[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 16, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H1393-H1404]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1620, VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN 
  REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2021; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6, 
AMERICAN DREAM AND PROMISE ACT OF 2021; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 
  H.R. 1603, FARM WORKFORCE MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2021; PROVIDING FOR 
 CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1868, PREVENTING PAYGO SEQUESTRATION; PROVIDING 
   FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 17, REMOVING THE DEADLINE FOR THE 
   RATIFICATION OF THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 233 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 233

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1620) to 
     reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, and for 
     other purposes. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. An amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     117-3, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or 
     their respective designees; (2) the further amendments 
     described in section 2 of this resolution; (3) the amendments 
     en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution; and (4) 
     one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  After debate pursuant to the first section of this 
     resolution, each further amendment printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules not earlier considered as 
     part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 3 of this 
     resolution shall be considered only in the order printed in 
     the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn 
     by the proponent at any time before the question is put 
     thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time after debate 
     pursuant to the first section of this resolution for the 
     chair of the Committee on the Judiciary or his designee to 
     offer amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments 
     printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of. 
     Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective 
     designees, shall

[[Page H1394]]

     not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a 
     demand for division of the question.
       Sec. 4.  All points of order against the further amendments 
     printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution or amendments en bloc described 
     in section 3 of this resolution are waived.
       Sec. 5.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6) to authorize 
     the cancellation of removal and adjustment of status of 
     certain aliens, and for other purposes. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. An amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 117-4 shall be considered as adopted. The 
     bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to 
     final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour 
     of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or 
     their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 6.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1603) to amend 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for terms and 
     conditions for nonimmigrant workers performing agricultural 
     labor or services, and for other purposes. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. The 
     amendment printed in part C of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective 
     designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 7.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1868) to 
     prevent across-the-board direct spending cuts, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Budget or their respective 
     designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 8.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. 
     Res. 17) removing the deadline for the ratification of the 
     equal rights amendment. All points of order against 
     consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The joint 
     resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
     resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their 
     respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 9.  House Resolution 232 is hereby adopted.
       Sec. 10.  Notwithstanding clause 7(a) of rule X, during the 
     One Hundred Seventeenth Congress, the period described in 
     such clause shall end at midnight on April 22.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), pending which I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded 
is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, today, the Rules Committee 
met and reported a rule, House Resolution 233, providing for 
consideration of H.R. 1620 under a structured rule. The rule self-
executes a manager's amendment by Chairman Nadler, makes in order 41 
amendments, and provides en bloc authority to Chairman Nadler.

                              {time}  1645

  The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 6, H.R. 1603, and 
H.J. Res. 17, under closed rules.
  The rule provides 1 hour of debate each, equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary or their designees for H.R. 1620, H.R. 6, H.R. 1603, and H.J. 
Res. 17.
  The rule provides for one motion to recommit on each bill. The rule 
also self-executes a manager's amendment by Chairman Nadler for H.R. 
1603.
  The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1868 under a closed rule. 
It also provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Budget or their 
designees.
  Finally, the rule provides that H.R. 232 is hereby adopted and 
extends the deadline for the committee funding resolution until April 
22, 2021.
  Madam Speaker, we are here today to protect the vulnerable among us, 
to strengthen the foundation of our democracy, and ensure humane 
working conditions for the people who feed America.
  We are here to live up to our best ideals as a Nation by creating 
protections against some of the worst threats that a person can face, 
threats like domestic violence.
  In the minute that I have been talking, 20 people in this country 
have been abused by their partner. By the time we are done tonight, 
that number will be over a thousand.
  As someone who worked as a 911 dispatcher for nearly 18 years, as 
someone who has been on the other end of the line from domestic 
violence, as someone who has heard gunshots silence a young girl's 
screams for help, I am telling you, the thousand people victimized 
while we are here tonight need and deserve our help.
  That is exactly what the Violence Against Women Act does. It makes 
vital new investments in prevention. It strengthens essential 
protections for the most vulnerable among us, including immigrant, 
LGBTQ, and Native American women, and it improves services for victims, 
prevents abusers and stalkers from getting firearms, and much, much 
more.
  VAWA is one of many vital protections we will discuss today, but it 
isn't the only one.
  Madam Speaker, this September will mark 100 years since an amendment 
was first proposed for our Constitution to guarantee women equal rights 
with men. It finally passed Congress in 1972.
  This simple amendment, which reads in part, ``Equality of rights 
under the law shall not be denied or abridged,'' is being held up on a 
technicality. States took so long to sign on that the arbitrary 
deadline that was set by Congress, this body, has passed, even as 38 
States have ratified the amendment.
  Congress created this problem, and Congress must fix it. H.J. Res. 79 
will remove the deadline for ratification and finally allow us to 
ensure women are treated as equals to men in our democracy.
  The need for equal rights under the law is not debatable. Too often, 
we have seen the results of unfair and unequal policies for women. This 
bill will help end those injustices.
  As we strive to make our Nation a more perfect union, we need to 
consider how we treat immigrants, too. Immigrants are the invisible 
backbone of this country. They are our family members, our neighbors, 
our frontline workers, woven into every aspect of the American fabric.
  Dreamers grew up in our communities. They pledge allegiance to our 
flag. They played in our fields, prayed in our churches, and worked in 
our stores. They want to contribute to the only Nation that they have 
ever called home.
  The American Dream and Promise Act helps them do that. It creates a 
pathway to citizenship for our Dreamers. And it updates our temporary 
protected status and deferred enforced departure laws to prevent 
devastating deportations.
  The fact is, too often the contributions of aspiring Americans are 
left out of our dialogue about immigrants. But this pandemic has put a 
spotlight on just how vital they are.
  Without immigrants working our fields, your last meal would have 
looked much different. Without them enduring record-setting 
temperatures, facing threats of wildfires, and doing it all without 
proper PPE, the price you pay to feed your family would go way up.

[[Page H1395]]

  Deaths among Latino farmworkers increased by 60 percent during the 
pandemic. They are sacrificing their lives to feed us. The question is: 
What are we willing to do in return?
  The Farm Workforce Modernization Act creates a pathway to legal 
status for more than a million farmworkers and addresses our future 
labor needs by modernizing our outdated system for temporary workers. 
This bill will give farmworkers the dignity and recognition they 
deserve, while giving our farmers the stability they need to run their 
businesses.
  Now, before I move on to another topic, I want to say something about 
my personal immigration story. Just like many other Dreamers, I was 
sent here by my parents to escape the violence my family faced in 
Guatemala. I know exactly what it is like to decide between the 
violence and poverty of staying or the dangers and unknowns of trying 
to immigrate here.
  What I know is that we cannot legislate a solution for immigration 
when we ignore the factors that drive it. Strongmen, narco-traffickers, 
have taken hold in Central America, and the rule of law is under 
assault.
  The organizations that once fought to hold corrupt actors accountable 
have been dismantled, and their former employees are now being pursued 
by those very same corrupt actors. Attorneys General, unfortunately, 
are asylum seekers in our own country.
  We don't just have a responsibility to help stabilize the region; it 
is imperative if we are ever to stop the rush of people trying to come 
here.
  I will close by saying every policy I describe today is a policy I am 
truly proud of. Just like the American Rescue Plan did last week, 
Democrats are making clear, with our actions, exactly what our 
priorities are.

