a medical office this month; or the Houston mother and grandmother who was murdered by her son-in law while she attempted to protect her daughter and grandchildren.

There are countless stories like this throughout this country, which is why it is imperative to reauthorize VAWA by passing H.R. 1620.

The stories of these women remind us of the urgency to protect survivors now, before it is too late, because many of these deaths are preventable.

Since VAWA's codification in 1994, more victims report episodes of domestic violence to the police and the rate of non-fatal intimate partner violence against women has decreased by almost two-thirds.

VAWA has also led to a significant increase in the reporting of sexual assault.

From 1994 to 2015, the rate of women murdered by men in single victim/single offender incidents dropped 29 percent.

In the first 15 years of VAWA's validity, rates of serious intimate partner violence declined by 72 percent for women and 64 percent for men.

Research suggests that referring a victim to a domestic violence or sexual assault advocate has been linked to an increased willingness to file a police report--survivors with an advocate filed a report with law enforcement 59 percent of the time, versus 41 percent for individuals not referred to a victim advocate.

Prior to VAWA, law enforcement lacked the resources and tools to respond effectively to domestic violence and sexual assault, and this progress cannot be allowed to stop.

Congress must continue sending the clear message that violence against women is unacceptable.

VAWA has been reauthorized three times--in 2000, 2005, and 2013--with strong bipartisan approval and overwhelming support from Congress, states, and local communities.

Each reauthorization of VAWA has improved protections for women and men, while helping to change the culture and reduce the tolerance for these crimes.

H.R. 1620 continues that tradition, and therefore, is intended to make modifications, as Congress has done in the past to all previous reauthorizations of VAWA.

H.R. 1620 is a bipartisan bill, reflecting a reasonable and compromise approach to reauthorize grant programs under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

These moderate enhancements will address the many growing and unmet needs of victims and survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

H.R. 1620 addresses the needs of sex trafficking victims while creating a demonstration program on trauma-informed training for law enforcement.

H.R. 1620 increases access to grant programs for culturally specific organizations and ensure culturally specific organizations are included in the development and implementation of service, education, training, and other grants.

H.R. 1620 adds a purpose area to assist communities in developing alternatives to housing ordinances that punish survivors for seeking law enforcement intervention.

H.R. 1620 expands protections for vulnerable populations such as youth, survivors without shelter, Native American women, and LGBTQ persons.

H.R. 1620 ensures Deaf people are included in grants relating to people with disabilities.

VAWA is central to our nation's effort to fight the epidemic of domestic, sexual, and

dating violence and stalking, and we as a body are now called upon by survivors to reauthorize it.

It is important to note that H.R. 1620 did not happen on its own.

It was the product of a collaborative effort of stakeholders, including victim advocates.

It was the product of those willing to share their stories of the abuse suffered at the hands of those who were entrusted to love, but instead harmed.

The courage, strength, and resilience displayed by survivors has reminded all that we must continue to foster an environment for victims of violence to come forward and expose episodes of violence against women.

Having listened to concerned stakeholders from all pockets of the country, we have put pen to paper and produced a bill that is endorsed by the bipartisan National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence (NTF), which is a national collaboration comprising a large and diverse group of 35 national, tribal, state, territorial, and local organizations, advocates, and individuals that focus on the development, passage and implementation of effective public policy to address domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

This bill recognizes the urgency and dire need faced by the victims and survivors throughout this country during a significant moment of ongoing domestic violence caused by this pandemic and experienced by both women and men.

The love for a spouse, the comfort of a mother and the best wishes for a sister know no political allegiance.

I am determined to work with my colleagues and others to complete the mission I accepted in the 115th Congress when the House passed the VAWA legislation I authored, H.R. 1585, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2018, all the way this time through passage by the Senate and to presentment for signature to President Biden, a strong supporter of the bill and the original creator of VAWA.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership.

Madam Speaker, I stand today in a moment of history where we cannot go back. Have we heard that before? Women cannot go back. Women cannot continue in an intimidated fashion to tragically be subjected to men who violently attack them.

The LGBT community cannot go back and be subjected to those who would be violent against them.

Native American women cannot go back. They cannot go back. They cannot go back to pueblos and reservations and not have any protection for those who violate those sacred places, rape them, and then rush to jurisdictions outside and think they are protected.

Immigrant women cannot go back.

That is what this legislation is about. It is a product borne of meticulous and thoughtful research and countless engagement with those on the ground working ultimately and intimately on these very important issues daily.

We began this long journey and hard-fought battle under the leadership of Republicans--I wrote the bill in 2018--who at the time refused to engage in putting forward their own version of VAWA when it expired in 2018 while they held the majority. The President, the Senate, the House, they did nothing. The Judiciary Committee would not even take the bill up, and it was supported by over 200 groups.

But we continue to push forward on behalf of all victims and survivors to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, first led by the President of the United States, then-Senator Joe Biden.

As we all know, VAWA is a landmark piece of legislation first enacted in 1994. At that time, the President was Bill Clinton. This legislation was enacted in response to the prevalence of domestic and sexual violence and the significant impact of such violence on the lives of women.

Statistics have revealed that this form of violence impacts us all. In the United States, an estimated 10 million people experience domestic violence every year. More than 15 million children are exposed to violence annually. According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, about 20 people per minute are physically abused by an intimate partner. About one in four women and one in nine men experience severe intimate partner physical violence, sexual violence, and a partner stalking injury.

Today, in Texas, 35 percent of women and 34 percent of men are subjected to domestic violence. When discussing VAWA, we cannot forget the victims of domestic violence like Ms. Fontenot, who was murdered in Harris County by her husband just 1 day after Christmas last year while she was trying to escape her relationship, and he shot at her son.

Nor can we forget Debora Seidenfaden, who was murdered by her husband in Houston after an argument.

There are countless stories like this throughout the country. That is why it is imperative that we reauthorize this bill. Enough is enough. We must pass H.R. 1620 now.

Madam Speaker, I thank all the women, including Representative Slaughter, who started this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1620, the ``Violence Against Women Act of 2021.''

H.R. 1620 is a product born of meticulous and thoughtful research and countless engagement with those on the ground, working intimately on these very important issues daily.

We began this long journey, and hard-fought battle under the leadership of Republicans, who at the time refused to engage or put forward their own version of VAWA when it expired in 2018 while they held the majority.

But we continued to push forward on behalf of all victims and survivors to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994.

As we all know, VAWA is a landmark piece of legislation first enacted in 1994 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.

This legislation was enacted in response to the prevalence of domestic and sexual violence, and the significant impact of such violence on the lives of women.

Statistics have revealed that these form of violence impact us all.

In the United States, an estimated 10 million people experience domestic violence every year, and more than 15 million children are exposed to this violence annually. According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, about 20 people per minute are physically abused by an intimate partner. About 1 in 4 women and 1 in 9 men experience severe intimate partner physical violence, sexual violence, and/ or partner stalking with injury.

Today, in Texas, 35.10 percent of women and 34.5 percent of men are subjected to domestic violence.

When discussing VAWA, we cannot forget the victims of domestic violence like Yashica Fontenot, who was murdered in Harris County, Texas by her husband just one day after Christmas last year while she was trying to escape her relationship.

Nor can we forget Debra Seidenfaden, who was murdered by her husband in Houston after an argument.

There are countless stories like this throughout this country.

That is why it is imperative to reauthorize this law by passing H.R. 1620 now. Because enough is enough.

Congress has reauthorized VAWA three times--in 2000, 2005, and 2013-- with strong bipartisan approval and overwhelming support from Congress, States, and local communities.

