Laurel Lee, a Florida Republican, focuses her floor time on criminal justice and public safety legislation, often carrying bipartisan bills such as lifetime protective orders for crime victims and protections for prison staff, along with gun rights and privacy measures. She makes her case in an orderly, reasonably evidence-based way, citing figures like a Department of Justice survey and the district-level facts of a single survivor’s story, and she credits committee members and outside groups by name. A distinctive habit is how much of her speaking time goes to thanks and tributes to colleagues, advocates, and staff, at a rate well above most members, so remarks can run long on acknowledgment before reaching substance. She rarely engages in partisan attack in these statements, framing even contentious issues like firearm purchase tracking around principle and due process rather than around her opponents.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .
Average grade
B
The average grade of 4 analysed statements. 2 more were analysed but were too short to grade.
79 / 100 over 4 statements
Signal59 / 100
Relevance100 / 100
Reasoning97 / 100
RespectNot scored yet
Clarity98 / 100
Averaged over the 4 of 6 statements graded so far.
“Both parties worked together to improve this bill. I want everyone to vote for it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time for the purpose of closing. Mr. Speaker, I thank a few of the individuals who helped us get to this place with this bipartisan bill--first, specifically, Right On Crime, who worked with us to develop a bill and make sure that we were capturing important concepts. Second, I thank the ranking member and the Democrats on the committee who worked closely with us to edit, revise, and improve the bill and added important provisions. Because of our collective work together, we took a good bill, and we made it even better. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.”
Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time for the purpose of closing. Mr. Speaker, I thank a few of the individuals who helped us get to this place with this bipartisan bill--first, specifically, Right On Crime, who worked with us to develop a bill and make sure that we were capturing important concepts. Second, I thank the ranking member and the Democrats on the committee who worked closely with us to edit, revise, and improve the bill and added important provisions. Because of our collective work together, we took a good bill, and we made it even better. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
“I want the House to pass this bill. It lets federal courts ban people convicted of violent or sex crimes from ever contacting their victims again. Victims should not have to keep going back to court just to renew protective orders.”
“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8481, the Kayleigh’s Law Act of 2026, is about ensuring that victims of some of the most serious crimes do not have to live with the constant fear that their offender may one day contact them again. Even when a criminal is sentenced to lifetime probation, opportunities may still exist for an offender’s supervision to be terminated, preventing offenders from being fully accountable to both their victims and society. This was all brought into focus by one brave survivor-advocate and Arizona native, Kayleigh Kozak. After learning that her abuser was attempting to terminate his probation, Kayleigh sought a protective order against the man who abused her as a child. However, she was shocked to learn that the court required evidence of a recent encounter between Kayleigh and this man to consider a protective order, effectively denying her request to keep herself safe and free from future contact. Thanks in large part to Kayleigh’s advocacy, the Arizona Legislature changed State law to provide for lifetime protection orders. Wisconsin soon followed. Other States, including Texas and Virginia, also provide certain forms of long-term or lifetime protective orders. When the Judiciary Committee held our hearing on this legislation in April, we were honored to hear from Kayleigh herself as she shared her experience and her path toward advocacy. We are equally honored that she joins us today in the gallery of the House of Representatives. This legislation applies the same principles enacted at the State level to Federal offenders and their victims. Victims should not have to return to court repeatedly to face their offenders simply to extend a protective order. They should not have to wait until their offender attempts to contact them before they can petition the court for lifetime protection. Restraining orders or protective orders often last for only a limited period of time, retraumatizing victims who must once again go through the court system to seek ongoing protection. The possibility of future contact can undermine a survivor’s sense of safety and make it harder to move forward. This bill provides a straightforward and commonsense solution by authorizing lifetime no-contact orders for offenders convicted of serious Federal violent, sexual, trafficking, and child exploitation offenses. Under this legislation, offenders may be permanently barred from contacting their victims unless the conviction is later invalidated or pardoned. The bill is rooted in a simple principle: Victims deserve lasting protection, and offenders who have committed these heinous acts should not have the ability to reinsert themselves into the lives of those they have harmed. Ultimately, this bill is victim-centered and prioritizes public safety. Kayleigh’s Law Act helps ensure that our criminal justice system works for victims and not against them. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.”
