Mary Scanlon

Ms. SCANLON

Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I would just note that, with respect to H.R. 5, we had regular order. H.R. 5, the Equality Act, went through the Committee on the Judiciary. It had a hearing, and then we also had a markup. This is a new process, apparently, since the last Congress. And then, of course, we had the Rules hearing last night. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 377, providing for consideration of H.R. 5 under a closed rule, with 90 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The resolution also provides for consideration of H.R. 312 under a closed rule, with 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources. Lastly, this resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 987 under a structured rule, with 90 minutes of general debate, 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor. Twenty-seven amendments are made in order. Madam Speaker, we are here today to debate the rule for three important pieces of legislation: H.R. 987, H.R. 312, and H.R. 5. H.R. 987 is the Strengthening Health Care and Lowering Prescription Drug Costs Act, a package of several bills, many of them bipartisan, that went through the House Energy and Commerce Committee under regular order. This bill combines three key bills to lower drug costs by promoting generic competition and four key bills to strengthen healthcare, reverse the sabotage of the ACA by this administration with respect to marketing and outreach, and rescind the Trump administration's efforts to promote junk plans that lack the protections of the Affordable Care Act. The American people are justifiably demanding action by Congress to make prescription drugs more affordable. Prices are so high that recent data show 24 percent of Americans didn't fill a prescription in the past year due to high costs. My constituents have been vocal in demanding action on drug pricing, patients like Bill, a senior with diabetes who attends my church, parents like Sarah with children who have special health needs. Folks like these need help now. This package would lower costs by banning anticompetitive practices that large drug companies employ to keep generics off the market. This bill will also tackle many of the reasons we have seen enrollment through the Affordable Care Act decline in recent years. Since coming into office, President Trump has cut paid advertising and outreach efforts for healthcare exchanges by 90 percent. This wanton political decision to cut these efforts is but one part of the administration's attempts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act. Furthermore, lack of transparency on the part of Health and Human Services around funding levels for outreach plan enrollment rates and other vital statistics has created an information vacuum on the performance of the ACA. Greater transparency is required in order for Congress to hold the administration accountable for its efforts to defund education and outreach for the Affordable Care Act. Second, we have H.R. 312, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation Reaffirmation Act. This important bill recognizes and respects the Tribal sovereignty of the Mashpee Wampanoag, a Tribe that has inhabited New England for over 12,000 years and, in fact, welcomed the Pilgrims to the new world. This legislation has strong bipartisan support in Massachusetts among other Tribal nations and with Tribal allies in Congress. Had President Trump not tweeted about this bill last week, it would have likely passed on suspension and been sent to the Senate for consideration. The members of this Tribe cannot wait any longer for recognition, and we need to pass this critical legislation without further delay. Finally, Madam Speaker, this is a week that will be remembered in our history books because, at long last, this body is taking up consideration of the Equality Act. Forty-five years ago this week, the legendary Congresswoman Bella Abzug introduced the first version of the Equality Act, a bill that will give full legal protections to LGBTQ people all across our country. This version of the Equality Act that we consider today is the result of years of careful legislative drafting and amends existing civil rights laws to provide protections from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in key areas of public life: employment, housing, credit, education, public spaces and services, federally funded programs, and jury service. Additionally, the Equality Act updates the public spaces and services covered in current law to include retail stores, services such as banks, legal services, and transportation services. These important updates will strengthen existing protections for everyone. The journey to this final version of the Equality Act was led by a man who is a history maker in his own right, co-chair of the LGBTQ Equality Caucus and my colleague on the Judiciary Committee, Congressman David Cicilline from Rhode Island. Congressman Cicilline worked with lawyers and advocates from the left and the right, religious groups, and myriad civil rights groups to make sure that the language of the Equality Act achieved full legal equality while doing nothing to undermine existing civil rights protections for other marginalized groups. The resulting bill is supported by 130 of the largest employers in the country, our largest labor unions, and hundreds of organizations, including, to name just a few, the Leadership Conference for Civil and Human Rights, the NAACP, the National Women's Law Center, the Episcopal Church, the Union for Reform Judaism, and the United Church of Christ. Most importantly, it is supported by a clear and overwhelming majority of the American people. Seventy-one percent of Americans support legislation like the Equality Act to protect LGBTQ people against discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. Rarely does Congress have the chance to take up legislation so clearly supported by our constituents. That is probably why, since the day that Congressman Cicilline first introduced this version of the Equality Act in 2015, it has always earned bipartisan support and currently has Republican cosponsors in both the House and the Senate. The clear majority of both this Chamber and the American people recognize that, for far too long, LGBTQ people have faced discrimination with no Federal legal recourse. It is beyond dispute that LGBTQ people, especially transgender people and especially transgender women of color, face discrimination across this country. This is a personal issue for me. It has been personal since my baby sister came out to me about 40 years ago. For many people in this country, that is when the fight hits home. It gets personal when someone you love says, ``This is who I am,'' and you know and value that person, and you will do whatever you can to make sure that your loved one can live life to the fullest, free from hate and discrimination. I am sad to say that my home in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is one of the 30 States that defies the will of its people by not having legal protections for LGBTQ people. The idea that my sister, someone who put her life on the line for our country when she served in the armed forces, could drive across State lines and lose protections is heartbreaking. The Equality Act ends the patchwork of State laws and creates uniform nationwide protections. LGBTQ people won't have to worry that being transferred to another State by their employer or needing to move home to take care of ailing parents will cause them to lose civil rights protections. From sea to shining sea, LGBTQ people will have the security and stability that comes from knowing that if they face discrimination, they have legal recourse. It is also important to note what the Equality Act does not do. The Equality Act does not impinge on religious liberty. Religious liberty is a cornerstone value of our Constitution and our country. Religious organizations are able to prefer their own members and their version of morality in hiring for religious positions such as ministers, rabbis, or schoolteachers. The Equality Act does nothing to change that. The Equality Act clarifies what has long been held, though, that religious freedom laws do not create an exemption to civil rights laws. Just like a person can't use a claim of religious freedom to refuse to sell a house to an interracial couple, under the Equality Act, LGBTQ families will be protected from discrimination, regardless of its motivation. Consider the stakes facing LGBTQ people too often across this country. A same-sex couple walks into a restaurant. They hired a babysitter to look after their young children and are hoping to have a relaxing night out. They are seated and looking at the menu when the manager comes over and tells them they have to leave. They are not welcome there. This kind of insecurity and humiliation occurs on a daily basis across this country. In 30 States, the couple would have no legal recourse. Often, humiliation is just the tip of the iceberg. Same-sex couples are far more likely to be denied housing. Qualified and high-performing transgender people are more likely to be fired from their jobs. LGBTQ young people face rejection, homelessness, and discrimination in school, denying them an education. These injuries compound and lead to poverty, homelessness, and violence. The impact is felt hardest by transgender women of color, who confront racial discrimination, sex discrimination, and gender-identity discrimination. The intersection of these forms of discrimination can even be deadly, as it was for Shantee Tucker, a transgender woman of color from Philadelphia who was murdered last fall. The protections provided by the Equality Act give LGBTQ people an equal chance at the American Dream. While discrimination and rejection have ended the lives of too many transgender people, many are succeeding, despite discrimination. In Pennsylvania, Dr. Rachel Levine, a transgender woman, serves in the Governor's cabinet as secretary for health. Mara Keisling, a Pennsylvania native, is the founder and executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality and a pioneer for civil rights protections. Danica Roem, the first transgender State legislator, serves in the Virginia House of Delegates. LaLa Zannell is fighting violence in New York City. Raffi Freedman-Gurspan was the first openly transgender White House staffer. Miss Major Griffin-Gracy, who was at Stonewall, has spent her life fighting to end the over-incarceration of transgender people. The list goes on and on. I am proud that the House will finally act to provide Federal protections to LGBTQ people with passage of the Equality Act. The fight for equal rights is far from over, but I am proud to be part of a majority that prioritizes equal treatment for all of its citizens, regardless of whom they love. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), 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

Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 377 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. SCANLON

Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, yesterday the House passed H.R. 299, the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2019. This long overdue legislation would finally provide disability benefits to veterans who served in the territorial seas surrounding Vietnam during the Vietnam war and were exposed to Agent Orange. This change is long overdue but, sadly, thousands of brave Vietnam veterans have already suffered the consequences of Agent Orange-related illnesses. A longtime resident of Media, Pennsylvania, John Bury, was a 22-year veteran of the Navy and a legendary advocate for sailors sickened by Agent Orange. He, himself, survived cancer six times related to Agent Orange, and knew firsthand the challenges of navigating the VA due to his service being on ships, rather than land. John passed away in late 2016, but his memory and service will live on. Sailors like John are heroes and deserve to be treated as such by the VA. I urge the Senate to quickly take up this legislation and send it to the President's desk so that thousands of others like John can get the care they deserve.

Ms. SCANLON

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, in Pennsylvania, volunteer fire departments have long played a central role in the life of our towns and boroughs. In recent years, changing demographics and funding issues have seriously impacted the volunteer fire company tradition. However, it has also had one benefit of spurring recruitment of first responders from nontraditional quarters. I want to take a minute to acknowledge the history made by two volunteers at the South Media Fire Company just last week. When an emergency call from a local middle school came in at 7:30 a.m. Wednesday morning, Ellen Yarborough, a schoolteacher, and Dora Giannakarios Preston, a local business woman, put their day jobs on hold to answer the call, unaware that they were making history. This was the first time in the 100-year history of the firehouse that an all-female crew had handled an emergency call. To Ellen, Dora, the South Media Fire Company, and all of our volunteer firefighters, thank you for your service and for answering the call of duty to keep us safe.

Ms. SCANLON

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

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have heard this allegation over and over again based on one case in Fresno where the facts have not been established. It is still in litigation. As a former trial lawyer, I know that a lot of allegations can be made, but the fact that what has been stated as facts in this case, that men were in a shelter, is not true. Transgender women were in the shelter. It has been stated that a transgender man couldn't be excluded from the shelter and that the staff at the shelter failed to take action. That actually is under dispute. So we have one isolated instance that is being misrepresented to continue this line of argument. What we are really seeing is this tactic of trying to pit one minority group, one group in need of services, against another to convince us that the rights and protections of one group come at the cost of another. They have done it with people of color, with immigrants, and now with women and members of the trans community. Mr. Speaker, I have a clear message: this country is better than that. They both need help. It can be done under this law. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I have to rebut my colleague's repeated assertion that this iteration of VAWA would violate the Second Amendment because it fails to offer an opportunity for abusers to protest having their guns taken away--and the gentlewoman said this several times in the course of debate--on the basis that ex parte orders are often entered against abusers. But, in fact, in every instance, even if an initial order is an ex parte, the abuser has the right to request a hearing, including in Arizona, where title 12, section 1809 provides that anyone who has a protection order entered against them can file a written request for a hearing, and that is when they get their due process. So I just want to point that out. The purpose of the Violence Against Women Act is today as it was when it was passed in 1994: to keep women safe from domestic abuse. It remains a piece of bipartisan landmark legislation. Ms. Jackson Lee detailed the number of Republican amendments and bills that have been incorporated into this version, so it is a shining example of what Congress can accomplish when we set aside our partisan differences and work together to find actual solutions. VAWA has dramatically improved our Nation's response to domestic violence and has provided invaluable support to victims, communities, social service providers, and law enforcement. It is working. We won't solve domestic violence overnight, nor will we end it with the passage of a bill, but we can continue to change the culture of violence against women and provide the support that survivors need. The two constituents I spoke of in my opening never should have experienced the violence that was inflicted upon them; but it is not enough to condemn what was done or to charge those responsible, no. We must change the conditions to allow such acts of violence to occur. We can look at the facts and we can look at the research so we create policies and pass laws to better protect women from abusers, and this reauthorization is a bold step in the right direction. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Maine an additional 30 seconds.