During each reauthorization, VAWA would make various meaningful improvements to the Act to meet the varied and changing needs of survivors.

H.R. 1620 continues that tradition, and therefore, is intended to make modifications, as Congress has done in the past to all previous reauthorizations of VAWA.

H.R. 1620 is a bipartisan bill, reflecting a reasonable and compromise approach to reauthorize grant programs under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

These moderate enhancements will address the many growing and unmet needs of victims and survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

H.R. 1620 addresses the needs of sex trafficking victims while creating a demonstration program on trauma-informed training for law enforcement.

It increases access to grant programs for culturally specific organizations and ensure culturally specific organizations are included in the development and implementation of service, education, training, and other grants.

It adds a purpose area to assist communities in developing alternatives to housing ordinances that punish survivors for seeking law enforcement intervention.

H.R. 1620 expands protections for vulnerable populations such as youth, survivors without shelter, Native American women, and LGBTQ persons.

It ensures Deaf people are included in grants relating to people with disabilities.

H.R. 1620 is supported by the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, a coalition of more than 200 domestic violence groups.

VAWA expired since September 30, 2018, and we as a body are called upon by survivors to reauthorize it now.

As a tribute to our dearly departed Rep. Slaughter, who started this journey with then, Senator Biden in 1994, I respectfully urge my colleagues to join me, and the Chairman of Judiciary, along with our Republican partners--Mr. Fitzpatrick and Mr. McCaul in passing H.R. 1620, a much needed thoughtful and bipartisan response to the needs of all victims and survivors.

Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, this has been a long journey, and I think it is important to take note of the many women who have helped us and to do this in the name of so many women who have lost their lives.

I take this moment on the floor to support the en bloc amendment but, as well, to encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle of how somber and serious a moment this is that we do not take lightly to the floor because so many of us in our own congressional districts have seen the scourge of domestic violence.

We have seen the rise in domestic violence in a meteoric manner under COVID-19. It is rabid and rampant in all our cities. Our law enforcement officers have told us it is the most dangerous call that they can possibly make.

I am particularly concerned about sex trafficking victims, and I am very glad the manager's amendment has language in there that indicates that sex trafficking victims experience sexual violence and assault, and that the Federal recognition of their recovery is important.

We look at all aspects of this important issue in our country. The en bloc amendment represents Members' concerns for improving the treatment of women and men, the LGBTQ community, Native Americans, and immigrant women who are culturally diverse.

Madam Speaker, to the 200-plus organizations of the coalition, I want to say thank you to you for advocating with us. Writing this bill in 2018 and never giving up has been the challenge that I have taken up.

I am very grateful to the many women who have joined me. Even though it was not passed when there was a Republican President, Republican Senate, and Republican House, and then it was blocked by the Republican Senate, we have now come with a fully robust and comprehensive bill that responds to the concerns of those who cannot help themselves.

Housing and other aspects of the provisions that are in this bill pointedly speak to needs that have been brought to our attention by victims. This bill deals with victims, Madam Speaker, so when you are fleeing your home because your name is not on the lease or the mortgage, we now have provided an expedited process for you to get housing with your children.

We intervene and have cultural sensitivity training for men and boys. We have a cultural sensitivity office inside the office of domestic violence so that women of different cultural backgrounds can be responded to, along with focusing on culturally sensitive advocacy groups to help those women.

Yes, we do prevent a convicted person who has perpetrated a stalking or sexual assault from getting a gun, but this bill is controlled by due process in the Constitution.

Let's pass this bill. Women are waiting. They can't wait any longer. Men are waiting. Many communities are waiting. We can't wait any longer, and we must pass this bill to be signed by the President of the United States.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

The gentlewoman is right, her amendment is simple. It does nothing. It provides no increased funding. It does not provide for women who are desperate--and men and our indigenous community--at all.

Among other things, this amendment would merely extend for 1 year, which is disastrous, rather than reauthorize for 5 years, essentially gutting the bill's most critical grant programs. Some of the programs left out of this so-called extension are as follows:

Outreach in services to underserved populations;

The rape prevention and education grant, $110 million, a 50 percent increase from the existing bill;

Transitional housing assistance grants for VAWA victims. Women fleeing, men fleeing, victims fleeing, children fleeing without having housing, we expedite that;

Authorizing funding for the Tribal Access Program and;

Child abuse training programs for judicial personnel and practitioners.

By leaving these programs out, this amendment fails to recognize the range of needs that victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking violence face. It simply fails the most desperate and needy people.

This amendment also omits all of the improvements to VAWA that are contained in the underlying bill, H.R. 1620, which is a product of years of consultation with a range of stakeholders, and the failed efforts of Republicans year after year not to reauthorize. This is built on hard work, many of whom worked directly in the field with survivors and have a deep knowledge of VAWA's programs.

Relying in part on their expertise, this legislation contains dozens of important improvements to the range of programs contained in VAWA to make it an even more effective tool in addressing domestic violence.

But this amendment dismisses the needs of the victims and survivors whose voices were our guide in developing H.R. 1620. It is shameful.

For example, the underlying legislation enhances and expands victims' services. It improves the criminal justice response to gender-based violence, and it expands legal assistance. It makes additional investments in prevention. It improves access to housing for victims and survivors.

It ends impunity for non-Native perpetrators of sexual assault, which has gone on for years. Go to the reservation of Pueblo, assault a Native American woman, and have no accountability.

It supports communities of color and LGBTQ individuals. It protects victims of dating violence and firearm homicide. It improves the healthcare system's response to domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking.

But the Stefanik amendment would eliminate all of these vital programs. In essence, it would leave women and victims helpless and without hope.

Do not be fooled. This amendment does not demonstrate support for VAWA. It demonstrates a lack of commitment to ensuring that the programs contained within VAWA can best serve and protect the survivors and victims who rely on them.

Since VAWA's enactment in 1994, Congress has repeatedly enhanced the prior versions of the law, including in reauthorizations in 2000, 2005, and 2013. Since the last reauthorization, there has been an uptick in demand for the essential services under VAWA due to the Me Too movement and women coming forward out of the shadows.

There has also been an uptick in victims' and survivors' and children's needs for services due to the financial strain imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. That is why H.R. 1620 both reauthorizes and improves the law. This amendment would effectively do neither.

Victims and survivors deserve better than this half measure, and they would look to the women of this Congress to be sensitive to their plight.

Domestic violence providers and survivors all have spoken loud and clear with hundreds of organizations supporting and endorsing H.R. 1620. They have asked for the underlying bill, not a bait-and-switch that is fatally flawed and makes no meaningful improvements to the bill or to the law.

Finally, this amendment will not help the legislation move in the Senate. We have spoken with the leaders in the Senate on both sides of the aisle on this issue and they agree that we must

improve the Violence Against Women Act. It is greatly needed in order to stop the scourge of domestic violence, which is surging in our Nation, and not freeze it, as the Stefanik amendment would do.

Therefore, I urge opposition to this amendment, which would undermine H.R. 1620 and years of work, years of building on this with so many collaborators. I thank our chairman, the many women who helped me with writing this legislation, and those who offered substantial amendments to improve it, even those in the last Congress.

We don't want to freeze that behavior that will be positive. This amendment would seriously damage the Violence Against Women Act.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

Madam Speaker, among other things, this amendment would merely extend for one year, rather than reauthorize for five years, some of the programs under the Violence Against Women Act, essentially gutting the bill's most critical grant programs. Some of the programs left out of this so-called extension are:

Outreach and services to underserved populations;

The rape prevention and education grant;

Transitional housing assistance grants for VAWA victims; Authorizing funding for the Tribal Access Program; and

Child abuse training programs for judicial personnel and practitioners.