  It doesn't matter how good our agenda is if we can't deliver on the 
bills we pass. The one thing standing in our way right now is an 
inside-the-beltway term called ``PAYGO.'' If we don't address it now, 
it will trigger massive cuts. It goes without saying that this would be 
completely unacceptable at a time when Americans are in urgent need of 
more support, not less.
  Republicans passed legislation in 2017 to avoid PAYGO, in order to 
provide tax cuts for the filthy rich, so they clearly understand the 
need to avoid draconian cuts. I expect them to join us in preventing 
them.
  H.R. 1868, the final bill we are here to discuss today, will do 
exactly that. I look forward to a fruitful debate on these bills.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Rules 
Committee, the Representative from California, for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, a continuation of 
the Democrats' weeks-long partisan push to fulfill their partisan wish 
list.
  First up is H.R. 1620, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization 
Act, which is a highly divisive distortion of the original Violence 
Against Women Act, that will jeopardize the safety of women.
  By extending services to men who identify as women and allowing them 
to utilize programs that were designed to protect vulnerable women, the 
bill puts the safety of women at risk. The bill expands the definition 
of domestic violence to include economic and emotional duress, driving 
needed resources away from combatting violent crimes against women and 
promoting an unproven restorative justice approach instead.
  Democrats have told us again and again that it is time to rethink our 
approach to law enforcement. But the same Democrats who want to defund 
the police are now pushing this unfunded mandate, to the tune of 
hundreds of millions of dollars, upon law enforcement. That doesn't 
help anyone.
  Next is H.J. Res. 17, which removes the established deadline for the 
ratification of the equal rights amendment. As the deadline for States 
to ratify the ERA has long passed, the constitutionality of this 
legislation is suspect, at best. Congress does not have the authority 
to simply extend the deadline some four decades later.
  I also have concerns about this amendment radicalizing gender to 
enshrine pro-abortion rights in the Constitution. I do not need a 
constitutional amendment to tell me I am equal. The Constitution and 
Federal law already require equal protection for all Americans.
  If my colleagues on the other side were serious about the equal 
rights amendment, they would ensure that the process for adoption was 
done entirely by the book, rather than saying ``good enough,'' as they 
move forward in this questionable manner.
  Next, H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2021, will 
provide amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, incentivize illegal 
border crossings, and worsen the surge of illegal immigration we are 
currently seeing. The bill will provide green cards to criminal aliens 
at a time when the southern border is already overwhelmed, costing 
taxpayers hundreds of billions more.
  H.R. 1868 addresses the very real budgetary consequences of last 
week's massive partisan spending package being signed into law. While 
we can all agree that we should avoid cuts to mandatory spending that 
have been automatically triggered by this level of spending, there was 
an opportunity to work across the aisle on a bipartisan solution. It is 
unfortunate that the majority has chosen, once again, to forge ahead on 
their own with highly partisan policies.
  For these reasons, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to think twice 
before supporting this rule. We can do better for the American people.
  Finally, I want to address H.R. 1603, the Farm Workforce 
Modernization Act, a bipartisan effort to reform our agricultural 
worker programs to address the workforce needs of our agricultural 
community.
  While I appreciate the efforts of my colleagues, including my 
colleague from the State of Washington, Congressman Newhouse, and 
others on both sides of the aisle to negotiate in good faith on this 
legislation, I will point out that this bill is not without its flaws. 
It does not address the already high cost of the H-2A program to make 
it a more economical solution to producers.
  It introduces a new private right of action against employers that 
risks costly litigation that our producers cannot afford. These types 
of issues are why stakeholders, such as the American Farm Bureau, have 
concerns with this legislation. Make no mistake, a viable workforce for 
our agriculture industry is a national security issue. However, I would 
like my colleagues to recognize that, with the current language, this 
bill is not the end-all and be-all solution for our farmers and 
ranchers. While this legislation may pass the full floor this week as 
it stands, I hope our counterparts in the other body improve the bill 
before it is sent to the President.
  Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to this rule, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.

                              {time}  1700

  Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. 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

[[Page H1396]]

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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 
minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. 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.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the ranking member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. 
This rule and the accompanying legislation, sadly, is not about passing 
law. It is about making a point.
  All five of the bills dealt with in this rule have not been marked up 
by any committee in this Congress at all, and all of them are filled 
with poison pills that are designed to make sure most Republicans will 
not vote for them, and they cannot pass the Senate of the United 
States.
  The two bills dealing with illegal immigration will not just help 
DACA people, it will legalize millions of people in this country 
illegally.
  The measure on ERA, the timeline ran out for that 42 years ago. This 
matter cannot be reversed now.
  Frankly, the matter dealing with the budget, as my friend from 
Minnesota suggested, we said last week you are going to run into this 
problem, you are going to cut Medicare. There are billions of dollars 
of wasted spending in that reconciliation bill that could actually 
offset those cuts. We should be considering that.
  Let me turn now to the Violence Against Women Act, Madam Speaker. I 
have been one of the strongest supporters of that legislation since I 
arrived in Congress, and I particularly am pleased with some of the 
measures dealing with Native American women, particularly some of the 
changes in this bill that extend it to children, that extend it to 
Tribal law enforcement officers. Those are good changes.
  But there are other measures coupled with it dealing with the Second 
Amendment or dealing with, frankly, people that are not biologically 
female that will put this bill at risk on this floor and certainly in 
the United States Senate.
  Madam Speaker, none of this was ever designed to become law. Two 
years ago, we made that mistake. Three years ago, actually, a little 
over two years ago, in 2018, and none of the good things happened. 
Let's not make that mistake again. Let's reject this rule. Let's modify 
these bills. Let's send the Senate something it can work with and pass. 
If we do that, we have a chance of not making a point, but of actually 
making law that benefits every single American.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, let the Record show that 
Oklahoma's Fourth District has 146,168 eligible Medicare beneficiaries 
that will be harmed if H.R. 1868 does not pass.
  Let the Record show that Minnesota's Seventh District has 152,451 
eligible Medicare beneficiaries that will also be harmed if H.R. 1868 
does not pass.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an October 18, 2019, USA Today 
article entitled, ``1 in 3 American Indian and Alaska Native women will 
be raped, but survivors rarely find justice on tribal lands.''

                    [From USA TODAY, Oct. 18, 2019]

   1 in 3 American Indian and Alaska Native Women Will Be Raped, But 
             Survivors Rarely Find Justice on Tribal Lands

 (By Maren Machles, Carrie Cochran, Angela M. Hill and Suzette Brewer)

       Twila Szymanski lowered the scope on her rifle, took aim 
     and hit a target in the distance. The shooting range is where 
     she and her husband go to relax and forget the things they 
     worry about, she said.
       Some experiences are hard to shake.
       ``To trust somebody you know after a sexual assault happens 
     . . . it has been so difficult to work through that,'' 
     Szymanski said.
       Szymanski, 40, has lived on the Fort Peck Reservation in 
     northeast Montana since she was born and is an enrolled 
     member of the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux tribes. She 
     said she's been assaulted three times.
       ``I was a victim when I was 13, a victim when I was 14 and 
     a victim when I was 34,'' she said.
       Twila Szymanski is a lifelong resident of the Fort Peck 
     Reservation. ``Native women have told me that what you do 
     when you raise a daughter in this environment is you prepare 
     her for what to do when she's raped--not if, but when,'' said 
     Sarah Deer, University of Kansas professor and author of 
     ``The Beginning and End of Rape: Confronting Sexual Violence 
     in Native America.''
       More than half of American Indian and Alaska Native women 
     will experience sexual violence in their lifetimes, according 
     to the Department of Justice.
       ``You talk to Native women who have lived their whole lives 
     on a reservation, and they say, `I can't think of anyone, any 
     woman that I know who hasn't been victimized in this way,' '' 
     said Deer, a citizen of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation of 
     Oklahoma.

[[Page H1397]]

       National data on sex crimes in tribal communities is 
     scarce, so Newsy spent 18 months focused on two reservations: 
     the Fort Peck Reservation in Montana and the Fort Berthold 
     Reservation in North Dakota. After analyzing exclusively 
     obtained documents and conducting dozens of interviews, a 
     stark picture emerged.
       Sexual assault investigations can fall through the cracks 
     when tribes and the federal government fail to work together. 
     Even for those few cases that end in a conviction in tribal 
     court, federal law prevents most courts from sentencing 
     perpetrators to more than a year.
       Survivors who come forward to report assaults often find 
     themselves trapped in small communities with their 
     perpetrators, and several said the broken legal system 
     contributed to their trauma.
       The federal government has a unique political and legal 
     relationship with the 573 federally recognized tribes. The 
     tribes are sovereign and have jurisdiction over their 
     citizens and land, but the federal government has a treaty 
     obligation to help protect the lives of tribal members. This 
     legal doctrine, called the ``trust responsibility,'' goes 
     back to the treaties the United States signed with tribal 
     nations in the 18th and 19th centuries.
       The array of Supreme Court decisions and federal laws that 
     followed resulted in a complicated legal arrangement among 
     federal, state and tribal jurisdictions, making it difficult 
     for survivors of sexual assault to find justice.
       Sarah Deer is author of ``The Beginning and End of Rape: 
     Confronting Sexual Violence in Native America.'' ``A lot of 
     times, when I try to explain it, people don't even believe me 
     because it's so bizarre,'' Deer said. ``And the reason it's 
     bizarre is because there's been this patchwork of laws that 
     don't talk to each other over the last century.''


                             Only one year

       The tribal courthouse on the Fort Peck reservation is a 
     small brick building. The front desk is lined with pamphlets 
     about dating violence and sexual assault.
       ``The trauma that has developed over the generations . . . 
     some of the assaults are generational, and they're within the 
     same home,'' said Chief Judge Stacie Smith, a member of the 
     Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux tribes. ``Pretend it wasn't 
     there, and maybe it'll go away, you know, the next 
     generation, it won't happen again. But it continues.''
       Smith wants to break the cycle, but tribal courts face 
     major restrictions, including a one-year limit on sentences 
     regardless of the crime and almost no jurisdiction over non-
     Indians.
       Stacie Smith is chief judge of the Fort Peck Tribal Court. 
     ``When you think about rape and you think about somebody who 
     is a perpetrator of that kind of crime, and you think, `What 
     do they deserve?' one year doesn't usually sound like the 
     right answer,'' Deer said.
       In 2010, the sentencing cap was expanded to three years per 
     offense through the Tribal Law and Order Act as long as the 
     tribes met certain requirements. Only 16 tribes have 
     implemented the three-year sentencing enhancement.
       Fort Peck is one of them.
       When the law took effect, there were no attorneys, no one 
     with a law degree in the court system.
       Smith decided to leave her young daughters to attend law 
     school hundreds of miles away. This would help the tribal 
     court meet the federal requirements and give it more 
     authority.
       The tribal court was able to hand out three-year sentences 
     starting in late 2012. From 2013-2018, there were three 
     sexual assault convictions, but none of them had enhanced 
     sentences. The longest sentence was still one year.
       ``We use the enhanced sentencing sparingly because we want 
     it to have meaning,'' said Scott Seifert, a member of the 
     Comanche Nation of Oklahoma and Fort Peck's lead tribal 
     prosecutor.