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is not the first time that I have heard my colleagues misgender trans women as biological males, and I need to point something out. Beyond this term being outright offensive, it shows how disingenuous their concern for the safety of women is, and they are showing their hand. The use of the term ``biological male'' is a dog whistle to transphobia that runs rampant in society and seems to on the other side of the aisle. It is not rooted in concern for women but, rather, a manifestation of their disdain for the trans community. Also, my constituents are not the Senate. My constituents are not Mr. McConnell. My constituents want VAWA reauthorized, and we are going to do what we can to pass it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 281, providing for consideration of H.R. 1585, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019, under a structured rule. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment that makes technical changes to reflect appropriate statute sections, corrects terminologies, and makes in order 40 amendments. Mr. Speaker, this year, we are celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, a landmark piece of bipartisan legislation that has helped to reduce instances of domestic violence and ensure that millions of survivors have access to the services they need. VAWA was the first piece of Federal legislation to acknowledge domestic violence and sexual assault as crimes and has dramatically improved our Nation's response to helping survivors in both the short and long term. Since its enactment in 1994, VAWA has brought together law enforcement, social service organizations, and victims' advocates to bring domestic violence to light, provide survivors with support, and hold abusers accountable for their actions. VAWA was and still is a piece of legislation developed by the people who work closest to these issues in their communities. The bipartisan bill we will vote on this week reflects the ongoing commitment of Members on both sides of the aisle to ending domestic violence and abuse in all forms. Before I get further into the components and details of the bill, I would like to share two stories about my constituents to illustrate why VAWA reauthorization is so necessary and why we must continue to commit ourselves to preventing domestic violence at every opportunity. Mr. Speaker, please keep in mind that each of these stories happened in the past week in my district. First, last week, a young woman was murdered by her ex-husband at a convenience store, where the two were meeting to exchange custody of their 6-year-old son. The ex-husband left their son at home and, instead, brought an AR-15 style rifle, which he used to murder the woman in the middle of the store. He was caught by law enforcement after he fled the store, but as a result of these horrific actions, a young woman was murdered in cold blood and a child has, effectively, lost both parents. This was not the first time the ex-husband had threatened to kill his ex-wife during a child custody exchange just like the one this past week. Following an incident 3 years ago, he was charged with harassment and making terroristic threats, and the woman was granted a protection- from-abuse order. But this didn't prevent her or her family from living in fear of what her ex-husband might do next. Tragically, the very worst happened. Then, just this past Sunday evening, another woman was asleep in her home in Upland with her three children when, just after midnight, her ex-boyfriend broke into her house, entered her bedroom, and shot her. Her 5-year-old child witnessed the shooting. Had the gun not jammed when the ex-boyfriend fired a second time, the victim would be dead. This victim, too, had a protection-from-abuse order against her attacker, hers being issued just 5 days before that attack. These two attacks happened just miles apart from each other, just a few days apart. These stories are all too common, because violence against women is all too common. I am willing to bet that every Member of this body could point to similar examples of violence against women from their own congressional districts. Such acts of violence are not isolated incidents but are, instead, representative of the larger systemic problem. According to the National Center on Domestic Violence, one in four women experiences severe intimate partner physical violence, intimate partner sexual violence, or intimate partner stalking, with impacts such as injury, fearfulness, post-traumatic stress disorder, and more. The same organization found that one in three women has experienced some form of physical violence by an intimate partner, and one in seven women has been stalked by an intimate partner during their lifetime, to the point they felt very fearful or believed that they or someone close to them would be harmed or killed. Intimate partner violence accounts for 15 percent of violent crimes nationwide. Women between the ages of 18 and 24 are the most commonly abused by an intimate partner. It is absolutely no wonder why domestic victimization is correlated with a higher rate of depression and suicidal behavior later in life. Further, 19 percent of domestic violence involves a weapon of some kind. The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide by 500--that is 500--percent. You don't need to be a mathematician in order to see that guns in the hands of domestic abusers routinely leads to violence and death. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act recognizes this indisputable fact and takes active measures to correct and improve our laws. In the United States, women are 21 times more likely to be killed with a gun than women in any other high-income country. Mr. Speaker, 4\1/2\ million American women alive today have been threatened by intimate partners with firearms. One million of those have actually been shot or shot at by their abusers. I have represented some of these women and have seen the fear that they live with and the impact it has on their children and families. This bill finally closes the boyfriend loophole. While Federal law prevents gun possession by people convicted of, or under a restraining order for, abusing their spouses, dating partners are generally exempt from these restrictions. This gaping hole in our gun safety laws has become even more deadly over the years. The share of homicides committed by dating partners has been increasing for three decades. Today, women are as likely to be killed by dating partners as they are by spouses. Closing the boyfriend loophole is a fact-based, commonsense response to a very real threat. The provisions in this reauthorization would protect women from abusive dating partners by ensuring that their abusers are prohibited from possessing guns under Federal law. The definition of ``dating partner'' is already contained in the Violence Against Women Act. This simple update to policy will provide increased protections for partners in unmarried relationships. Closing the boyfriend loophole has been a bipartisan issue since long before this bill. Last year, six Republicans cosponsored legislation that would have closed this loophole, and 23 States, in their own laws, have already acted to prevent abusers from obtaining guns, including Pennsylvania and Arizona. It is time we update Federal law to reflect the reality, which our States have already recognized, and prevent violent dating partners from being able to access weapons. This bill also closes the stalker loophole. Stalking has been shown to be a predictor of intimate partner violence and homicide, although current law does not prohibit misdemeanor stalking offenses. A study of intimate partner homicides and attempted homicides involving female victims found that 76 percent of those murders and 85 percent of attempted murders were preceded by at least one incident of stalking before the attack. Passing this bill will protect women from stalkers by ensuring those convicted of stalking offenses are prohibited from possessing guns under Federal law. On top of limiting stalkers and abusive dating partners from legally owning weapons, this bill strengthens enforcement by alerting State and local law enforcement when an abuser fails a firearms background check. This notice gives State law enforcement an opportunity to intervene before an abuser can obtain a firearm or do any further harm. This provision mirrors a bipartisan bill that was introduced earlier this year to notify State law enforcement each time a person who is not allowed to have guns tries to buy a firearm and fails the background check. Clearly, keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them is a bipartisan priority. Mr. Speaker, one of my first experiences as a young attorney was representing women and families who had sought shelter at the People's Emergency Center in West Philadelphia. That agency was started by former Congressman Bob Edgar. Most of the women in that shelter had been subjected to domestic abuse. This was before VAWA was the law of the land, but even then it was clear there were significant problems with how the system cared for abused women and punished their abusers. When VAWA was enacted in 1994, it spoke to so many of the problems my then-clients were facing, issues with housing and employment, caring for young children, and fighting for custody in court. What makes VAWA such a critical bill is not just the legal protections it puts in place to protect women but the structures it sets up to help women who have been abused. This reauthorization bill builds upon those critical reforms from 25 years ago and updates them to address current needs. The bill funds and improves screening for victimization and the perpetration of intimate partner and sexual violence across federally funded healthcare programs. The healthcare system is often one of the first places women go where unseen abuse can be detected. Empowering healthcare professionals to address such sensitive situations can help to avert abuse before it escalates or prevent it from happening in the first place. The bill ensures that survivors of domestic abuse can maintain housing in the event of a breakup with their partner and further protects their privacy through strengthened confidentiality agreements with housing authorities. Similarly, the bill extends traditional housing grant opportunities to organizations that help underserved populations. Victims of domestic abuse are often at risk of significant financial loss if they are unable to work and provide for their family as a result of abuse. This bill protects survivors from termination from employment due to disruption caused by domestic abuse and also addresses the impact of domestic abuse on a woman's credit rating. We should also note that transgender people are disproportionately survivors of sexual assault and violence, and they deserve to access services consistent with their gender identity. Domestic violence providers and law enforcement agree: Transgender women being in the same space as other women does not make either less safe. Laws that prohibit discrimination based on gender identity have been in place for years, including specifically for VAWA programs. Minneapolis, for example, has had gender identity protections since 1975, and there is no credible evidence that the existence of these laws has contributed to violence against women. Instead, they simply keep transgender people safe. Since 1994, VAWA has provided critical tools to survivors of domestic abuse, law enforcement, and community organizations to prevent and address the impact of domestic violence. Using those tools to represent survivors of such abuse, I have seen both clients and constituents find safe havens, rebuild their lives, protect their families, and develop emotionally and financially productive lives. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to reauthorization of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, the NRA has spent a lot of money to create this distraction, making this about them as opposed to protecting the lives of women. Over 50 percent of women murdered in 2017 were slain by an intimate partner or family member; 82 percent of homicide victims targeted by intimate partners are women; the weapon of choice in over half of female homicides, a firearm. This is an opportunity to support both saving the lives of women and responsible gun ownership. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney). (Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), 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