By leaving these programs out, this amendment fails to recognize the range of needs that victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking face.

This amendment also omits all of the improvements to VAWA that are contained in the underlying bill. H.R. 1620 is the product of years of consultation with a range of stakeholders, many of whom work directly in the field with survivors and have a deep knowledge of VAWA's programs.

Relying in part on their expertise, this legislation contains dozens of important improvements to the range of programs contained in VAWA to make it an even more effective tool in addressing domestic violence. But this amendment dismisses the needs of the victims and survivors whose voices were our guide in developing H.R. 1620.

For example, the underlying legislation enhances and expands victims' services; it improves the criminal justice response to gender-based violence and expands legal assistance; it makes additional investments in prevention; it improves access to housing for victims and survivors; and it ends impunity for non-Native perpetrators of sexual assault.

It supports communities of color and LGBTQ individuals; it protects victims of dating violence from firearm homicide; and it improves the healthcare system's response to domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking.

But the Stefanik Amendment would eliminate all of these vital provisions. Do not be fooled--this amendment does not demonstrate support for VAWA, it demonstrates a lack of commitment to ensuring that the programs contained within VAWA can best serve and protect the survivors and victims who rely on them.

Since VAWA's enactment in 1994, Congress has repeatedly enhanced the prior versions of the law, including in reauthorizations in 2000, 2005, and 2013. Since the last reauthorization, there has been an uptick in demand for the essential services under VAWA due to the ``MeToo'' movement and women coming forward out of the shadows. There has also been an uptick in victims' and survivors' needs for services due to the financial strain imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic.

That is why H.R. 1620 both reauthorizes and improves the law. This amendment would effectively do neither. Victims and survivors deserve better than what this half-measure provides.

Domestic violence providers and survivors all have spoken loud and clear with hundreds of organizations endorsing H.R. 1620. They have asked for the underlying bill, not a bait and switch that is fatally flawed and makes no meaningful improvements to the bill or to the law.

Finally, this amendment will not help the legislation move in the Senate. We have spoken with leaders in the Senate on this issue on both sides of the aisle, and they agree that we must improve the Violence Against Women Act, not freeze it as the Stefanik amendment would do.

Therefore, I urge opposition to this amendment, which would undermine H.R. 1620 and would seriously damage the Violence Against Women Act.

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

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time remaining?

Madam Speaker, let me acknowledge the leadership of the gentlewoman who has offered this amendment and the opportunities that we have had to work together. I look forward to working with her going forward.

I have also worked with, over the years--really starting from the time that I stood alongside of then-Senator Joe Biden as this bill was presented for reauthorization. It went all the way through my time on the Judiciary Committee and the writing of this bill in 2018, when, unfortunately, there was no effort by the Judiciary Committee to put this bill forward for a hearing, there was no effort by the Senate Republicans, and no effort by the Republican President in 2018 to do anything about the scourge of violence against women and men and many groups.

I have worked with the 200-plus organizations that are involved in the coalition that stand against sexual assault and rape and stalking and domestic violence. They are in many different categories and sizes, but they are vital in their service.

I am concerned that this amendment would undermine those smaller organizations, who are unique in their service that they provide. They are in places where large organizations may not be. They are working with indigenous populations, Native Americans, immigrant women, LGBTQ. They are saving lives.

People of color, Hispanic, African American, we have a very sizeable portion of them and in this legislation, we are reaching out to people who cannot respond and help themselves; housing provisions, in case you have to flee, expediting your ability to get housing.

Then I am as concerned about sex trafficking as my good friend is. I have worked on this legislation. As a former member of the Houston Area Women's Center, I am also well aware of the crisis as it relates to the need for this bill. But in the manager's amendment, we do have language that says that we should have a placeholder for sex trafficking victims who experience sexual violence and assault; that the Federal recognition of their recovery is important.

Throughout this bill, there are provisions that will help individuals who are sex-trafficked. We have that in the bill in relationship to the particular actions that are generated if you are sexually assaulted while you are sex-trafficked.

So we know that this bill is sensitive. There is more that can be done. We look forward to a freestanding bill that deals in specifics, as we have done in the past.

I held the first hearing in my congressional district on human trafficking. I have worked with advocates and continue to work with them, and so I take issue that this bill is not sensitive to sex- trafficked individuals, and I look forward to working with the gentlewoman as we look forward to expanded resources and expanded response to those who have been sex-trafficked and human-trafficked, because that scourge continues.

This legislation responds to those like that woman in my district who lost her life in the days after Christmas and had her son shot at by her husband. We pay tribute to her. I ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate and commemorate this historic month, Women's History Month, and to celebrate the passing in the House of the equal rights amendment, as well as VAWA, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, H.R. 1620.

How grateful I am that this bill, H.R. 1620, addresses the need of sex trafficking victims while creating a demonstration program on trauma-informed training for law enforcement. It increases access to grant programs for culturally specific organizations and ensures culturally specific organizations are included in the development of programs.

It is supported by the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, a coalition of over 200 groups.

VAWA expired on September 30, 2018. We, as a body, are called upon by survivors to do our job. I am delighted to celebrate Ann Kuster, Gwen Moore, Jackie Speier, Brenda Lawrence, Lois Frankel, Debbie Dingell, and Karen Bass, and the name of Sojourner Truth, the abolitionist suffragist, and Ivalita Jackson, my mother, a modern-day abolitionist and suffragist. They know that to get the job done, we must get the job done.

This bill is on to the other body, and now it is to be signed by the President of the United States. It is catapulted in Women's History Month. We celebrate ERA and the Violence Against Women Act.

Madam Speaker, across America, we can hear the cries of those who have been victims of crime. It is not in any way distinguished by communities, race, age, or sex. It prevails in our society.

I am reminded of the tragedy of two brothers on a crime spree killing a man and kidnapping a woman. Those are victims of crimes. Their families are victims of crimes.

I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that we stand collectively, as Members of Congress, recognizing that VOCA is crucial to responding to restorative justice for victims.

The Federal grants used to support victim services through VOCA have decreased significantly over the past several years. Further drastic cuts to VOCA funding are expected as the nontaxpayer-funded pool from which these grants originated, the Crime Victims Fund, is running dry.

I am delighted to be an original cosponsor with Chairman Nadler, Mr. Fitzpatrick, and Ms. Scanlon, and to have worked with Congresswoman Wagner over the years on this very important legislation.

Further drastic cuts to VOCA are expected as the nontaxpayer-funded pool from which these grants originate, the Crime Victims Fund, is running dry. The Crime Victims Fund serves as an example of true justice because the money used to support victims comes, not from taxpayer dollars but, rather, from the criminal fines and penalties paid by federally convicted offenders.

The Crime Victims Fund has shrunk rapidly in recent years and continues to decline because, rather than prosecuting cases, the Department of Justice increasingly settles cases through deferred prosecution and nonprosecution agreements, and the monetary penalties associated with these agreements are deposited in the Treasury rather than the Crime Victims Fund.

We don't want to pit one form of reform against one great need. These agreements may diminish the ability of VOCA to be funded because of the lack of dollars going into the fund. The crimes for which these penalties are derived are the same whether they are prosecuted or settled, and the funding should be given to serve victims.