                             Going federal

       Tribal court is not the only option for those seeking 
     justice for sexual assault. In most cases, the FBI, Bureau of 
     lndian Affairs (BIA) and U.S. attorneys' offices are 
     federally mandated to work with the tribes to investigate and 
     prosecute ``major crimes,'' which include sexual assault.
       ``So if you have a rape case or a child sex abuse case and 
     you do want to see that perpetrator put away, the best 
     possibility for you is that it will go federal,'' Deer said.
       That responsibility falls to the U.S. attorneys' offices, 
     which have seen their funding and staffing in Indian 
     communities cut by more than 40% in the past seven years, 
     according to the Department of Justice.
       Data Newsy obtained from the DOJ shows that the Montana 
     U.S. Attorney's Office declined 64% of cases of sexual 
     assault in the past four fiscal years.
       Kurt Alme is the U.S. attorney for Montana. The U.S. 
     attorney for Montana, Kurt Alme, said a lot of cases are 
     declined because of weak or insufficient evidence, ``and it 
     is something that has to be worked on,'' he said.
       According to the BIA, tribal courts received less than 5% 
     of the funding that was needed in 2016. Law enforcement 
     received 22% of what was needed, and jails received less than 
     50%.
       Less than half of the law enforcement agencies that the 
     bureau funds and oversees are properly staffed, said Charles 
     Addington, director of the BIA Office of Justice Service and 
     a member of the Cherokee Nation.
       In August 2018, Fort Peck tribal police had funding for 21 
     positions, but nine of them were vacant, said Ken Trottier, 
     criminal investigations supervisor for the Fort Peck Tribes 
     and a member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa.
       ``We have a hiring pool that is literally nothing here on 
     the reservation, even though we open it up to off-reservation 
     people,'' he said. ``There's no houses for sale. No houses 
     for rent. Where's that person going to live?''
       Constant turnover and understaffing can lead to an under 
     trained police department, Deer said.
       ``[The survivor is] waiting for help. They don't know if 
     help is coming. They don't know if the help is going to be 
     compassionate and trained,'' Deer said. ``The system is not 
     feeling like a safe, productive system to them anymore.''
       Big money but little justice Three hours east of Fort Peck, 
     the Fort Berthold Reservation in North Dakota sits on the 
     Bakken oil basin and has an annual budget of $400 million. 
     The reservation is home to the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara 
     Nation, or the Three Affiliated Tribes.
       Driving around the remote reservation, council member 
     Monica Mayer pointed to a multimillion-dollar housing project 
     that she said will soon have an aquatic center, baseball 
     diamonds and mini golf.
       A $17 million public safety and judicial center was built, 
     and staffing increased in the court system. In the past three 
     years, the reservation has hired more than a dozen additional 
     officers to help an understaffed police department.
       Monica Mayer is a tribal council member on the Fort 
     Berthold Reservation. Despite this financial independence, 
     the justice system appears to be failing sexual assault 
     survivors who report.
       ``At every level, we are not adequately functioning to 
     provide the services that are needed in a critical 
     situation,'' Mayer said.
       The Fort Berthold tribal court does not have enhanced 
     sentencing. The court sentenced three people for sexual 
     assault from 2013 to mid-2018, according to court records. 
     Sentences ranged from eight days to six months.
       The tribes' relationship with its federal partners--the 
     BIA, the FBI and the U.S. attorneys--is crucial to helping 
     survivors get justice. Based on interviews and records 
     obtained from federal and tribal agencies, it's unclear 
     whether all sexual assaults on Fort Berthold were fully 
     investigated by any agency in the past six years.
       The tribes are supposed to refer every major crime to 
     either the BIA or the FBI for investigations. Both are 
     charged with overseeing all major criminal investigations on 
     Fort Berthold and will determine which agency takes the lead.
       The tribal criminal investigators had records of 66 sexual 
     assault cases from January 2016 to September 2018. The BIA 
     had records of only 10 investigations during that same time 
     period. The FBI declined to provide any records.
       After Newsy asked about the status of these cases, Three 
     Affiliated Tribes Police Capt. Grace Her Many Horses, a 
     member of the Oglala Sioux tribe from the Pine Ridge 
     Reservation, said she would do a case file review.
       ``The priority for me, right now, is to go through those 
     case files to find out what's been declined, why, and is 
     there anything we can do to make it happen,'' she said. ``I 
     guess part of that is on me, too. I should know this by 
     now.''
       Her Many Horses said she finished the case file review 
     nearly a year later, but she did not provide the details of 
     what she found, nor did she disclose whether the police 
     referred all 66 cases up to their federal partners.
       Exactly one week after Newsy's last trip to Fort Berthold, 
     during which reporters asked how sexual assaults and rapes 
     are handled on the reservation, the Department of Justice and 
     the BIA released a joint statement saying, ``A number of 
     concerns have been raised about public safety and criminal 
     investigations on the Fort Berthold Reservation.''
       Citing ``the high rate of violence against women and 
     children,'' it said the BIA was increasing the number of 
     special agents from ``one to two.'' As of the start of 
     October, no second agent had started working on Fort 
     Berthold.
       The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued two reports on 
     funding in Indian communities, one in 2003 and an update in 
     December 2018, called ``Broken Promises.'' The report said, 
     ``The federal government continues to fail to support 
     adequately the social and economic well-being of Native 
     Americans,'' and this ``contributes to the inequities 
     observed in Native American communities.''


                      Trying to make a difference

       Twila Szymanski works as the deputy court administrator for 
     the Fort Peck Tribal Court, maintaining records and stats.
       Szymanski reported only one of her three assaults--the one 
     when she was 14. Her case made it into federal court.
       The defendant pleaded guilty in 1995. He was sentenced to 
     three years' probation and no prison time.
       Twila Szymanski is the deputy court administrator for the 
     Fort Peck Tribal Court. ``Justice wasn't served, in my 
     opinion,'' she said. ``He was back in the community quickly, 
     and I had to see him when this was all fresh.''

[[Page H1398]]

       Szymanski is confronted with the memory of what happened to 
     her each time a case comes up and each time she sees her 
     perpetrator in the community.
       She said she uses her position in the court to go through 
     cases and stop them from dropping through the cracks, and she 
     is running for Fort Peck associate judge in the election this 
     month.
       ``When the system has failed you time and time and time 
     again, you don't feel empowered,'' Deer said. ``It feels like 
     a disconnect between this moment of `Me Too' and the reality 
     of lndian country and sexual assault.''
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), my good friend and 
another colleague from the Rules Committee.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, the rule before us today provides 
for consideration of H.R. 6, a bill creating a pathway to citizenship 
for millions of people who entered this country illegally, while it 
does nothing to enforce our immigration laws or secure our borders.
  You heard that right. This bill does nothing to enforce our 
immigration laws. It does nothing to secure our borders. And it does so 
as a record number of illegal immigrants pour across our Southern 
border. And yet, House Democrats are passing a bill that will further 
incentivize illegal immigration and will worsen the Biden border 
crisis.
  The numbers speak for themselves. Over 100,000 migrants were 
encountered at our Southern border just last month. The CBP facility in 
Donna, Texas, was at 729 percent capacity last week. Let me repeat 
that. That facility was at 729 percent capacity.
  And, alarmingly, CBP confirmed that four people were arrested at the 
border, three of whom were from Yemen, one of whom was from Serbia, and 
those individuals matched the names on the FBI's Terrorist Screening 
Database.
  So despite my liberal progressive colleagues' claims to the contrary, 
this surge is directly the result of the Biden administration's 
decision to halt the border wall construction, to reimplement Obama-era 
catch-and-release policies, and to cancel President Trump's asylum 
agreements.
  This Chamber should work to address the border crisis going on, 
Biden's border crisis. We should not pass legislation that encourages 
and rewards illegal immigration and further incentivizes this crisis, 
yet that is what H.R. 6, in fact, does. This bill places the interest 
of those who broke our laws above the interests of those who followed 
them.
  It has no enforcement provisions. It includes loopholes to give green 
cards to gang members and criminals. It even puts U.S. taxpayers on the 
hook for grant programs to help illegal immigrants obtain green cards.
  Again, H.R. 6 would do absolutely nothing to address President 
Biden's border security and humanitarian crisis at the Southern border.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and 
vote ``no'' on H.R. 6.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, the situation at the border 
has nothing to do with the Dream and Promise Act. If anything, former 
President Trump's attempt to eliminate all resources contributed to the 
crisis at the border. The Dream and Promise Act does not apply to 
future migrants, just those who were already in the country before 
2021.
  This Dream and Promise Act has a very high criminal bar. An applicant 
is disqualified if they have any one of the following: A felony 
conviction, one misdemeanor conviction involving moral turpitude, more 
than two misdemeanors, or one misdemeanor for domestic violence.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).
  Mrs. WAGNER. Madam Speaker, I rise in stark opposition to H.J. Res. 
17, which would retroactively and unconstitutionally remove the 
deadline to ratify the equal rights amendment.
  Ratification of the equal rights amendment will expand taxpayer-
funded abortions and imperil basic pro-life protections that States 
have enacted based on the will of their people through their State 
legislatures.
  I am a committed defender of rights for women and girls, and I have 
led efforts in Congress to end sex trafficking, address the rape kit 
backlog, and help women balance staying in the workforce and caring for 
their children.
  As a mother and as a proud grandma, I want my sweet granddaughter to 
feel secure in the knowledge that she is entitled to the same rights 
and opportunities as men.