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 281 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Ms. SCANLON

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Chair, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, and I thank my colleagues for their support. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to study the return on investment of legal services for survivors of domestic violence. As a former legal services board member and director of a pro bono program, I know the importance of legal representation for the most vulnerable members of our community. Access to justice is especially critical when it comes to survivors of domestic violence and human trafficking. Too often, survivors are left to navigate the overwhelming fallout of abuse alone, whether that means seeking custody, housing, medical care, employment protections, or other legal assistance. In the aftermath of abuse, legal remedies are often complicated and hard to manage, and legal representation in these critical moments can make a life-changing difference. Sometimes that means a lawyer who can remove the abuser from the home so the survivor doesn't lose their housing; other times, it is an attorney helping a survivor access the medical resources to heal from physical and mental injuries. Access to justice remains a crucial issue in our legal system, and one of the key contributions of VAWA is that it recognizes the importance of legal services for the survivors of abuse. So not only does VAWA provide critical medical and housing services, but it provides legal representation that often saves public dollars. As with many social services, upfront investment in legal services can result in long-term benefits and savings. That is why my amendment would ask the GAO to conduct a study about the economic benefits of investments in legal services provided under the jurisdiction of VAWA. It is important that we have a full grasp of the importance of these investments so that my colleagues and I can continue pushing for robust investment in these critical legal resources. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying bill. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.