The VOCA Fix Act of 2021 fixes this by ensuring that monetary penalties associated with deferred and nonprosecution agreements go into the Crime Victims Fund instead of into the Treasury. It is common sense. Victims are outcrying their need for relief.

This simple fix will prevent future funding cuts that jeopardize programs' abilities to serve their communities and will help address the many growing and unmet needs of victims and survivors, including survivors of domestic violence.

We will be on the floor tomorrow with the opportunity to vote on the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. There are countless examples in domestic violence, stalking, sexual assault, and sex trafficking that show that victims are in need. Victims are elders, victims are young, victims are families, and victims are mothers and fathers.

We are doing so because we recognize the urgency and dire need faced by victims and survivors throughout this country during a pinnacle moment caused by the pandemic.

The numbers of domestic violence have gone up in cities like Houston and San Antonio and in States like Oregon and New York. We should recognize that cooperation on this legislation, in terms of improving the funding, is absolutely crucial.

Without the VOCA fix of 2021, survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault will inevitably lose access to victim support services. It is leaving victims and survivors without options for safety and valuable opportunities to help them in their victimization if we don't fund this and change this process.

The VOCA fix will rebuild lives, and it will save the lives of children who have been impacted by violence against their family members.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1652, or the ``VOCA Fix Act of 2021,'' a critical piece of legislation designed to curtail and prevent future cuts to an already diminished federal victim service grants program.

This legislation must pass, because VOCA grants provides compensation to victims of crime at critical moments of desperate need.

VOCA funds could help compensate the only surviving victim of Robert Lee Haskell who, driven by vengeance, fatally shot six members of his ex-wife's family in Texas, including four children.

The survivor of Haskell's rampage, a girl of only fifteen, was shot in the head and only survived by playing dead.

VOCA funds could help compensate the wife and two children of a man killed in a home intrusion in Harris County, Texas, after an intruder entered the family's home, ordered the wife and children to lock themselves into a room, and then proceeded to shoot their husband and father.

VOCA funds could help compensate a woman who was abducted in Houston and forced to drive to an ATM at gunpoint, where she withdrew cash to give to her abductors.

VOCA funds could help compensate innumerable victims and survivors of federal crimes, but only if we pass this legislation.

VOCA grants have been vital in their support of traditional victim service providers across the nation, particularly for those organizations serving victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, trafficking, and drunk driving.

VOCA grants also fund victim compensation, which helps survivors pay medical bills, missed wages, and in the most severe cases, funeral costs.

However, the federal grants used to support victim services through VOCA have decreased significantly over the past several years.

Further drastic cuts to VOCA funding are expected, as the non- taxpayer-funded pool from which these grants originate, the Crime Victims Fund, is running dry.

The Crime Victims Fund serves as an example of true justice, because the money used to support victims comes not from taxpayer dollars but rather from the criminal fines and penalties paid by federally convicted offenders.

The Crime Victims Fund has shrunk rapidly in recent years and continues to decline, because rather than prosecuting cases, the Department of Justice increasingly settles cases through deferred prosecution and non-prosecution agreements, and the monetary penalties associated with these agreements are deposited into the Treasury rather than the Crime Victims Fund.

These agreements deny funding to victim services, which is contrary to the spirit of VOCA: monetary penalties from crimes should go to serve victims of crimes.

The crimes from which these penalties are derived are the same, whether they are prosecuted or settled, and the funding should be going to serve victims.

The VOCA Fix Act of 2021 fixes this by ensuring that monetary penalties associated with deferred and non-prosecution agreements go into the Crime Victims Fund instead of into the Treasury.

This simple fix will prevent future funding cuts that jeopardize programs' abilities to serve their communities and will help address the many growing and unmet needs of victims and survivors, including survivors of domestic violence.

Victim Cooperation

This legislation not only recognizes that it is the victims of crime that bear the brunt of the drastic cuts being made, but also that we must protect those victims that have the courage to come forward and work together with the authorities to bring justice to their offenders.

Victims who cooperate with authorities often fear for their own safety and face pain at revisited trauma, and this legislation recognizes that rather than putting victims in further danger, we create for them a safe environment--both physically and emotionally.

Victims may be intimidated by law enforcement or other government agencies, but if we want victims to fully and freely cooperate with the authorities, we must ensure that victims feel protected and that there is no risk of becoming retraumatized.

We must also make sure that if victims cooperate with authorities, then measures to ensure the safety of victims will be provided in our government agencies working in tandem with victim service providers.

Tomorrow, the House will vote on H.R. 1620, which will reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VA WA) of 1994.

We are doing so because we recognize the urgency and dire need faced by the victims and survivors throughout this country during a significant moment of ongoing domestic violence caused by this pandemic and experienced by both women and men.

Although local victim services agencies are there to help, they are facing record numbers of clients as well as the economic consequences of the pandemic.

Without the VOCA Fix Act of 2021, survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault will inevitably lose access to victim support

services, leaving victims and survivors without options for safety and vulnerable to further victimization.

Madam Speaker, the time is now to deliver access to the services victims and survivors so desperately need during a critical moment when the need for victim assistance has skyrocketed, and programs are being forced to cut lifesaving services for victims.

Yes, it will be the fair assessment of justice. That is what we are here to do; fair operatives of justice. So I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and to join us tomorrow to support the Violence Against Women Act, to recognize that it is our job to promote justice.

Madam Speaker, I thank the manager of the bill for her leadership and the rule.

Let me, first of all, rise in support of H.R. 6 because there are millions of young people waiting for this relief in the DACA promise.

The American Dream and Promise Act is long overdue. These are nurses and doctors, these are hardworking young people, these are college students who are ready to serve America.

Let me also rise in support of the Farm Workforce Modernization Act for the many, many farmers across America who are supporting that and needing that.

And I don't know who would be against making sure that there are no Medicare cuts as we proceed to give a lifeline to the American people through the American Rescue Act. I stand solidly behind that bill.

But let me spend most of my time, Madam Speaker, on the question of the Violence Against Women Act, H.R. 1620, and H.J. Res. 17.

First of all, there is no divisiveness, and I really stand openly against that interpretation. Is there divisiveness on helping rape victims across America who, as President Biden has said, live

in States that are not blue States or red States, but they live with the scourge of domestic violence, one of the most dangerous calls that police officers make?

In 2018, we could not get the Violence Against Women Act, which I wrote, to the floor because our Republican friends would not proceed. At that time there was a Republican President, a Republican House, and a Republican Senate. Nothing happened, and women suffered.

My women's center right now is teeming with women who are impacted by domestic violence during this pandemic. They are crying out for this legislation, and they don't see divisiveness.

What they do see is enhanced legal assistance.

What they do see is $110 million for rape prevention.

What they do see is intervention, with training for men and boys.

They see a space that provides training and refuge for culturally distinct women who are victimized who can go to a quiet, calm place and deal with culturally sensitive counselors and others.

What they see is cooperation between the victim and law enforcement by providing and making sure that they have the kinds of resources and legal representation that is necessary. No one goes without legal representation, whether they are immigrant or Native American.

They see an enhanced response to the victimization of Native American women who, in fact, there are those who victimize them on their particular reservation or pueblo and then run off outside of that, and they are not prosecuted. We changed that.

They see the closing of the boyfriend loophole.

They see the taking away of guns from stalkers.

Yes, this is a lifeline. The Violence Against Women Act, constitutionally grounded, due-process protected for those who may be accused, but it is legislation that women have been waiting for.