                              {time}  1715

  However, I cannot support this attempt to circumvent the amendment 
process and enshrine access to taxpayer-funded abortion in the 
Constitution by a simple majority vote rather than with the required 
support of two-thirds of Congress or the States.
  Congress has twice given States time to ratify the equal rights 
amendment, but the deadline has long since passed. While some States 
ratified the ERA after the deadline, others--up to five--have withdrawn 
their ratification.
  I strongly agree and associate myself with the late Supreme Court 
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's words when she made the point: ``If you 
count a latecomer on the plus side, how can you disregard States that 
said, `We have changed our minds'?''
  If Democrats want to test the longstanding bipartisan agreement on 
limiting taxpayer-funded abortions, they should follow Justice 
Ginsburg's guidance and start the process over, just as our Founders 
intended.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I would also like to set the record straight when it 
comes to the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA. My amendment was 
removed, in a partisan fashion, from VAWA this Congress, stripping 
vital sex trafficking funding for victims, for children. This has 
always been included, and it was stripped out and not allowed in the 
amendment process. Also not allowed was my PRENDA amendment that would 
have stopped sex selection in the womb taking the lives of young girls.
  Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to this legislation.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, my colleagues across the 
aisle are not supportive of provisions to protect LGBTQ-plus 
individuals in this bill, but LGBTQ-plus members of our community 
experience domestic violence, too. Abusers do not discriminate based on 
sexual orientation, and neither should this body.
  Legislators who oppose equality are trying to turn this into a debate 
about abortion to distract from the issue at hand. I would like to 
clarify that the ERA doesn't include any requirement to provide 
specific healthcare services, including abortion. It is about equality 
under the law.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, the most recent Marist poll 
found that 7 in 10 Americans, including nearly half who identify as 
pro-choice, want significant restrictions on abortion. Yet, the ERA as 
written will be used in an aggressive litigation strategy to nullify 
those restrictions, including the Hyde amendment, waiting periods, 
parental involvement, women's right-to-know laws, conscience rights, 
and the late-term abortion bans like the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban 
Act.
  NARAL Pro-Choice America has said: ``The ERA would reinforce the 
constitutional right to abortion'' and ``require judges to strike down 
anti-abortion laws.''
  The National Organization for Women said: ``An ERA--properly 
interpreted--could negate the hundreds of laws that have passed 
restricting access to abortion.''
  Abortion activists, Madam Speaker, successfully litigated using State 
ERAs in both New Mexico and Connecticut to compel taxpayers to pay for 
abortion on demand.
  Last year, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke on the legal 
impermissibility of extending the deadline for ratification and said 
she ``would like it to start over.'' I couldn't agree more.
  Madam Speaker, two leaders of the National Organization for Women 
(NOW) wrote: ``During the 1972 ERA ratification campaign, several 
prominent women's leaders denied that an ERA would apply to abortion . 
. .''.
  Ever since, pro-abortion leaders have largely ignored, trivialized, 
or denied the fact that

[[Page H1399]]

activists plan to aggressively use the federal ERA as currently written 
in a litigation strategy to overturn all pro-life laws and policies 
including restrictions supported by huge majorities of Americans. 
According to the most recent Marist poll (January 2021):
  7 in 10 Americans including nearly half who identify as pro-choice 
want significant restrictions on abortion,
  58 percent of all Americans oppose using tax dollars for abortion,
  55 percent want to ban abortion after 20 weeks,
  70 percent of Americans oppose abortion if the child will be born 
with Down Syndrome,
  80 percent of Americans believe that laws can protect both a pregnant 
woman and the life of her unborn child.
  While I fundamentally disagree with abortion activists who refuse to 
recognize an unborn child's inherent dignity, worth, and value, at 
least both sides now agree that the ERA as written will be used in 
court to promote abortion.
  NARAL--Pro-Choice America said: ``The ERA would reinforce the 
constitutional right to abortion . . . (and) require judges to strike 
down anti-abortion laws . . .''.
  The National Right to Life Committee states that ``the proposed 
federal ERA would invalidate the federal Hyde Amendment and a state 
restrictions on tax-funded abortions.''
  As director of reproductive-justice initiatives and National Women's 
Law Center senior counsel Kelli Garcia said, the ERA would help create 
a basis to challenge abortion restrictions.''
  And NOW said: ``An ERA--properly interpreted--could negate the 
hundreds of laws that have passed restricting access to abortion . . 
.''.
  Those laws restricting abortion include the Hyde Amendment, waiting 
periods, parental involvement, women's right to know laws, conscience 
rights including the Weldon Amendment and any late term abortion ban 
like the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.
  Should the ERA be ratified without clarifying abortion-neutral 
language--to wit: ``Nothing in this Article shall be construed to grant 
or secure any right relating to abortion or the funding thereof''--it 
is absolutely clear that abortion activists will use the ERA as they 
have successfully used state ERAs in both New Mexico and Connecticut--
to force taxpayers to pay for abortion on demand.
  By now, my colleagues know that:
  The Supreme Court of New Mexico ruled in 1998 that the state was 
required to fund abortion based solely on the state ERA and said the 
law ``undoubtedly singles out . . . a gender-linked condition that is 
unique to women'' and, therefore, ``violates the Equal Rights 
Amendment.''
  In like manner, the Supreme Court of Connecticut invalidated its 
state ban on abortion funding and wrote in 1986: ``it is therefore 
clear, under the Connecticut ERA, that the regulation excepting . . . 
abortions from the Medicaid program discriminates against women.''
  Today in Pennsylvania, activists are suing to eviscerate the abortion 
funding restriction in that state claiming that the Hyde-type 
restriction violates the Pennsylvania Equal Rights Amendment.
  I believe that all human beings--especially the weakest and most 
vulnerable including unborn baby girls and boys--deserve respect, 
empathy, compassion, and protection from violence.
  Madam Speaker, last year, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 
spoke on the legal impermissibility of extending the deadline for 
ratification and that she ``would like it to start over''.
  According to Vox, Justice Ginsburg said, There's too much controversy 
about latecomers, plus, a number of states have withdrawn their 
ratification. So, if you count a latecomer on the plus side, how can 
you disregard states that said 'we've changed our minds?' ''
  Five states--Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, Tennessee, and South Dakota--
voted to ratify the ERA but later rescinded that ratification.
  I strongly believe in equal rights for women. I've introduced the ERA 
with the abortion-neutral language I mentioned a moment ago.
  Over the course of many years, I have consistently sponsored and 
promoted women's rights legislation to ensure equal pay for equal work 
including most recently, the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  In the struggle against wage discrimination, I voted in favor of the 
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
  To help ensure that women are not disadvantaged in their careers 
because of time taken to attend to their families, I was an early and 
strong advocate of multiple legislative initiatives to provide family 
medical leave--including the groundbreaking bill that became law, the 
Family and Medical Leave Act.
  I voted to ensure that women's rights are protected in higher 
education by strongly supporting Title IX.
  I have supported legislation to amend pension and tax policies that 
negatively impact women, and I supported numerous bills to establish 
certain rights for sexual assault survivors including the Survivors' 
Bill of Rights which is now law.
  Since the mid-1990s, I have led the effort to end the barbaric 
practice of human trafficking, a human rights abuse that is an 
unimaginable exploitation of women and girls that thrives on greed, 
disrespect, and secrecy.
  Twenty years ago, the U.S. Congress approved and the President signed 
legislation that I authored--the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 
2000--a comprehensive whole-of-government initiative to combat sex and 
labor trafficking in the United States and around the world.
  The Violence Against Women Act (See Division B) was reauthorized and 
significantly expanded by my law. Last Congress, I cosponsored the 
Violence Against Women Extension Act of 2019.
  In 2019, I authored another bill that was signed into law-my fifth 
major law on human trafficking--The Frederick Douglass Trafficking 
Victims Prevention and Protection Act.
  After a young college student from my district, Samantha Josephson, 
was brutally murdered by the driver of what she thought was her Uber 
ride, I introduced Sami's Law which passed the House--but never got a 
vote in the Senate--to make the ride share industry safer for all. In 
recent months, it has been shocking to learn that thousands of women 
who use Lyft or Uber have been sexually assaulted and some have been 
murdered. I reintroduced Sami's Law in February.
  Yesterday, it was reported that another woman was sexually assaulted 
in Ft. Lauderdale by an ``off-duty'' Uber driver.
  Ensuring equal rights for women and serious protections against 
violence requires laws, policies, and spending priorities to achieve 
those noble and necessary goals--without putting unborn baby girls and 
boys at risk of death.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a 
March 16 USA Today opinion piece from activists Dolores Huerta, Carol 
Jenkins, and Eleanor Smeal titled ``There is no deadline on women's 
equality. Add the equal rights amendment to the Constitution.''

