Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Pappas).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crow).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Peters).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), a member of the committee, and the soon-to-be Democratic leader.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a member of the committee.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader of the House of Representatives.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have been listening to this debate on the Republican side and it is self-contradictory. On the one hand, don't worry about it. Obergefell is not threatened. It is the law of the land. The Supreme Court has decided it. There is no threat. You guys are exaggerating the threat to Obergefell. On the other hand, this bill is catastrophic. My God, it will change things. Well, how will it change things if Obergefell is going to keep going? This bill will threaten the institution of marriage somehow. Really? I don't think it will threaten the institution of marriage, especially since it is irrelevant since Obergefell is going to continue. You can't argue out of both sides of your mouth. I would also point out, as I will in my closing statement, that contrary to the fears expressed about religious liberty, almost every church group in the United States has endorsed this bill. I will read a list in my closing statement. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. The Senate amendment to the Respect for Marriage Act represents a carefully negotiated compromise that maintains all of the bill's substantive protections for marriage equality, while affirming that the religions liberty and conscience protections available under current law remain unaffected by the bill. For these reasons, leading national organizations have endorsed the bill as amended by the Senate, including the ACLU, GLAD, PFLAG, Human Rights Campaign, and Lambda Legal. In addition, a broad interfaith coalition that includes the Interfaith Alliance, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church USA Office of Public Witness, the Union for Reformed Judaism, the Anti- Defamation League, the Hindu American Foundation, Muslims for Progressive Values, and the Sikh Coalition, all endorse the Senate amendment to this bill. This is a long-overdue bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it with a big vote. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 7946, the Veteran Service Recognition Act. This modest but important legislation would ensure that noncitizen Active-Duty military, veterans, and their families are treated with the dignity and respect befitting the sacrifice they have given to this country. While military service can offer an expedited pathway to naturalization, many noncitizen servicemembers leave the military without becoming a U.S. citizen because of unnecessarily burdensome requirements that they must meet. Further, many servicemembers have family members who lack lawful status in the United States with no ability to adjust their status. As a result, while our military personnel are deployed protecting U.S. global interests and keeping our Nation safe, they must worry if their loved ones will be apprehended in an immigration raid and potentially be deported. This legislation would address this concern and would protect our servicemembers, just as they protect us. It would, one, establish an advisory committee to review and provide recommendations on the cases of noncitizen veterans, Active servicemembers, and their families who are placed in removal proceedings. Two, it would direct the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense to implement the program that allows noncitizen servicemembers to file for naturalization during basic training or as early as otherwise possible. Three, it would provide an opportunity for noncitizen veterans who have been removed or ordered removed, and who have not been convicted of serious crimes, to be considered for lawful permanent resident status. Four, it would allow certain immediate relatives of U.S. citizen servicemembers or veterans in the United States to adjust their status and to obtain a green card as long as they are otherwise admissible. Despite the rhetoric that we have already heard from our Republican colleagues throughout this debate, I want to make it clear that H.R. 7946 has nothing to do with the border. This legislation is about recognizing and honoring the sacrifice of our servicemembers by supporting them and their families and by giving them the opportunity to become U.S. citizens if they so desire. I thank Chairman Takano of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, as well as Chair Zoe Lofgren of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship, for their commitment and leadership on this issue. I was honored to join them in introducing the legislation before us today. Immigrants have served in our Armed Forces since the founding of our Nation. In return for their service and sacrifice, we promised them, and they have earned, the opportunity to become American citizens. I hope all of my colleagues will demonstrate their commitment to our servicemembers and our veterans by supporting this important legislation.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a member of the committee.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1499, I call up the bill (H.R. 6878) to address the health needs of incarcerated women related to pregnancy and childbirth, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 6878.