This bill expired in 2018. We wrote it in 2018, we built on it in the last Congress, and the amendments that were both Republican and Democrat are still in this bill because we believe in bipartisanship, and it is a bipartisan bill with Members from the Republican Conference, who are in this bill in terms of cosponsors.

As it relates to H.J. Res. 17, let me say that Congress has the authority to extend the deadline for ratification of the ERA.

The ERA says that women do not have to live in discomfort and live under equality and live in inequality. They live in a Nation of equality, and they live in inequality in housing, in income, in access to credit, in employment, in many ways. Why are we continuing this in the 21st century?

So what does H.J. Res. 17 do? It extends the deadline for the compliance with the equal rights amendment for the States to be able to reach the 38 margin.

It extends that time beyond the time that was last extended. When we extended that time, we extended it by majority vote in the United States Congress.

A decision came out just recently about the fact that the deadline had expired, but what it did say is that the deadline was created by Congress and that Congress obviously has that authority.

When we researched this in 1978 in the Judiciary Committee, there was no requirement that that extension of the deadline constitutionally require a two-thirds supermajority vote. Simple majority. Are you going to suggest that women now should be denied the ERA when a number of States have already sanctioned this? There are some States that have rescinded, but that will be the jurisdiction of the United States Congress when appropriate.

I ask my colleagues to support VAWA, H.R. 1620, and H.J. Res. 17, removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment. It is time for VAWA. It is time for the ERA.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pose a question to my good friend, the Senator from Wisconsin.

It amazes me that in the conspicuous and confirmed insurrection of January 6, when there were persons who were literally attacking and beating law enforcement officers in plain view; seeking to kill the Vice President, the Speaker, and Members of Congress; and throwing off racial epithets, that Senator from Wisconsin seemed to be confused.

He was not afraid of the insurrectionists, who were beating police officers, but he would be afraid of young people of Black Lives Matter, who were fighting for social justice, and allegedly those who were Antifa, which is really an ideology.

It strikes me quite amazing that this individual would not understand that that is racist. That is racism.

I would hope that if a Senator takes an oath to serve the people of the United States of America and his own State that is very diverse that he would correct that kind of behavior and that he would, in fact, not be someone who would offer to say that Black Lives Matter is worthy of being frightened of.

No, they are not. They are fighting for social justice. They are fighting for what is right. I think the gentleman needs to get corrected in what he is thinking.

Mr. Speaker, this morning I make a personal plea to my fellow Texans.

I recognize that there has been an overload of tiredness and desire to go back to work and maybe a desire to party.

Unfortunately, with bad advice and political emphasis, the mask order will be lifted today on March 10 in our State.

Our State is being plagued by the United Kingdom variant. We are still on the hot list for the number of deaths. We have not reached a certain number in terms of lowering the infection rate, and we haven't reached any kind of level in terms of vaccination.

Removing the restrictions and having remove-mask parties is going to be a disaster.

I make this plea: Wear your mask, socially distance. Restaurants and other businesses be responsible.

We are on the way with a rescue, but I beg of my fellow Texans, let us not go backwards to create more deaths, to create more hospitalizations, more loved ones that we will not have at the dinner table.

This is not a time to go backwards. This is a time to go forward. Wear your mask. Let's be responsible.

I ask my constituents on Washington Avenue: Do not have a remove-mask party tonight because you will be walking into a destiny of death.

Mr. Speaker, the January 6 insurrectionists did not win. The American Government, the people of the United States, won with a Democratic government that has come to the rescue with the American Rescue Plan.

The long lines will stop. $20 billion for vaccines. Cash-strapped Americans will get $1,400 and extended unemployment. We will recognize that our children will get back to school with $130 billion. They will be able to stay in school. They will be able to regain lost learning. They will be safely in school.

And, yes, a working family, who my friends do not know, a single- parent working full time and making minimum wage of $15,000 will get $9,525, with children under 6, and a child tax credit of $3,600.

Houston will get $650 million; Harris County, $914 million.

This is a rescue. The insurrectionists did not win, but democracy did. The Democrats are on the way to give you help.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary, on Homeland Security, on the Budget, and as the Member of Congress for a congressional district that has experienced the worst of COVID-19 as a public health emergency and economic catastrophe, I rise in strong support of the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1319, the ``American Rescue Plan Act of 2021,'' which provides $1.9 trillion to take immediate and decisive action to crush the virus and vaccinate our people, build the economy back better, reopen schools, and provide needed support and assistance to state and local governments that have been asked to do too much with too little for far too long.

To be clear, I would have preferred the version of the American Rescue Plan passed on February 26, 2021 by the House, without a single Republican vote, but the amended version of the legislation is infinitely better than the feeble and disinterested efforts, and callous disregard of the previous Administration to this deadly pandemic.

Mr Speaker, I support the legislation before us because it will put money directly in the pockets of hard-pressed and weary Americans, vaccination shots in their arms, and help put them back to work and their children back in school.

The key differences between the bills passed by the House and Senate are:

1. The Senate-passed bill does not include the $15 an hour minimum wage provisions that were included in the bill passed by the House.

2. The Senate-passed bill reduces to $80,000 the phase-out range for qualification of an individual to receive direct payments under the legislation.

3. The Senate-passed bill extends the Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC) only through September 6, but it retains the weekly benefit at the current $300 per week, and it also exempts up to $10,200 in unemployment benefits received in 2020 from federal income taxes for households making less than $150,000.

Like the House bill, the Senate-passed bill finishes the job on the President's promise to provide $2,000 per person in direct assistance to households across America with checks of $1,400 per person, following the $600 down payment enacted in December.

The bill will also provide direct housing assistance and nutrition assistance for 40 million Americans, expand access to safe and reliable child care and affordable health care, extend unemployment insurance so that 18 million American workers can pay their bills and support 27 million children with an expanded Child Tax Credit and more than 17 million low-wage childless workers through an improved Earned Income Tax Credit.

The bill supports communities struggling with the economic fallout by providing, like the House bill, crucial support for the hardest-hit small businesses, especially those owned by entrepreneurs from racial and ethnic backgrounds that have experienced systemic discrimination, with economic injury disaster loans (EIDL) grants, expanded PPP eligibility and more.

This legislation provides crucial resources to protect the jobs of first responders, frontline public health workers, and other essential workers.

Finally, and very important, the American Rescue Plan Act establishes the Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund and provides $45.570 billion in direct funding to major metropolitan cities and local governments.

With our vote today in support of the American Rescue Plan, congressional Democrats and President Biden are making good on our commitment to the American people that help is on the way to crush the virus, open our schools safely, and build back better.

Mr. Speaker, by an overwhelming margin (72 percent), the public wants and is demanding that we act to provide more economic relief to address the damage caused by the coronavirus pandemic.

Nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents believe an additional relief package is necessary, while more than nine in ten (92 percent) Democrats and Democratic leaders say more coronavirus aid will be needed.

Even the most conservative Republicans favor more relief by a 56 percent-44 percent margin.

Nearly nine-in-ten of all adults (88 percent) in lower-income households say an additional package is necessary, while 81 percent of Republicans in lower-income households (81 percent) say additional aid is needed now.

The American Rescue Plan Act will put food on the table, by expanding the SNAP program and respecting Black family farmers.

The American Rescue Plan Act will put people back to work by prioritizing funding for transit, airlines and airports, and the disaster relief fund.

The American Rescue Plan Act will put a priority on protecting renters and homeowners, preventing homelessness, and providing $10 billion for the Defense Production Act to procure essential medical supplies and equipment.

The American Rescue Plan Act will put money in people's pockets with direct payments, Unemployment Insurance, Child Tax Credit, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and includes pension security and expanded Affordable Care Act coverage.