                    [From USA TODAY, March 16, 2021]

There's No Deadline on Women's Equality. Add the Equal Rights Amendment 
                          to the Constitution.

          (By Dolores Huerta, Carol Jenkins and Eleanor Smeal)

       For the second time in a century, a global pandemic has 
     occurred at the height of a determined movement to expand 
     women's rights under the U.S. Constitution. The 1918 flu 
     pandemic nearly halted the drive for ratification of the 19th 
     Amendment on women's suffrage. But advocates rallied, lobbied 
     President Woodrow Wilson for support and urged Congress to 
     pass a joint resolution adopting the amendment. That was 
     followed by ratification by the states and final 
     certification in August 1920.
       Today, the campaign for ratification of the Equal Rights 
     Amendment is in the middle of another global pandemic with 
     women losing jobs at a much higher rate than men, especially 
     affecting women of color. In these first 100 days of the 
     Biden-Harris administration and during Women's History Month, 
     there is a real opportunity to make constitutional history 
     again with lasting change for women's rights and gender 
     equality by adding the ERA to the Constitution.
       No rights denied 'on account of sex'
       Congress approved the ERA in 1972. It says, very simply, 
     that ``equality of rights under the law shall not be denied 
     or abridged by the United States or any state on account of 
     sex.''
       President Joe Biden and Congress now have the opportunity 
     to rally as well. This week, the House of Representatives 
     will consider a joint resolution clearing the way for the ERA 
     to be added to the Constitution. If the Senate also adopts 
     the resolution, it could become part of the Constitution this 
     year.
       The ERA won ratification by the necessary three-fourths of 
     the states when Virginia became the 38th state last year. 
     Earlier, Nevada ratified in 2017 and Illinois in 2018. 
     However, the ERA has yet to be formally enshrined into the 
     Constitution because of an arbitrary timeline in the 
     amendment's preamble--not the legislative text sent to the 
     states for approval--which set 1979 for ratification. 
     Congress changed the timeline by extending it to 1982.
       Congress can again weigh in by removing the timeline and 
     recognizing the final three states, because Article V of the 
     Constitution puts the amending process with the Congress and 
     ratification with the states.
       Button supporting the Equal Rights Amendment on April 2, 
     2013, in Little Rock, Arkansas. Congressional action is 
     needed to support the attorneys general of Virginia, Nevada 
     and Illinois, who went to federal court asking the national 
     archivist to include the ERA in the Constitution.
       But a U.S. district judge ruled this month that the three 
     states did not have standing to bring the case, and the 1982 
     deadline remains in effect.
       Now is the time for Congress to recognize there can be no 
     time limit on equality. The

[[Page H1400]]

     House and Senate should approve a joint resolution ``removing 
     the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights 
     amendment.'' The measure, introduced in the House in January, 
     already has more than 200 co-sponsors.
       The vast majority of Americans across demographic and 
     partisan lines agree that women should have equal rights with 
     men in this country. In a 2020 Pew Research Center survey, 
     more than 9 in 10 U.S. adults said it is very important (79%) 
     or somewhat important (18%). Fully 78% of U.S. adults--
     including majorities of women, men, Republicans and 
     Democrats--favored adding the ERA to the Constitution.
       `All men would be tyrants if they could'
       Abigail Adams is often quoted as saying, ``Remember the 
     Ladies.'' In March of 1776, she wrote more than these three 
     words to her husband, John, just months before the 
     Declaration of Independence was adopted and as he was engaged 
     in drafting the U.S. Constitution. She had some ideas about 
     what should be included ``in the new code of laws' he was 
     making: ``I desire you would remember the ladies and be more 
     generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. . . . 
     Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If 
     particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we 
     are determined to formant a rebellion, and will not hold 
     ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or 
     representation.''
       That rebellion has been taking place through the hundreds 
     of peaceful ERA marches and rallies that led up to the 2017 
     Women's March, events that galvanized millions of women and 
     men nationwide to new levels of political activism. The 
     #MeToo movement sparked public outrage over sexual assault 
     and misogyny in the workplace.
       In 2020, women again far outnumbered men as voters with a 
     gender gap that has become decisive in presidential, Senate 
     and House elections. And women and men alike supported the 
     Equal Rights Amendment by electing a pro-ERA majority of 
     members in the House and Senate.
       An estimated 1 million more women than men have lost their 
     jobs during the COVID-19 lockdowns, and the pandemic shows 
     that most essential workers are women, most of them are Black 
     and Latina, and most still have the majority of caregiving 
     responsibilities. These along with other economic realities 
     make constitutional rights for women more urgent than ever 
     before.
       The pandemic has sparked a reexamination of the role of 
     government and the need for social safety net and economic 
     policies that work for all. In short, the new reality of 2021 
     demands that Congress approve the ERA resolution. It will 
     mark a historic commitment to women's rights by ensuring 
     equality under the law for current and future generations.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, COVID's impact on women 
shows the continued need for equality. We have the power to remove the 
ERA ratification deadline and make it a reality.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule to provide for consideration of Congresswoman Miller-Meeks' H.R. 
1897, the REACT Act.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks) to speak further on the amendment.
  Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, 
Congresswoman Fischbach, for yielding me time.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can take 
up my bill, H.R. 1897, the REACT Act.
  My bill would require the Department of Homeland Security to test all 
migrants illegally crossing our border who they plan to release into 
our communities for COVID-19.
  Yesterday, I traveled to El Paso, Texas, to meet with the men and 
women of the United States Customs and Border Protection. I saw 
firsthand the crisis they are facing and believe it is our job as 
Congress to do everything in our power to address it.
  CBP is currently encountering more than 3,000 migrants on average per 
day, which is rapidly approaching levels seen at the height of the 2019 
crisis. To put this in perspective, President Obama's Secretary of 
Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, stated during his tenure that 1,000 
apprehensions a day was considered a bad day. We are at more than three 
times that now, and on top of it, we continue to face a global 
pandemic.
  In February, CBP encountered over 100,000 migrants on the southwest 
border trying to illegally enter our country. This does not include 
those migrants who may have gotten away or evaded detection, some of 
whom may be positive for COVID-19.
  The Department of Homeland Security announced today that we are on 
track to encounter the highest number of migrants along the southwest 
border in the last 20 years. Seasonally, migration gets worse in the 
spring months of April and May, so we are likely to see these numbers 
increase over the coming months.
  Yesterday, I heard directly from the Border Patrol agents that few, 
if any, of the thousands of migrants we saw in CBP custody are being 
tested for COVID-19. These migrants, and children, in particular, are 
being held in facilities that are already at capacity, and often for 
longer than the 72-hour limit permitted by law. According to recent 
reports, as of March 8, 185 migrants released into Brownsville, Texas, 
have tested positive for COVID-19.
  Border security and immigration is not an issue that only affects 
border States. It affects every community across the country. If the 
Biden administration continues to release these migrants, they will not 
stay in our border communities. Instead, they will travel to every 
State. Without proper testing and quarantine, they are likely to bring 
COVID-19 with them, and the communities to which they are transferred 
are unaware.
  As a physician and former director of the Iowa Department of Public 
Health, I know that the COVID-19 pandemic is not yet over. We must 
ensure that any individuals the Biden administration insists on 
releasing into our communities do not have COVID-19. This is also why I 
support reinstating the PAUSE Act, to prevent the introduction of new 
COVID-19 cases from Canada and Mexico.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to 
require that we keep all of our communities and these migrants safe and 
to stop spreading COVID-19 by voting ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, President Biden inherited a 
dismantled and gutted immigration system. The prior administration's 
strategy of cruelty, chaos, and confusion was ineffective and set the 
stage for our current challenges.
  I include in the Record a March 15 Columbus Dispatch article titled 
``Undocumented immigrants pay billions in taxes each year--and have 
been for 25 years.''