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8481, the Kayleigh’s Law Act of 2026, is about ensuring that victims of some of the most serious crimes do not have to live with the constant fear that their offender may one day contact them again. Even when a criminal is sentenced to lifetime probation, opportunities may still exist for an offender’s supervision to be terminated, preventing offenders from being fully accountable to both their victims and society. This was all brought into focus by one brave survivor-advocate and Arizona native, Kayleigh Kozak. After learning that her abuser was attempting to terminate his probation, Kayleigh sought a protective order against the man who abused her as a child. However, she was shocked to learn that the court required evidence of a recent encounter between Kayleigh and this man to consider a protective order, effectively denying her request to keep herself safe and free from future contact. Thanks in large part to Kayleigh’s advocacy, the Arizona Legislature changed State law to provide for lifetime protection orders. Wisconsin soon followed. Other States, including Texas and Virginia, also provide certain forms of long-term or lifetime protective orders. When the Judiciary Committee held our hearing on this legislation in April, we were honored to hear from Kayleigh herself as she shared her experience and her path toward advocacy. We are equally honored that she joins us today in the gallery of the House of Representatives. This legislation applies the same principles enacted at the State level to Federal offenders and their victims. Victims should not have to return to court repeatedly to face their offenders simply to extend a protective order. They should not have to wait until their offender attempts to contact them before they can petition the court for lifetime protection. Restraining orders or protective orders often last for only a limited period of time, retraumatizing victims who must once again go through the court system to seek ongoing protection. The possibility of future contact can undermine a survivor’s sense of safety and make it harder to move forward. This bill provides a straightforward and commonsense solution by authorizing lifetime no-contact orders for offenders convicted of serious Federal violent, sexual, trafficking, and child exploitation offenses. Under this legislation, offenders may be permanently barred from contacting their victims unless the conviction is later invalidated or pardoned. The bill is rooted in a simple principle: Victims deserve lasting protection, and offenders who have committed these heinous acts should not have the ability to reinsert themselves into the lives of those they have harmed. Ultimately, this bill is victim-centered and prioritizes public safety. Kayleigh’s Law Act helps ensure that our criminal justice system works for victims and not against them. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
“I want the House to pass this bill. It requires federal courts to give lifetime no-contact orders to protect victims from violent or sexual criminals.”
“Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 8481) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for the issuance of natural lifetime injunctions for certain victims, as amended. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The text of the bill is as follows: ``3773. Natural lifetime injunctions.’’.”
Official Congressional Record
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 8481) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for the issuance of natural lifetime injunctions for certain victims, as amended. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The text of the bill is as follows: ``3773. Natural lifetime injunctions.’’.
“I want the House to pass this bill. Forty percent of federal prison workers say they have faced sexual harassment or sexual assault from inmates. This bill investigates the problem and sets national rules to prevent this abuse and punish inmates who do it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Prison Staff Safety Enhancement Act, my bipartisan legislation to better protect the men and women who serve in our Federal corrections facilities. Every day, correctional officers and other Bureau of Prisons employees go to work in an environment that is inherently challenging and, at times, dangerous. We ask these law enforcement professionals to maintain order and security in Federal prisons, often working in close proximity to individuals who have been convicted of serious crimes. There are risks that come with that responsibility, but sexual harassment and sexual assault should never be accepted as simply part of the job. The scope of this problem is deeply troubling. A Department of Justice survey of Federal Bureau of Prisons employees found that 40 percent of them reported experiencing sexual harassment or sexual assault by an inmate--40 percent. These are men and women who are serving our country and protecting our communities. They deserve to know that their safety matters, that misconduct against them will be taken seriously, and that those responsible will face meaningful consequences. That is why I introduced the Prison Staff Safety Enhancement Act. This legislation takes a straightforward, fact-driven approach. First, it requires the Department of Justice inspector general to conduct a comprehensive review of the incidents and the effects of sexual harassment and sexual assault committed by incarcerated individuals against correction officers and other Bureau of Prisons employees. Importantly, we aren’t just asking how often this is happening. The inspector general must also examine what happens to inmates who engage in this conduct, including what sanctions and consequences are available and how those consequences have actually been used over the preceding 5 years. That matters because rules on paper mean very little if they aren’t effectively protecting the people who work inside these institutions. The inspector general will then report these findings to the Attorney General and to Congress. Based on that work, the Attorney General will be required to establish national standards for the prevention, reduction, and punishment of sexual harassment and sexual assault against Bureau of Prisons personnel. This is what responsible oversight should look like: understand the scope of the problem, determine whether existing consequences are working, and establish clear standards to better protect the people we ask to do this difficult and dangerous work because, ultimately, this bill is about the men and women in the uniform. Our correction officers and prison employees are public servants. They maintain order in some of our Nation’s most challenging institutions, and the work they do inside those walls keeps the rest of our communities safe. We ask a great deal from them, and we also should stand up for them. I am proud that this has been a bipartisan effort. I am grateful to Senators Marsha Blackburn and Jon Ossoff for their work advancing the Senate companion. Protecting the men and women who serve in our Federal prisons should not be a partisan issue. No correctional officer should have to accept sexual harassment or assault as a condition of their job. They deserve our respect. They deserve our support, and they deserve our action. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Prison Staff Safety Enhancement Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.”