The American Rescue Plan Act will provide $17 billion in critical funding to help the VA meet the health and economic security of veterans, especially as relates to the benefits claims and appeals backlog caused by COVID-19.

The American Rescue Plan Act will produce and distribute the vaccine and test, treat and protect all Americans, including communities of color.

The American Rescue Plan Act will provides desperately needed funding for our heroes--health care workers, first responders, sanitation, transportation and food workers, and teachers--in states, localities, tribes, and territories.

Let me speak briefly about another crucially important feature of the legislation we will pass today.

The American Rescue Plan Act establishes the Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund and provides $45.570 billion in direct funding to major metropolitan cities and local governments.

In my home state of Texas, metropolitan cities are estimated to receive $10.327 billion in direct coronavirus relief funding, while the state of Texas is slated to receive $16.824 billion, for an estimated $27.152 billion total to the state of Texas.

During the Budget Committee markup, I proposed, and the Committee agreed that any effort to strip or reduce this vital funding is to be rejected so major metropolitan cities, like Houston, receive the direct COVID-19 relief funding desperately needed to battle the coronavirus, restore critical services to struggling families, and help save the jobs of essential public servants like teachers, firefighters, and other first responders.

Let me discuss briefly why direct funding to major metropolitan cities and counties is so critical.

The purpose of providing for direct payment to major metropolitan cities like Houston and counties like Harris County, as opposed to the County having to receive an allocation from the State, is so that the local governments, who are in the best position to identify and respond, will be able to tailor the funding to meet the urgent needs of their communities.

For example, under the direct payment provisions in the CARES Act, Harris County received more federal funding relative to the amount that would have been received through the State program and had the flexibility needed for more efficient use of this funding, which was a concern voiced even by State leaders over the restrictive way that the State of Texas distributed CARES Act funding.

By directly allocating funding to metropolitan cities and areas like Houston and Harris County, local authorities can work with the community to determine the specific needs of Harris County residents.

As a result, Harris County Commissioners Court approved, for example, the following

programs to directly address community needs, and to get money into the hands of residents quickly:

1. Commissioners Court funded Community Programs

2. Census Services

3. Childcare Assistance Program

4. Court Evictions Services

5. COVID 19 Workforce Development Program

6. Direct Assistance Programs

7. Domestic Violence Assistance Fund

8. Rental Assistance Programs

9. Small Business Loan Program (LEAP)

10. Small Business Relief Fund

11. Small Cities Support

12. Student Digital Services

13. UT Health Community Spread Survey Program

Without direct payments to major metropolitan cities, state governments--as we saw here in Texas--would not have permitted CARES Act funding to be used to create or support any of these programs.

In addition, without direct payments to major metropolitan cities and government units, states invariably will succumb to the temptation to place onerous conditions on funding over and above those required by the Federal government.

For example, in Texas, only $55 per capita was allocated to nondirect allocation entities, instead of the $174.49 per capita that was allocated to them by Congress.

Additionally, only 20% of the allocation was made available immediately to local entities instead of making 100 percent of the allocation available immediately.

Third, direct funding is necessary to prevent state governments from creating specific categories limiting eligibility for medical expenses, public health expenses, payroll expenses for employees in the fields of public safety, public health, health care, human services, or whose services are substantially dedicated to mitigating or responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency.

Without direct payments to major metropolitan cities, state governments, again as we have seen in Texas, will limit recovery for expenditures to support actions to facilitate compliance with COVID-19 related public health measures or associated with the provision of economic support in connection with the COVID-19, or other COVID-19 related expenses reasonably necessary to the function of government that satisfy the fund's eligibility criteria.

I would urge my Republican colleagues to heed the words of Republican Governor Jim Justice of West Virginia who said colorfully just a few days ago, ``At this point in time in this nation, we need to go big. We need to quit counting the egg-sucking legs on the cows and count the cows and just move. And move forward and move right now.''

The same sentiment was expressed more eloquently by Abraham Lincoln in 1862 when he memorably wrote:

``The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.''

Mr. Speaker, the bipartisan action we took last December was a step in the right direction but only a long-delayed down payment; we cannot afford any more delays, especially since Republican stalling already caused a painful lapse in critical unemployment assistance last year, and additional unemployment assistance is set to expire on March 14, 2021.

That is why the American Rescue Plan Act is absolutely crucial and the right thing to do and to do right now.

The American Rescue Plan Act proposed by President Biden takes a multiprong approach to tackling the public health and economic crises stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.

No one is better prepared or more experienced to lead the American rescue than President Biden, who as Vice-President oversaw the implementation of the Recovery Act, which saved millions of jobs and rescued our economy from the Great Recession the Obama Administration and the nation inherited from a previous Republican administration.

And let us not forget that President Obama also placed his confidence in his vice-president to oversee the rescue of the automotive industry, which he did so well that the American car industry fully recovered its status as the world leader.

Mr. Speaker, to crush the virus and safely reopen schools, the American Rescue Plan Act will mount a national vaccination program that includes setting up community vaccination sites nationwide and makes the investments necessary to safely reopen schools.

It will also take complementary measures to combat the virus, including scaling up testing and tracing, addressing shortages of personal protective equipment and other critical supplies, investing in high-quality treatments, and addressing health care disparities.

The American Rescue Plan Act delivers immediate relief to working families bearing the brunt of the crisis by providing $1,400 per person in direct cash assistance to households across America, bringing the total (including the $600 down payment enacted in December) to $2,000.

Additionally, the plan will also provide direct housing and nutrition assistance to families struggling to get by, expand access to safe and reliable child care and affordable health care, extend and expand unemployment insurance so American workers can pay their bills, and give families with children as well as childless workers a boost through enhanced tax credits.

Mr. Speaker, the American Rescue Plan Act provides much needed support for communities struggling with the economic fallout, including hard-hit small businesses, especially those owned by entrepreneurs from racial and ethnic backgrounds that have experienced systemic discrimination.

Finally, the plan also provides crucial resources to protect the jobs of first responders, frontline public health workers, teachers, transit workers, and other essential workers that all Americans depend on.

Mr. Speaker, the COVID-19 pandemic, as did the videos of the unjustified killings of George Floyd, Breanna Taylor, Ahmed Arbrey, and so many others, laid bare for the nation to see the stark racial and ethnic inequalities exacerbated by the virus.

In my home state of Texas, as of the end of September 2020, there have been more than 760,000 cases of COVID-19 and 16,000 deaths.

According to the Texas Department of State Health Care Services, 70 percent of the confirmed fatalities were people of color.

In Texas, COVID-19 mortality rates are 30 percent higher for African Americans and 80 percent higher for Hispanics overall.

The differences become much larger when accounting for age; for example, in the 25 to 44-year-old age group, African American mortality rates are more than four times higher than White rates, and the Hispanic rates are more than seven times higher.

One factor in Hispanic and African American populations being more likely to contract COVID-19 is employment in occupations associated with public contact and that cannot be done remotely.

The sad fact is that most workers in these occupations are less able to be absent from their job or to have paid time off.

In Texas, people of color make up more than 40 percent of cashiers, retail salespersons, child care workers, licensed practical nurses, more than 50 percent of bus drivers and transit workers, medical and nursing assistants, personal care aides, and home health aides, and more than 60 percent of building cleaners and housekeepers.

In addition, Hispanic and African American populations in Texas are less likely to have health insurance and to have a regular health care provider, so less likely to seek or receive early care for symptoms, especially in the first months of the epidemic.