              [From the Columbus Dispatch, Mar. 15, 2021]

Undocumented Immigrants Pay Billions in Taxes Each Year--and Have Been 
                              for 25 Years

                            (By Danae King)

       Every year, Arturo pays thousands of dollars in taxes from 
     the revenue produced by his central Ohio-based painting 
     company.
       But he will never receive Social Security benefits. Or 
     Medicare. Or Medicaid.
       That's because Arturo, whose last name is not being used 
     for his safety, is an undocumented immigrant from Mexico--one 
     of about 6 million who pay taxes annually, according to the 
     Congressional Budget Office.
       Jorge Beltran is a Columbus tax preparer who is certified 
     by the IRS to file taxes for undocumented immigrants. He 
     hopes to shatter misconceptions about immigrants not paying 
     taxes and being drains on society.
       A report from the office shows that 50% to 75% of 
     undocumented immigrants pay billions in taxes each year--and 
     have been since the Internal Revenue Service created a 
     program 25 years ago allowing people without a Social 
     Security number to file taxes.
       When it comes to state and local taxes, undocumented 
     immigrants pay more than $11 billion a year, according to a 
     2017 report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic 
     Policy, a nonpartisan nonprofit based in Washington, D.C. In 
     Ohio, they paid $83.2 million in state and local taxes in 
     2017, according to the institute.
       Jorge Beltran, left, reviews tax documents with client Ana 
     Narciso. Beltran is a Columbus tax preparer who is certified 
     by the IRS to file taxes for undocumented immigrants. He 
     hopes to shatter misconceptions about immigrants not paying 
     taxes and being drains on society. Narciso has legal status 
     to be in the United States.
       ``When you hear people who are citizens--who may be against 
     immigration or immigrants, especially undocumented--say, `Oh, 
     they're here and sucking up all the government resources and 
     taking handouts and

[[Page H1401]]

     welfare.' That's not the case,'' said Jessica Rodriguez Bell, 
     a Columbus immigration attorney who has undocumented clients.
       ``These people are not eligible for those benefits, and 
     many times they're paying into the system like we are. It's 
     frustrating to hear that a lot.''
       Still, many attorneys recommend their undocumented clients 
     pay taxes, Rodriguez Bell said.
       ``The reason for that is that, one, it's income they've 
     been paying in and are likely entitled to a refund of some 
     sort,'' Rodriguez Bell said. ``Then, also because in the 
     future, even if they don't have a current immigration case 
     pending or even if they're not eligible for relief at this 
     time . . . oftentimes you want to demonstrate good moral 
     character and that you've been an upstanding citizen while 
     you've been here.''
       Years of tax returns also establish that a person has been 
     living in the United States, she said.
       To some, though, the issue is not whether or not 
     undocumented immigrants pay taxes, said Mark Krikorian, 
     executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a 
     Washington, D.C.-based conservative think tank.
       ``There's this sort of implicit assumption that if you pay 
     your taxes everything else is fine,'' he said. ``Paying your 
     taxes doesn't wipe away everything else that you've done.''
       Krikorian said that the real question is what is the 
     balance of taxes undocumented immigrants pay versus the 
     services they consume.
       ``There's no real debate about less-skilled workers,'' he 
     said. ``Whether they're legal or illegal, they use more in 
     services than they pay in taxes.''
       A 2010 report from another Washington, D.C., think tank, 
     the Brookings Institution, however, suggests that while U.S.-
     citizen children of undocumented immigrants can be costly 
     when they're young, those costs are paid out through a 
     lifetime of taxes.
       The mere act of filing taxes could be seen as a risk for 
     undocumented immigrants because it could result in the 
     federal government pursing legal action to return the 
     immigrants to their home country. But Rodriguez-Bell said she 
     hasn't seen any such negative consequences.
       ``The IRS is a separate department, so it's not something 
     where we've ever seen information exchanged between the IRS 
     and, say, ICE,'' she said, referring to Immigration and 
     Customs Enforcement. ``This is not something that's going to 
     get you in trouble, and you're not doing something illegal by 
     doing that. It can only help your situation in the future if 
     you are filing.''
       In 1996, the IRS created the Individual Taxpayer 
     Identification Number (ITIN) to allow people working in the 
     United States without Social Security numbers to pay taxes. 
     It is a 9-digit number, the same length as a Social Security 
     number, issued only to those who are not eligible for Social 
     Security numbers.
       In order to help undocumented immigrants get a tax ID 
     number and file, the IRS certifies what are called acceptance 
     agents. There are 13 in Columbus, 79 in Ohio and more than 
     5,000 nationwide.
       Jorge Beltran, the owner of Belmont Services LLC, a tax 
     preparation company on Columbus' Northwest Side, has been a 
     certified acceptance agent with the IRS since 2008. The vast 
     majority of Beltran's clients are undocumented immigrants, 
     and he's passionate about letting people know that they pay 
     taxes.
       ``Imagine if more people knew this,'' Beltran said. ``These 
     are not people asking for a handout. They're not asking for 
     unemployment. They're not asking for any benefits. Even if 
     they wanted to, they couldn't.''
       Consider his clients Javier and Norma--whose first names 
     only are being used, as with other undocumented immigrants in 
     this story, for their safety--who both worked in food service 
     before the pandemic. In March 2020, Javier got laid off but 
     had no access to unemployment or COVID-19 relief payments due 
     to his status. Over the course of the rest of the year, he 
     worked six different jobs to support his family, which 
     includes their three U.S.-born children.
       The couple made $56,369 in 2020 and got a refund of $3,337, 
     which made a big difference in their lives, Beltran said, 
     possibly paying for five months of their rent. If they had 
     Social Security numbers, they could've gotten $6,900 in 
     federal COVID relief payments in 2020 to help support their 
     family, Beltran said.
       ``They contribute to all of our communities,'' he said. 
     ``They pay the school system from their taxes. They pay for 
     the roads from their taxes, and they spend money they make in 
     the grocery stores and movie theaters and everywhere but 
     nobody knows about it.''
       Beltran shared the story of another two of his clients, 
     Cirilo and Patricia, who live in Mount Vernon and have been 
     in the country for almost 20 years. Cirilo works two jobs as 
     a cook, but only made $26,784 last year, paying $3,706 in 
     taxes. His earnings had to support his six children--four of 
     whom have Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) 
     status, allowing them to work and go to school legally, and 
     two of whom were born in the United States.
       Nicole, who owns a painting business with her undocumented 
     immigrant husband, Arturo, both pose for a portrait on 
     Friday, March 12, 2021. Undocumented immigrants pay taxes and 
     own businesses that employ people and help the local economy.
       Arturo and his wife, Nicole, a U.S. citizen whose family is 
     from Mexico and who owns their painting company with him, are 
     Beltran's clients as well. They employ 47 people and paid 
     $118,250 in estimated taxes this year, according to Beltran.
       ``Talk about being productive members of society,'' he 
     said. ``Forty-seven people can feed their families, help pay 
     the schools, whatever, with the employment they have and 
     that's generated by this company.
       More than $11,000 from the family's taxes went to the city 
     of Columbus.
       The couple started their business after Arturo got injured 
     in his job as a butcher and was fired. He started working for 
     a friend as a painter, but had always dreamed of working for 
     himself and owning a business. So, with the help of a friend, 
     they started their own business six years ago and now support 
     themselves and their four children.
       ``He comes from nothing in Mexico. His parents are farmers, 
     and he has just a middle school, almost high school 
     education,'' Nicole said, of her husband. ``It was really 
     important for him not to be stuck. He came to the United 
     States to make something for himself, to provide a better 
     future for his children.''
       Immigrants are here to make the country better, Nicole 
     said.
       ``This is what makes America great,'' she said. 
     ``immigrants coming here and finding their way and helping 
     the country prosper, too.''
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, during the last 4 years, 
millions of immigrants faced uncertainty as the Trump administration 
pursued cruel immigration policies. With passage of H.R. 6, we are 
beginning a new chapter in our Nation's immigration policy.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Katko).
  Mr. KATKO. Madam Speaker, I will note, in response to my colleagues 
across the aisle, that there is nothing wrong with enforcing the 
immigration laws that are on the books. That is all we are talking 
about doing at the border, and keeping the border secure.
  Madam Speaker, yesterday, I visited the southern border, and what I 
saw was unacceptable, full stop. I witnessed the dangerous and rapidly 
growing impacts of Biden's border crisis.
  I spoke to Border Patrol agents on the front line of the crisis and 
witnessed firsthand what they are up against. Thousands of migrants are 
showing up every week, hanging onto the words and promises of President 
Biden's goal of relaxing border restrictions.
  Our Border Patrol agents are underresourced and overwhelmed. They 
have been put in an untenable situation, with little regard for their 
health or safety.
  Department of Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas recently announced 
the Department would begin allocating FEMA resources. FEMA is the 
agency that is in charge of overseeing the pandemic and delivering 
vaccines to our American citizens. He has taken resources away from 
American citizens to deal with this crisis on the border. If FEMA is 
involved, it is, by definition, a disaster.
  Last week, senior Department of Homeland Security officials told the 
committee that Customs and Border Protection doesn't have the capacity 
to test and quarantine migrants in their custody, and that there was no 
planning being done to ensure migrants are not released by the Federal 
Government at the border if they are COVID-19 positive. Thousands have 
been released.
  I saw with my own eyes hundreds of people in this facility. Not a 
single one was tested. And only half of the Border Patrol agents have 
been inoculated. We don't know how many have COVID-19, and quite 
frankly, I don't think they want to know.
  In the midst of the ongoing pandemic, it is the Department's job to 
ensure it doesn't release anyone who is COVID-19 positive. For this 
reason, I support efforts to defeat the previous question and bring up 
commonsense legislation to require that any individual released from 
CBP or ICE custody tests negative for COVID-19.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko).
  Mr. KATKO. Madam Speaker, President Biden's knee-jerk reversal of 
productive, effective border security policies from the previous 
administration