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Prison Staff Safety Enhancement Act, my bipartisan legislation to better protect the men and women who serve in our Federal corrections facilities. Every day, correctional officers and other Bureau of Prisons employees go to work in an environment that is inherently challenging and, at times, dangerous. We ask these law enforcement professionals to maintain order and security in Federal prisons, often working in close proximity to individuals who have been convicted of serious crimes. There are risks that come with that responsibility, but sexual harassment and sexual assault should never be accepted as simply part of the job. The scope of this problem is deeply troubling. A Department of Justice survey of Federal Bureau of Prisons employees found that 40 percent of them reported experiencing sexual harassment or sexual assault by an inmate--40 percent. These are men and women who are serving our country and protecting our communities. They deserve to know that their safety matters, that misconduct against them will be taken seriously, and that those responsible will face meaningful consequences. That is why I introduced the Prison Staff Safety Enhancement Act. This legislation takes a straightforward, fact-driven approach. First, it requires the Department of Justice inspector general to conduct a comprehensive review of the incidents and the effects of sexual harassment and sexual assault committed by incarcerated individuals against correction officers and other Bureau of Prisons employees. Importantly, we aren’t just asking how often this is happening. The inspector general must also examine what happens to inmates who engage in this conduct, including what sanctions and consequences are available and how those consequences have actually been used over the preceding 5 years. That matters because rules on paper mean very little if they aren’t effectively protecting the people who work inside these institutions. The inspector general will then report these findings to the Attorney General and to Congress. Based on that work, the Attorney General will be required to establish national standards for the prevention, reduction, and punishment of sexual harassment and sexual assault against Bureau of Prisons personnel. This is what responsible oversight should look like: understand the scope of the problem, determine whether existing consequences are working, and establish clear standards to better protect the people we ask to do this difficult and dangerous work because, ultimately, this bill is about the men and women in the uniform. Our correction officers and prison employees are public servants. They maintain order in some of our Nation’s most challenging institutions, and the work they do inside those walls keeps the rest of our communities safe. We ask a great deal from them, and we also should stand up for them. I am proud that this has been a bipartisan effort. I am grateful to Senators Marsha Blackburn and Jon Ossoff for their work advancing the Senate companion. Protecting the men and women who serve in our Federal prisons should not be a partisan issue. No correctional officer should have to accept sexual harassment or assault as a condition of their job. They deserve our respect. They deserve our support, and they deserve our action. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Prison Staff Safety Enhancement Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.
“I want the House to pass this bill to protect federal prison workers from sexual assault and sexual harassment.”
“Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 307) to address sexual harassment and sexual assault of Bureau of Prisons staff in prisons, and for other purposes. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The text of the bill is as follows:”
Official Congressional Record
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 307) to address sexual harassment and sexual assault of Bureau of Prisons staff in prisons, and for other purposes. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The text of the bill is as follows:
“I want the House to pass this bill. It stops credit card companies and banks from using special codes to track people who legally buy guns and ammunition. Banks should only process payments, not spy on lawful Americans.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1181, the Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act. The Second Amendment is a constitutional right. Americans should not have their lawful purchases singled out simply because they choose to exercise that right. This bill stops efforts to create a special system for identifying and organizing purchases made at firearm and ammunition retailers. While its proponents present this as simply an administrative tool, in practice it raises serious concerns about privacy and the unjust treatment of lawful conduct. Americans are increasingly concerned about how much information is collected, stored, and shared. Those concerns are especially valid when it comes to information being tracked that relates to the exercise of a constitutional freedom. Here is the reality: Tracking the lawful purchase of firearms and ammunition creates a framework for collecting information about law-abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong. My home State of Florida already prohibits this type of surveillance. Floridians understand something that most Americans agree with: Your bank should process your transaction, not track your activities. This bill prevents payment networks and financial institutions from requiring special codes for firearms retailers, while preserving existing tools used to combat fraud, protect consumers, maintain cybersecurity, and report suspicious activity. At its core, this legislation is about privacy, fairness, and the principle that the exercise of constitutional rights should never become the basis for surveillance. I thank the chairman and the bill’s sponsor for their work on this important issue. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1181.”
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1181, the Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act. The Second Amendment is a constitutional right. Americans should not have their lawful purchases singled out simply because they choose to exercise that right. This bill stops efforts to create a special system for identifying and organizing purchases made at firearm and ammunition retailers. While its proponents present this as simply an administrative tool, in practice it raises serious concerns about privacy and the unjust treatment of lawful conduct. Americans are increasingly concerned about how much information is collected, stored, and shared. Those concerns are especially valid when it comes to information being tracked that relates to the exercise of a constitutional freedom. Here is the reality: Tracking the lawful purchase of firearms and ammunition creates a framework for collecting information about law-abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong. My home State of Florida already prohibits this type of surveillance. Floridians understand something that most Americans agree with: Your bank should process your transaction, not track your activities. This bill prevents payment networks and financial institutions from requiring special codes for firearms retailers, while preserving existing tools used to combat fraud, protect consumers, maintain cybersecurity, and report suspicious activity. At its core, this legislation is about privacy, fairness, and the principle that the exercise of constitutional rights should never become the basis for surveillance. I thank the chairman and the bill’s sponsor for their work on this important issue. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1181.