And African American and Hispanic populations are also more likely to have an underlying health condition that makes them more vulnerable to the effects of COVID-19.

To respond and mitigate the devastation wrought by COVID-19 on Americans, and especially marginal and vulnerable communities of color, I have introduced H.R. 330, the ``Delivering Covid-19 Vaccinations to All Regions and Vulnerable Communities Act'' or ``COVID-19 Delivery Act,'' which I invite all Members to join as sponsors.

Under the COVID-19 Delivery Act, FEMA will be authorized and directed to lead the effort for vaccine delivery from the receipt from manufacturing facilities to delivery to designated inoculation sites (hospital, clinic, doctors' offices, school, places of worship, community centers, parks, or neighborhood gathering locations).

The legislation directs FEMA to develop and deploy a fully staffed and resourced 24-7 advanced real-time tracking system that allows FEMA to monitor shipments of vaccine units that can provide end-to-end transparency on the temperature, real-time location, origin, and destination data, anticipated time of arrival, and report on changes and update recipients on the progress of their delivery and report on changes that may impact expected delivery or the viability of the vaccine while in transit.

FEMA will provide an advanced communication system that allows public health departments to communicate their vaccine readiness, capability of receiving vaccines, delivery locations, details of facility capability of storing, securing, personnel authorized to receive deliveries, logistics for delivering vaccines to patients, report on vaccine receipts, condition of vaccines, patient reactions, feedback on how to improve the process.

H.R. 330 authorizes FEMA to secure transportation for delivery or use of vaccines, and, when requested, security for the vaccine delivery sites or inoculation locations to ensure the life and safety of personnel and patients who seek to provide or receive vaccinations are free of interference or threat.

Finally, the COVID-19 Delivery Act directs FEMA to conduct public education and patient engagement through the provision of inoculations of persons in areas and locations where vulnerable populations are under performing in getting vaccinations.

Mr. Speaker, I see the disparities in the lives of so many of my constituents who suffer disproportionately from medical conditions that make COVID-19 deadly.

They work low wage or no wage jobs to make ends meet, and they have no health insurance and rely on community health centers or public health services for routine care.

I call them friends and neighbors because they are that to me.

No one is benefiting from the COVID-19 economy.

The U.S. poverty rate has grown at a historic rate over the past five months, with 7.8 million Americans falling into poverty after the expanded $600 a week in unemployment assistance expired at the end of July.

This represents the greatest increase since the government began tracking poverty sixty years ago.

In the city of Houston, nine key service sectors, accounting for 70 percent of all jobs, hemorrhaged more 1,343,600 jobs, which to average folks is another way of saying that more than 1.34 million persons lost their livelihoods.

Houston workers lost jobs in the following areas:

Healthcare: 391,000;

Retail: 303,600;

Food services: 267,000;

Finance: 166,000;

Private Education: 63,400;

Arts and Entertainment: 37,400;

Accommodations: 28,700;

Air Transportation: 20,200;

Other Services: 115,800.

In addition to these positions, jobs were also lost in other areas, the largest of which was the construction industry, which shut down 30,700 jobs.

Professional and business services followed, with 25,300 jobs lost, although 13,900 were in temporary and provisional jobs in employment services; upstream oil lost 12,300 in March/April; and non-oil manufacturing lost 7,700 jobs.

Americans out of work due to COVID-19 have generated 86 million jobless claims, with new claims being filed in recent weeks topping 800,000.

Millions of Americans who lost their jobs during the pandemic have fallen thousands of dollars behind on rent and utility bills, a clear warning sign that people are running out of money for basic needs.

If this is not enough evidence of what is happening just look at the miles of vehicles lined up outside of food distribution centers for assistance, as we see nightly on our television screens and in our communities.

Moody's Analytics warned in November 2020 that 9 million renters said they were behind on rent, according to a Census Bureau survey.

The Bureau of the Census reports that twenty-one percent of all renters are behind on their rent, of which twenty-nine percent are African American families and seventeen percent are Hispanic households.

According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia's analysis of persons who were employed prior to the pandemic, 1.3 million of these households are now, on average of $5,400 in debt on rent and utilities, after the family breadwinners lost their jobs.

The new COVID-19 relief legislation passed last week by Congress and reluctantly but finally signed by the Senate restores unemployment assistance, but cuts that assistance from $600 a week to $300 a week without consideration of the facts on the ground, which are that millions of Americans remain out of work due to COVID-19 public health policy, and have been without sufficient income since August 1, 2020.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that as of February 23, 2021, 28.3 million cases of COVID-19, resulting in more than 503,000 deaths, had been reported in the United States.

What the costs will be to our nation from this destruction of lives and livelihoods have yet to be fully calculated.

It is a tragedy that too many households who have lost a member to COVID-19 are struggling to accept these deaths, but it is also the friends, co-workers, business owners, professionals, students, teachers, wives, husbands, brothers, sisters, aunts, cousins, and grandparents who also are feeling these losses because someone that mattered to them is no longer here.

Each of these lives impacted dozens of other lives, too many of whom were not allowed to be present with them during their final moments on this earth, but whose suffering is too often overlooked because we unduly preoccupy ourselves with only the immediate family.

I strongly support the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1319, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 and urge all Members to join me in voting for its passage and to send the message to the American people that their voices have been heard, their request for assistance answered, and that help is on the way.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

You know, our friends on the other side of the aisle are deadly wrong. That is the tragedy of their argument, because the Second Amendment does not prohibit regulation. It never did. And our Founding Fathers regulated guns as early as the beginning of this Nation.

And so I rise in support of H.R. 8, and indicate while the COVID-19 pandemic dominated news headlines in 2020, the number of shootings surged in many communities across America.

Our public health and emergency resources have been straining to recover from the coronavirus, and budgets are crunched nationwide, and, as well, gun violence is rising. It is important to note because approximately 80 percent of firearms used for criminal purposes are obtained without a background check.

We must strengthen our firearms background checks and close dangerous gaps, such as the online sale and gun show loopholes.

In the data that we were able to secure, there was nearly one mass shooting per day in the United States: 355 mass shootings in 2018. We realize that since December 2012 there have been at least 1,518 mass shootings with at least 1,715 people killed.

Each day an average of 92 Americans are victims of gun violence, resulting in more than 33,000 deaths. And I wonder why our friends could not feel the pain of the loss of guns being transferred illegally or improperly?

I was here for Columbine. That happened on April 20, 1999. High school students losing their lives. I was here when babies were killed in Newtown, Connecticut, on December 12, 2012. I was here in the United States Congress each moment we tried to pass sensible gun legislation like H.R. 8.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Thompson for his leadership and Chairman Nadler.

On February 14, 2018 I was here for Parkland and looked at these photographs. And as well I was here on May 18 when in San Jose, Texas, people died. It is time to pass H.R. 8. Stop seeing our children die.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 8, the ``Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021'' and H.R. 1446, the ``Enhanced Background Check Act of 2021,'' which would make it illegal for any person who is not a licensed firearm importer, manufacturer, or dealer to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not so licensed without a background check.

A 2013 study found that approximately 80 percent of all firearms acquired for criminal purposes were obtained from sources who were not required to run a background check, and that 96 percent of inmates who were not prohibited from possessing a firearm at the time they committed their crime obtained their gun this way.

This loophole exists largely because unlicensed sellers need not conduct any background check under current law, even if the seller sells a large number of guns.

Under H.R. 8, the ``Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021,'' individuals seeking to transfer a firearm under this measure would be required to visit a licensed firearms dealer to run the necessary background check before the transfer could be finalized.

