[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.
____________________