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6878, the Pregnant Women in Custody Act, is bipartisan legislation that would help ensure that women receive the pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum care that they need while in Federal custody. The number of women incarcerated has grown significantly in recent decades, and most women are incarcerated during their reproductive years. There are an estimated 58,000 admissions of pregnant women into jails and prisons every year. It is vital for the health of these women and their newborns that they have access to appropriate healthcare, nutrition, and postpartum recovery support. In addition, research shows that Black women already have a 43 percent higher risk of miscarriage than White women. Since women of color are disproportionately impacted by the criminal justice system, a lack of support and care for pregnancy and reproductive health while incarcerated can lead to increased risk of negative pregnancy outcomes. By establishing a national standard of care for incarcerated pregnant women, as well as by prohibiting the use of restrictive housing and providing for transfers to residential reentry centers for women with high-risk pregnancies, this bill will help protect the health and safety of pregnant women and their newborns. Restrictive housing and solitary confinement have been called psychological torture, and the use of solitary confinement can further damage the physical and mental well-being of pregnant women. In addition to setting a national standard of care, this bill also requires the Government Accountability Office to study the services and protections provided to pregnant women incarcerated at the State and local levels. The impact of incarceration of pregnant women is complex and far- reaching. The reality of pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum recovery while incarcerated requires significant mental and physical health interventions and broader protections in order to address the trauma both mothers and newborns experience. This bipartisan bill is supported by a broad range of organizations across the ideological spectrum, including the American Psychological Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, Dream Corps, the Vera Institute for Justice, R Street Institute, and the American Conservative Union. Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague, Representative Karen Bass, for her leadership on this issue and on so many criminal justice issues throughout her career in Congress. I thank her bipartisan cosponsors for introducing this important legislation with her. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the committee.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6878 is bipartisan legislation that would support the health and safety of women in Federal custody by establishing a national standard of care and prohibiting the use of restrictive housing for incarcerated pregnant women. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation. I also want to take this opportunity to express my dual feelings--on the one hand, the sponsor of this legislation, Ms. Bass of California, will no longer be with us in the next Congress, which is, on that level, unfortunate. On the other hand, the reason she won't be with us is because she is the mayor-elect of Los Angeles, and that is not unfortunate. I am very happy about that, but I have mixed feelings because we won't be seeing her here again. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 3846) to reauthorize the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5455, the Terry Technical Correction Act, is a straightforward bipartisan bill that advances our efforts to make our criminal justice system more fair. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, nearly 25 percent of women suffer from domestic violence at some point in their lives. Domestic violence and related offenses destroy lives and shatter families. Among the many challenges that victims face is a lack of legal representation when seeking assistance from the court system. According to the National Network to End Domestic Violence, in just one day in September 2014, domestic violence assistance programs received more than 10,000 requests for services, including legal representation, that were not met. The effect of this lack of representation is devastating. Research has shown that 83 percent of victims represented by counsel were able to obtain protective orders, while only 32 percent of unrepresented victims were able to do so. That is why in 2018, Congress stepped in by enacting the POWER Act, which requires the chief judge of every judicial district to hold an annual public event, in partnership with a State, local, Tribal, or domestic violence service provider or volunteer attorney project, in promoting pro bono legal services as a critical way to empower survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. The act also requires that events be held every 2 years in areas with high numbers of Native Americans and Alaska Natives, with a focus on addressing the specific issues facing Native populations. We recognize that pro bono legal assistance would not only provide critical representation in court, but it would also help provide survivors with access to services such as emergency shelter, transportation, and childcare. We also recognize that legal summits mandated by the act would raise awareness of the horrors of domestic violence and sexual assault while inspiring others to devote their efforts to helping survivors in their communities. In addition to providing for these pro bono programs, the 2018 act requires the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to report to Congress about each public event conducted in the previous fiscal year. The programs authorized under the original POWER Act have been extremely successful. In 2021, 73 pro bono legal summits were held across the Nation, reaching more than 11,000 attorneys. In the years since we passed the POWER Act, we have amassed an army of thousands of lawyers who are helping survivors, including children, get out of dangerous situations, giving them a measure of justice and a ray of hope. But as effective as they have been, the programs created and authorized by the 2018 POWER Act are set to sunset at the end of this year. Meanwhile, the crisis of domestic and sexual violence continues. S. 3115, the POWER 2.0 Act, would ensure the continuation of the critical programs we enacted in 2018 by removing the sunset date for these programs, helping to deliver essential legal services and to bring hope and healing to many more survivors across the country. We have already planted the seeds, and by removing the 4-year sunset provision from the original POWER Act, we will allow these pivotal programs to continue to grow and thrive, helping more and more survivors every year. I thank Senator Dan Sullivan for introducing this important and time- sensitive legislation and the gentlewoman from Alaska (Ms. Peltola) for leading the House version of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.