[[Page H1402]]

was a political calculation that has, quite frankly, backfired and 
created a humanitarian, security, and public health crisis.
  We can't allow our Nation's progress in overcoming the ongoing 
pandemic to be undermined by dangerous policies allowing individuals 
with COVID-19 to be released into our communities.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote to defeat the previous 
question.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a 
statement by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro N. 
Mayorkas in which he states the many issues associated with the 
southern border and what we are doing to address those issues.
  For example, Border Patrol facilities and border personnel that had 
not had complete access to a COVID-19 vaccine now have complete access 
to the vaccine. It talks about the disruptions of the previous 
administration and their lack of commitment to deal with tender-age 
children and many other issues that could help inform this conversation 
moving forward.

     [From the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Mar. 16, 2021]

    Statement by Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas 
            Regarding the Situation at the Southwest Border

       There is understandably a great deal of attention currently 
     focused on the southwest border. I want to share the facts, 
     the work that we in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 
     and across the government are doing, and our plan of action. 
     Our personnel remain steadfast in devotion of their talent 
     and efforts in the service of our nation.
       The situation at the southwest border is difficult. We are 
     working around the clock to manage it and we will continue to 
     do so. That is our job. We are making progress and we are 
     executing on our plan. It will take time and we will not 
     waver in our commitment to succeed.
       We will also not waver in our values and our principles as 
     a Nation. Our goal is a safe, legal, and orderly immigration 
     system that is based on our bedrock priorities: to keep our 
     borders secure, address the plight of children as the law 
     requires, and enable families to be together. As noted by the 
     President in his Executive Order, ``securing our borders does 
     not require us to ignore the humanity of those who seek to 
     cross them.'' We are both a nation of laws and a nation of 
     immigrants. That is one of our proudest traditions.


                               The Facts

       We are on pace to encounter more individuals on the 
     southwest border than we have in the last 20 years. We are 
     expelling most single adults and families. We are not 
     expelling unaccompanied children. We are securing our border, 
     executing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 
     (CDC) public health authority to safeguard the American 
     public and the migrants themselves, and protecting the 
     children. We have more work to do.
       This is not new. We have experienced migration surges 
     before--in 2019, 2014, and before then as well. Since April 
     2020, the number of encounters at the southwest border has 
     been steadily increasing. Border Patrol Agents are working 
     around the clock to process the flow at the border and I have 
     great respect for their tireless efforts. To understand the 
     situation, it is important to identify who is arriving at our 
     southwest border and how we are following the law to manage 
     different types of border encounters.


                             Single Adults

       The majority of those apprehended at the southwest border 
     are single adults who are currently being expelled under the 
     CDC's authority to manage the public health crisis of the 
     COVID-19 pandemic. Pursuant to that authority under Title 42 
     of the United States Code, single adults from Mexico and the 
     Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and 
     Honduras are swiftly expelled to Mexico. Single adults from 
     other countries are expelled by plane to their countries of 
     origin if Mexico does not accept them. There are limited 
     exceptions to our use of the CDC's expulsion authority. For 
     example, we do not expel individuals with certain acute 
     vulnerabilities.
       The expulsion of single adults does not pose an operational 
     challenge for the Border Patrol because of the speed and 
     minimal processing burden of their expulsion.


                                Families

       Families apprehended at the southwest border are also 
     currently being expelled under the CDC's Title 42 authority. 
     Families from Mexico and the Northern Triangle countries are 
     expelled to Mexico unless Mexico does not have the capacity 
     to receive the families. Families from countries other than 
     Mexico or the Northern Triangle are expelled by plane to 
     their countries of origin. Exceptions can be made when a 
     family member has an acute vulnerability.
       Mexico's limited capacity has strained our resources, 
     including in the Rio Grande Valley area of Texas. When 
     Mexico's capacity is reached, we process the families and 
     place them in immigration proceedings here in the United 
     States. We have partnered with communitybased organizations 
     to test the family members and quarantine them as needed 
     under COVID-19 protocols. In some locations, the processing 
     of individuals who are part of a family unit has strained our 
     border resources. I explain below additional challenges we 
     have encountered and the steps we have taken to solve this 
     problem.


                         Unaccompanied Children

       We are encountering many unaccompanied children at our 
     southwest border every day. A child who is under the age of 
     18 and not accompanied by their parent or legal guardian is 
     considered under the law to be an unaccompanied child. We are 
     encountering six- and sevenyear-old children, for example, 
     arriving at our border without an adult. They are vulnerable 
     children and we have ended the prior administration's 
     practice of expelling them.
       An unaccompanied child is brought to a Border Patrol 
     facility and processed for transfer to the Department of 
     Health and Human Services (HHS). Customs and Border 
     Protection is a passthrough and is required to transfer the 
     child to HHS within 72 hours of apprehension. HHS holds the 
     child for testing and quarantine, and shelters the child 
     until the child is placed with a sponsor here in the United 
     States. In more than 80 percent of cases, the child has a 
     family member in the United States. In more than 40 percent 
     of cases, that family member is a parent or legal guardian. 
     These are children being reunited with their families who 
     will care for them.
       The children then go through immigration proceedings where 
     they are able to present a claim for relief under the law.
       The Border Patrol facilities have become crowded with 
     children and the 72-hour timeframe for the transfer of 
     children from the Border Patrol to HHS is not always met. HHS 
     has not had the capacity to intake the number of 
     unaccompanied children we have been encountering. I describe 
     below the actions we have taken and the plans we are 
     executing to handle this difficult situation successfully.


             Why the Challenge is Especially Difficult Now

       Poverty, high levels of violence, and corruption in Mexico 
     and the Northern Triangle countries have propelled migration 
     to our southwest border for years. The adverse conditions 
     have continued to deteriorate. Two damaging hurricanes that 
     hit Honduras and swept through the region made the living 
     conditions there even worse, causing more children and 
     families to flee.
       The COVID-19 pandemic has made the situation more 
     complicated. There are restrictions and protocols that need 
     to be followed. The physical distancing protocol, for 
     example, imposes space and other limitations on our 
     facilities and operations.
       The prior administration completely dismantled the asylum 
     system. The system was gutted, facilities were closed, and 
     they cruelly expelled young children into the hands of 
     traffickers. We have had to rebuild the entire system, 
     including the policies and procedures required to 
     administer the asylum laws that Congress passed long ago.
       The prior administration tore down the lawful pathways that 
     had been developed for children to come to the United States 
     in a safe, efficient, and orderly way. It tore down, for 
     example, the Central American Minors program that avoided the 
     need for children to take the dangerous journey to our 
     southwest border.
       The previous administration also cut foreign aid funding to 
     the Northern Triangle. No longer did we resource efforts in 
     El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to tackle the root 
     causes of people fleeing their homes.
       And, there were no plans to protect our front-line 
     personnel against the COVID-19 pandemic. There was no 
     appropriate planning for the pandemic at all.
       As difficult as the border situation is now, we are 
     addressing it. We have acted and we have made progress. We 
     have no illusions about how hard it is, and we know it will 
     take time. We will get it done. We will do so adhering to the 
     law and our fundamental values. We have an incredibly 
     dedicated and talented workforce.