H.R. 8 is intended to provide an accurate and speedy manner to ensure firearms do not end up in the wrong hands.

An internal assessment by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) demonstrated that NICS background checks are approximately 99.3 percent to 99.8 percent accurate, and in 90 percent of cases, are processed within 90 seconds.

I am particularly pleased that the rule reported by Rules Committee makes in order Jackson Lee Amendment No. 12 to H.R. 8, which makes clear that a gun owner who realizes that he or she is at risk of suicide may transfer the gun to someone else, if the risk is imminent, without a background check to prevent self-harm.

The Jackson Lee Amendment will help ensure that no person who is experiencing a suicidal crisis will feel compelled to retain their gun when it would be better for them to temporarily transfer it to someone else.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are demanding effective action to reduce, if not prevent altogether, the countless mass shootings and gun violence in our country that continue to claim so many innocent lives.

Newly released data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention found firearm-related deaths rose for the second-straight year in 2016, largely due to spikes in gun violence.

In 2016, the new CDC report on preliminary mortality data shows that there were more than 38,000 gun-related deaths in the U.S.--4,000 more than 2015.

An Associated Press analysis of FBI data shows there were about 11,000 gun-related homicides in 2016, up from 9,600 in 2015.

Congress must act to keep our country safe through gun safety and violence deterrence.

There is nearly one mass shooting per day in the United States--355 mass shootings in 2018.

In December 2012, a gunman walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and killed 20 children, 6 adults, and himself.

Since December 2012, there have been at least 1,518 mass shootings, with at least 1,715 people killed and 6,089 wounded.

On the night of October 1, 2017, a gunman opened fire on a large crowd of concertgoers at the Route 91 Harvest music festival on the Las Vegas Strip, leaving 58 people dead and 527 injured.

And on November 5, 2017, a mass shooting occurred at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, where the gunman, 26-year- old Devin Patrick Kelley, killed 26 and injured 20 others.

Every day, on average, 92 Americans are victims of gun violence, resulting in more than 33,000 deaths annually.

States with higher gun ownership rates have higher gun murder rates-- as much as 114 percent higher than other States.

A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, looking at 30 years of homicide data, found that for every 1 percent increase in a State's gun ownership rate, there is a nearly 1 percent increase in its firearm homicide rate.

Gun death rates are generally lower in States with restrictions such as safe storage requirements or assault weapons bans.

Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 33 years: 0.

Because more than 75 percent of the weapons used in mass shootings between 1982 and 2012 were obtained legally, stronger legislation is needed to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands.

Mr. Speaker, enhancing the gun transfer background check system has consistently garnered broad public support, as high as 92 percent, because the American people know that the status quo is simply intolerable and action must be taken to reduce gun violence by keeping dangerous persons from obtaining deadly weapons.

That begins with passing H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021,'' and H.R. 1446, the ``Enhanced Background Check Act of 2021,'' and I urge all members to join me in voting for its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 8, the ``Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021,'' and urge its quick adoption.

While the COVID-19 pandemic dominated news headlines in 2020, the number of shootings surged in many communities across America.

Our public health and emergency resources have been straining to respond to the coronavirus crisis. Budgets are being crunched nationwide. Across the country, cities and states are struggling to find the resources to simultaneously address the pandemic and rising rates of gun violence.

We must take the steps that we know will make us safer.

Because approximately 80 percent of firearms used for criminal purposes are obtained without a background check, we must strengthen our firearms background check system and close dangerous gaps, such as the online sale and gun show loopholes.

Reducing gun violence starts with making sure that individuals who may not lawfully possess guns do not get their hands on them.

Our citizens overwhelmingly support this measure, and it is critical we pass it today and enact it into law.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

As indicated, the Jackson Lee amendment is a simple, important, and straightforward amendment, and it is, frankly, to save lives.

Specifically, the amendment makes clear that a gun owner who realizes that he or she is at risk of suicide may transfer the gun to someone else if the risk is imminent, without a background check, to prevent self-harm.

This amendment will help ensure that no person who is experiencing a suicidal crisis will feel compelled to retain their gun when it would be better for them to temporarily transfer it to someone else.

Contrary to what my friends on the other side have said, H.R. 8 does already exempt from the requirement of a background check ``a temporary transfer that is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, including harm to self, family, household members, or others, if the possession by the transferee lasts only as long as immediately necessary to prevent the imminent death or great bodily harm, including the harm of domestic violence, dating partner violence, sexual assault, stalking, and domestic abuse.''

This amendment, however, clarifies that this last option is available to someone who is at risk for suicide.

I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment to protect those who may be a danger to themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Jackson Lee Amendment No. 9 included in the Chairman En Bloc Amendment to H.R. 8, the ``Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021,'' which would require a background check on every gun sale or transfer with limited exceptions, such as gifts to family members and transfers for hunting, target shooting, and self- defense.

The Jackson Lee Amendment No. 9 makes a simple common-sense improvement to the bill.

Specifically, the amendment makes clear that a gun owner who realizes that he or she is at risk of suicide may transfer the gun to someone else, if the risk is imminent, without a background check to prevent self-harm.

This amendment will help ensure that no person who is experiencing a suicidal crisis will feel compelled to retain their gun when it would be better for them to temporarily transfer it to someone else.

H.R. 8 already exempts from the requirement of a background check ``a temporary transfer that is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, including harm to self, family, household members, or others, if the possession by the transferee lasts only as long as immediately necessary to prevent the imminent death or great bodily harm, including the harm of domestic violence, dating partner violence, sexual assault, stalking, and domestic abuse.''

A gun owner who realizes that they are at risk of suicide would have several options under this bill.

They may loan the gun to a family member pursuant to the family member exception.

They may ask a gun dealer to store the gun temporarily.

And if the risk is imminent, they may transfer it to someone else, pursuant to this exception.

This amendment clarifies that this last option is available to someone who is at risk for suicide.

As Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, I urge all members to join me in supporting Jackson Lee Amendment No. 9 by voting for the En Bloc Amendment to H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8 is a strong bill to expand the federal firearms background check requirement as our citizens have demanded. To make the bill even stronger, I offer an amendment that will help save even more lives.

My amendment would make clear that a gun owner who realizes that he or she is at risk of suicide may transfer the gun to someone else, without a background check--if the risk is imminent to prevent self- harm.

The largest number of gun deaths each year are suicides. Studies have shown that the prevalence of suicide in the United States is directly linked to the easy availability of guns.

Roughly sixty percent of gun deaths are suicides. Tragically, an average of 63 people, die by gun suicide every day in the U.S.

The notion that suicides are inevitable, that people will just find another way, is wrong.

Suicide attempts are often impulsive acts, and forty-eight percent of people harm themselves within 10 minutes of deciding to attempt suicide. Seventy-one percent do so within one hour.

But those who reach for a gun during suicidal crises rarely have a second chance. Eighty-four percent of suicide attempts with a firearm are fatal. Think about this sad fact.

Temporarily reducing access to guns significantly increases the likelihood of surviving a suicide attempt.

That is why I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the bloc of amendments that includes my proposed revision to H.R. 8.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), the chairman of our task force.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crist).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Lamb).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as has been said over and over again on the floor of the House, H.R. 8 provides for the legal access to guns. It does not take away guns from any American.

In addition, the Second Amendment is truly preserved with H.R. 8, and it is in compliance with the law which allows the regulation of guns, even with the Second Amendment.

We ask our colleagues to support H.R. 8 and the en bloc amendments included therein.

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