Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Much of what the gentleman from Texas just said was irrelevant; but he made one correct point. He said that the bill before us today codifies Obergefell. It does, and if Obergefell is not overruled by the Supreme Court, it is not necessary, but it is also not harmful. If Obergefell is overruled by the Supreme Court, as Justice Thomas hints it might be, then passing this bill becomes vital. And as to recognizing marriage in one State or another State, obviously, if you get married in Texas and you go to Nevada, you don't get unmarried. You can't be married in one State and not in another State. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, much of what the prior two speakers said was absolute nonsense. Some was true. Unfortunately, pregnancy crisis centers have been the targets of terrorism, and that is deplorable. But so have abortion clinics. They didn't mention that. Abortion clinics have also been the targets of terrorism. The murder of Dr. Bernard Slepian comes to mind. That is equally deplorable, and we should stop both of them if we can. The rest of what they said was nonsense. The Supreme Court logic, the substantive due process logic by which the Court overthrew Roe v. Wade, applies equally to Obergefell, to Loving, and to Lawrence, in other words, to the right to contraception, to the right to gay marriage, and to the right to interracial marriage, for that matter. Justice Thomas mentioned all that specifically. Yes, he said, this case doesn't involve that. We are not deciding that yet, which is the portion of his concurrence that Mr. Johnson read, but read the rest of his concurrence where he said specifically that we should overrule or reconsider Obergefell and Lawrence, which is gay marriage, which is consensual sodomy. He didn't mention Loving, though, for some reason, which is interracial marriage. Maybe the fact that he is intermarried and so is Senator McConnell had something to do with it. But the same logic applies there, so that is not nonsense. Note that they offered no argument against this bill at all. We didn't hear anything about the merits of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court, in the Obergefell decision, reversed the actions of the people in those 30 or 35 States. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Jones), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York, (Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Allred).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the Respect for Marriage Act provides additional stability for the millions of American married couples and families that have ordered their lives around the constitutional guarantee of marriage equality. It has nothing to do with attacks on abortion clinics. It has nothing to do with attacks on so-called pregnancy crisis centers. It has to do with marriage. This legislation repeals an unconstitutional and discriminatory statute that the Court has effectively rendered inoperative, but which remains on the books. It is time to appeal this abhorrent law and fix the mistake that Congress made a generation ago while we reinforce and cement current law. As I pointed out before, the Obergefell decision is a decision of the Supreme Court. If that decision is not overturned, this bill is unnecessary but harmless. If that decision is overturned, this bill is crucial, and we don't know what this Court is going to do. Despite what Justice Alito said, Justice Thomas suggested that the decision on gay marriage ought to be overruled. We have seen this Court overrule other precedent in Dobbs, so who can be confident that the Court will not overturn the Lawrence decision or, rather, the Obergefell decision? Who can be confident of that? The answer is no one. As to the gentleman from Ohio's comment that the people in, I think he said, 33 States or whatever have decided that gay marriage should not be, and it should be up to the people of each State, that is absurd. And that is why we have one of the provisions of this bill. You can't be married in Texas and not be married in New York or vice versa. You can't lose your marriage status by crossing a State line. This legislation is very necessary to make sure that people have the right to remain married, that gay couples have the right to get married, have the right to stay married, and that is why leading national organizations have endorsed the bill, including the ACLU, the Equality Federation, Family Equality Council, Freedom for All Americans, GLAAD, the Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the National Black Justice Coalition, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the National Women's Law Center, and PFLAG. They know what is going on. They know what is at stake. Mr. Speaker, this is a long overdue bill. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 8297, the Ensuring Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act. The Supreme Court's disastrous decision in Dobbs to overturn Roe v. Wade has exacerbated what was an already dire crisis in abortion care access--one that threatens to undermine women's equality and health. In the wake of the Dobbs decision, State legislatures across the country are moving to ban abortion outright. As if that wasn't draconian enough, some States are also passing laws targeting people who help others obtain an abortion. This includes the notorious Texas law, SB8, which permits any person to collect a $10,000 bounty by suing someone who ``aids or abets an abortion.'' Not content to strip women of their bodily autonomy and equality in their own States, some State legislatures are now contemplating efforts to inhibit the ability of women to travel out-of-state to obtain lawful healthcare, including by threatening their friends, families, or even employers with legal action. H.R. 8297 would put State legislatures considering such laws on notice by providing additional Federal legal protections that reaffirm and enhance enforcement of the constitutional right to interstate travel, which includes travel to obtain legal healthcare services like an abortion. This legislation is not enough. Many people, a disproportionate number from communities of color, do not have the option of traveling across State lines because they lack the resources to bear the costs of out-of-state travel, which include the related costs of childcare, lodging, or time off from work. That is why it is essential that we also pass H.R. 8296, the Women's Health Protection Act of 2022, which would protect the right to abortion nationwide. The House has already passed this bill, but the Senate Republicans have twice blocked its passage. This is unacceptable. We must do everything we can to ensure protection of abortion access in a post-Roe world. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on both H.R. 8297 and H.R. 8296. But this is not enough either. We face a radical Supreme Court deliberately packed with extremists by a plot by the Federalist Society, by Mitch McConnell, and by Donald Trump to pack the Supreme Court with extremists who have no regard for our liberties and who will destroy every liberty we have if we don't do something about it. That is why Congressman Johnson, Congressman Jones, Senator Markey, and I have introduced legislation to unpack the Supreme Court by increasing the number of Justices by four.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee and sponsor of the bill.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1224, I call up the bill (H.R. 6538) to create an Active Shooter Alert Communications Network, 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 include extraneous material on H.R. 6538.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6538, the Active Shooter Alert Act, is bipartisan legislation that would improve the tools available to law enforcement as they respond to the disturbingly frequent threat of active shooters faced by our communities. Far too many of our cities have experienced the threat of an active shooter situation. Since we last voted on this very bill--only a few weeks ago--Highland Park became the most recent city to face the terror of a mass shooting, following Buffalo, Uvalde, and so many others. In 2021, the FBI designated 61 situations as active shooter incidents, a more than 50 percent increase compared to 2020, and nearly double the number of such incidents just 4 years ago. These incidents require law enforcement to make challenging decisions about how best to keep the public safe, including when and how to inform the public as a situation unfolds. FEMA, the FCC, and wireless providers already have a system in place to send time-sensitive, location-targeted alerts for weather emergencies, AMBER Alerts for child abduction cases, and other public safety emergencies. This bill simply enables law enforcement to use this system for active shooter alerts, giving them an additional tool to save lives. It is bipartisan legislation and should be completely uncontroversial. Indeed, our colleagues overwhelmingly supported this legislation when we last voted on it, but the opposition of a few Members prevented it from garnering the two-thirds support it needed to pass under suspension of the rules. Those Members in opposition have made absurd claims about the bill--instead of examining what it actually does--but we won't take the bait. Instead, we are listening to our law enforcement and first responders who have called for this legislation. Today, we are taking action to save lives when tragedy strikes. We will continue to do much more to actually prevent these tragedies, but the least we can do is to improve the tools we give law enforcement to respond to a crisis. That is what this bill does. H.R. 6538, the Active Shooter Alert Act, directs the attorney general to appoint a coordinator to work with Federal, State, local, and Tribal Governments to better use our existing emergency alert system for active shooter situations. It directs the coordinator to establish an advisory panel, comprised of law enforcement officers who have responded to active shooter incidents, along with other public safety and emergency response experts. The coordinator is also directed to establish best practices for using emergency alerts for active shooter incidents, to promote the adoption of those best practices, and to report to Congress on the effectiveness of these alerts. This bipartisan legislation is endorsed by a broad range of Federal, State, and local law enforcement organizations. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Cicilline for his work in developing this important legislation, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting it once again, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say that if the theater across street were on fire, I would like to know about it. Fires spread. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), one of the sponsors of the bill.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from South Carolina (Ms. Mace).