                         Actions We Have Taken

       In less than two months, Customs and Border Protection 
     stood-up an additional facility in Donna, Texas to process 
     unaccompanied children and families. We deployed additional 
     personnel to provide oversight, care, and transportation 
     assistance for unaccompanied minors pending transfer to HHS 
     custody.
       We are standing up additional facilities in Texas and 
     Arizona to shelter unaccompanied children and families. We 
     are working with Mexico to increase its capacity to receive 
     expelled families. We partnered with community-based 
     organizations to test and quarantine families that Mexico has 
     not had the capacity to receive. We have developed a 
     framework for partnering with local mayors and public health 
     officials to pay for 100% of the expense for testing, 
     isolation, and quarantine for migrants. ICE has also 
     developed additional facilities to provide testing, local 
     transportation, immigration document assistance, orientation, 
     travel coordination in the interior, and mechanisms to 
     support oversight of the migrant families who are not 
     expelled.
       Working with Mexico and international organizations, we 
     built a system in which migrants who were forced to remain in 
     Mexico and denied a chance to seek protection under

[[Page H1403]]

     the previous administration can now use a virtual platform--
     using their phones--to register. They do not need to take the 
     dangerous journey to the border. The individuals are tested, 
     processed, and transported to a port of entry safely and out 
     of the hands of traffickers. We succeeded in processing the 
     individuals who were in the Matamoros camp in Mexico. This is 
     the roadmap going forward for a system that is safe, orderly, 
     and fair.
       To protect our own workforce, we launched Operation 
     Vaccinate Our Workforce (VOW) in late January. At the 
     beginning of this administration, less than 2 percent of our 
     frontline personnel were vaccinated. Now more than 25 percent 
     of our frontline personnel have been vaccinated.
       We directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 
     to assist HHS in developing the capacity to meet the surge of 
     unaccompanied children. FEMA already established one new 
     facility for HHS to shelter 700 children. They have 
     identified and are currently adding additional facilities. We 
     are working with HHS to more efficiently identify and screen 
     sponsors for children. In two days, we recruited more than 
     560 DHS volunteers to support HHS in our collective efforts 
     to address the needs of the unaccompanied children.
       We are restarting and expanding the Central American Minors 
     program. It creates a lawful pathway for children to come to 
     the United States without having to take the dangerous 
     journey. Under this expansion, children will be processed in 
     their home countries and brought to the United States in a 
     safe and orderly way.
       In addition, DHS and HHS terminated a 2018 agreement that 
     had a chilling effect on potential sponsors--typically a 
     parent or close relative--from coming forward to care for an 
     unaccompanied child placed in an HHS shelter. In its place, 
     DHS and HHS signed a new Memorandum of Agreement that 
     promotes the safe and timely transfer of children. It keeps 
     safeguards designed to ensure children are unified with 
     properly vetted sponsors who can safely care for them while 
     they await immigration proceedings.


                            The Path Forward

       We are creating joint processing centers so that children 
     can be placed in HHS care immediately after Border Patrol 
     encounters them. We are also identifying and equipping 
     additional facilities for HHS to shelter unaccompanied 
     children until they are placed with family or sponsors. These 
     are short-term solutions to address the surge of 
     unaccompanied children.
       Longer term, we are working with Mexico and international 
     organizations to expand our new virtual platform so that 
     unaccompanied children can access it without having to take 
     the dangerous journey to our border. As mentioned, we are 
     expanding the Central American Minors program to permit more 
     children to be processed in their home countries and if 
     eligible, brought to the United States in a safe and orderly 
     way.
       We are developing additional legal and safe pathways for 
     children and others to reach the United States. While we are 
     building a formal refugee program throughout the region, we 
     are working with Mexico, the Northern Triangle countries, and 
     international organizations to establish processing centers 
     in those countries so that individuals can be screened 
     through them and brought to the United States if they qualify 
     for relief under our humanitarian laws and other authorities.
       For years, the asylum system has been badly in need of 
     reengineering. In addition to improving the process by which 
     unaccompanied children are placed with family or sponsors, we 
     will be issuing a new regulation shortly and taking other 
     measures to implement the long needed systemic reforms. We 
     will shorten from years to months the time it takes to 
     adjudicate an asylum claim while ensuring procedural 
     safeguards and enhancing access to counsel.
       President Biden laid out a vision of a ``multi-pronged 
     approach toward managing migration throughout North and 
     Central America that reflects the Nation's highest values.'' 
     To that end, we are working with the Departments of Health 
     and Human Services, Justice, and State in an all-of-
     government effort to not only address the current situation 
     at our southwest border, but to institute longer-term 
     solutions to irregular migration from countries in our 
     hemisphere that are suffering worsening conditions. This is 
     powerfully exemplified by the President's goal to invest $4 
     billion in the Northern Triangle countries to address the 
     root causes of migration.


                               Conclusion

       The situation we are currently facing at the southwest 
     border is a difficult one. We are tackling it. We are keeping 
     our borders secure, enforcing our laws, and staying true to 
     our values and principles. We can do so because of the 
     incredible talent and unwavering dedication of our workforce.
       I came to this country as an infant, brought by parents who 
     understood the hope and promise of America. Today, young 
     children are arriving at our border with that same hope. We 
     can do this.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.

                              {time}  1730

  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell).
  Ms. HERRELL. Madam Speaker, I rise because I am concerned about the 
release of aliens into my community without COVID-19 testing.
  Dr. Miller-Meeks' changes to this legislation are vital to protecting 
Americans from the spread of COVID-19.
  As our Nation continues to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic, our State 
is still largely locked down, our schools are shuttered, and many of 
our businesses have been closed due to orders from State and local 
officials.
  In many areas along the border, the CBP has restarted catch and 
release in the midst of this unprecedented pandemic. This is completely 
illogical, especially while American citizens continue to live under 
such restrictions. In fact, again, I can point to a double standard.
  Madam Speaker, it is very unfair to think that we want to do 
something to protect these young families, these unaccompanied 
children, when we know for a fact that they are coming across the 
border at the age 1, 3, and 5 alone, without any supervision. We know 
for a fact that they are being raped and pillaged along the way. And if 
we feel that is somehow a benefit to the children, let alone being 
exposed in coming into this Nation with COVID, then we are fooling not 
only ourselves, but, again, the American people. We aren't just putting 
the immigrants in harm's way, but also the American people.
  Madam Speaker, we should be more mindful of what is happening. This 
is a health pandemic we are living in. This is a crisis. We have 
suicide rates that we have never seen before amongst students. Our 
businesses are shut down. We must do something to protect the American 
people first.
  We also must protect the migrants. But allowing our borders to be 
porous without the COVID testing is, again, a mistake, not only for the 
Nation, but for the migrants trying to come here. It is dangerous for 
both Americans and migrants.
  We deserve better than that in America. Our Americans deserve better 
than that. And we must support Dr. Miller-Meeks' bill and insist that 
there is COVID testing before migrants are released into America.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, as difficult as the situation is at our southern 
border, we are addressing it.
  The Biden administration has acted, and they have made progress. They 
have no illusions about how hard it is, because they inherited a 
dismantled program. And to protect our own workforce, they have 
launched Operation Vaccinate our Workers, VOW, in late January.
  At the beginning of the Biden administration, less than 2 percent of 
our frontline personnel were vaccinated. To date, more than 25 percent 
of our frontline personnel have been vaccinated. That is leadership. 
That is not avoidance of the problem that we face.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, in closing, there is a crisis at our border. Whether 
the Democrats acknowledge it or not, our border patrol agents are 
overwhelmed, detention facilities are way over capacity, and COVID-19 
is spreading unchecked throughout. This puts the health of both 
individuals detained and the border agents at risk.
  We currently require a negative COVID test to travel in the U.S. So 
why should the southern border be any different?
  The border crisis is a direct result of the administration's lax 
immigration policy, and it is putting our communities at further risk 
of contracting COVID-19.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and a 
``no'' vote on the underlying measure.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Last week, we passed a historic American Rescue Plan, which set out a 
vision of who we are as a nation. We are a country that can conquer 
this virus, a country that cares about eliminating childhood poverty, 
and a country that is dedicated to ensuring that

[[Page H1404]]

everyone--everyone, not just the rich--are able to emerge from the 
pandemic and do better.
  The bills before us today are a continuation of this vision of a 
country committed to doing better for the people. Too many people in 
America live in fear, fear because they are not protected under the 
law, but these bills before us today say: ``No more.''
  The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act says to domestic abuse 
survivors: ``You are safe. You are going to be safe.''
  H.J. Res. 17, which removes the deadline for the ratification of the 
equal rights amendment says to women: ``You are equal.'' ``We are 
equal.''
  The Dream and Promise Act says to Dreamers: ``You, too, can have a 
shot at the American Dream.''
  And the Farm Workforce Modernization Act tells our farm workers: 
``You can do your job without fear of deportation.''
  H.R. 1868 tells Americans: ``Don't worry about draconian cuts. Let's 
focus on recovery.''
  Madam Speaker, the bills before us today will continue the Democratic 
Congress' work to do better by all the American people.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous 
question.
  The material previously referred to by Mrs. Fischbach is as follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 233

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 11. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     bill (H.R. 1897) to require a diagnostic test for COVID-19 
     for an inadmissible alien released from the custody of the 
     United States Customs and Border Protection or the United 
     States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit.
       Sec. 12. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 1897.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
are postponed.

                          ____________________