Madeleine Dean

Ms. DEAN

Ms. DEAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Craig).

Ms. DEAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).

Ms. DEAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Pappas).

Ms. DEAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Ms. DEAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, control the balance of the time on our side.

Ms. Manager DEAN

Ms. Manager DEAN. For me and for many Americans, January 6 is forever etched in our memories. I went to work with a sense of excitement--the start of my second term in Congress and the first time I would participate in the certification of a Presidential election. And then we all know what happened. I know many of us have similar experiences from that day, but I will briefly share mine. I stood with colleagues in the Gallery above the House floor to observe the Arizona challenge. Moments later, police radios reported a breach of the Capitol grounds. Someone shouted up to us, ``Duck''; then, ``Lie down''; then, ``Ready your gas masks.'' Shortly after, there was a terrifying banging on the Chamber doors. I will never forget that sound. Shouts and panicked calls to my husband and to my sons, instructions to flee, and then the constant worrying of the gas masks filtering the air--the Chamber of the United States House of Representatives turned to chaos. For Donald Trump, it was a very different day. Earlier, I showed you Donald Trump's desperate attempts to maintain power: ignoring adverse court rulings, attacking elected officials, pressuring his Justice Department, even attacking his own Vice President. You saw a man who refused to lose, who was desperate to retain power by any means necessary. You saw a man willing to attack anyone and everyone who got in his way, and you saw a man who thought he could play by different rules. He told his supporters, as my colleague Ms. Plaskett just showed you, exactly what he thought those different rules were--combat, fight, violence. This was not just one speech. This was weeks and weeks of deliberate effort by Donald Trump to overturn the election results so that he didn't have to give up the Presidency. The speech on January 6 builds on, refers to, and amplifies that same pattern--the pattern Trump had used and broadcasted for months: He refused to lose, his attacks on others, and his different rules. The only thing different about hi speech on January 6 from all these other times that we went through was that he was no longer telling his base just that they had to fight to stop the steal. He was finally telling them: Now is the time to do it. Here is the place, and here is how. For weeks, he had urged his supporters to show up at a specific time and place, and when they got there, he told them exactly what he wanted. Let's start with his desperation. You saw how much planning went into January 6, and when the day arrived, Donald Trump's desperation was in full force. Between the time he woke up on January 5 and the start of the Save America March that next day, he had tweeted 34 times. When Donald Trump wants to get his message across, he is not shy, as you all know. These tweets were relentless. And these tweets all centered on his singular focus--his drumbeat to motivate, anger, and incite his supporters--his big lie: The Presidential election had been rigged. It had been stolen from him, and they had to fight to stop it. And the timing was no coincidence. He sent 34 tweets because this was his last chance to rile up his supporters before the big, historic, wild event he had planned. Now, I won't go through all of these tweets, but let me just highlight a few. At 1 in the morning, he tweeted: If Vice President [Mike Pence] comes through for us, we will win the Presidency. . . . Mike can send it back. This will look familiar to you because Mr. Lieu just showed you how Trump had privately been pressuring and publicly attacking his Vice President to stop the certification. And when Vice President Pence refused, when he explained that the Constitution simply does not allow him to stop certification, Donald Trump provoked his base to attack him. The late-in-the-evening tweet was no different. It just got more forceful. Let's be clear. What Donald Trump was saying--that Vice President Pence could send back the certification--was not true. For one thing, all 50 States had ratified this election. And for another, Vice President Pence explained to him that he does not have the power to unilaterally overturn States' votes and just send certification back. And Donald Trump knew this, but this was his last chance to get his Vice President to stop the certification, and so he was willing to say or do just about anything. These tweets--attacking the election as fraudulent, attacking his Vice President, and urging his supporters to fight--continued throughout the morning. Here is another example. At 8:17 a.m. he tweeted: All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the States, AND

Ms. Manager DEAN. Mr. President, esteemed Members of the Senate, it is my solemn honor to be before you today. I am Madeleine Dean, Congresswoman from the Fourth Congressional District of Pennsylvania. I am a lawyer. I am a former professor of writing. I am a sister. I am a wife. I am a mother. I am a grandmother to three, with fourth on her way. I am a person of faith. And I am an American. Along with Manager Lieu, I will present the actions of a desperate President, and we will present evidence today of a class of public servants who, standing up to enormous pressure from the President of the United States, did the right thing and upheld their oaths. My colleagues just presented evidence of President Trump's months- long effort to incite his base, leading them to believe the election was stolen, that they needed to fight like hell to stop the steal on January 6. These weren't President Trump's only efforts to overturn the results. Manager Lieu and I will present evidence of President Trump's relentless, escalating campaign to fabricate an election victory by ignoring adverse court rulings, pressuring and threatening election officials, attacking Senators and Members of Congress, pressuring the Justice Department, and finally bullying his own Vice President. President Trump and his allies filed 62 separate lawsuits in Federal courts across more than half a dozen States and the District of Columbia, including Pennsylvania, my home State, as well as Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, and Wisconsin. Of the 62 postelection legal challenges, he lost 61. Only one was successful, and that case involved ballot curing in Pennsylvania and had no impact on President Biden's 80,555-vote victory in our Commonwealth. To be clear, not a single court, not a single judge agreed that the election results were invalid or should be invalidated. Instead, court after court reviewing these challenges said these cases were ``not credible,'' ``without merit,'' ``based on nothing but speculation,'' and ``flat out wrong.'' The judiciary resoundingly rejected Trump's fraud allegations and upheld the election results, but it was more than that. The court said these cases were different; they were dangerous to our democracy. For an example, in an opinion by United States District Court Judge Matthew Brann from Pennsylvania, he said: [T]his Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations. . . . In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, [and] laws, and institutions demand more. Because this Court has no authority to take away the right to vote of even a single person, let alone millions of citizens, it cannot grant Plaintiff's requested relief. That decision by Judge Brann was affirmed on appeal by Judge Stephanos Bibas, a Trump appointee who agreed and wrote: The Campaign's claims have no merit. The number of ballots it specifically challenges is far smaller than the roughly 81,000-vote margin of victory. And it never claims fraud or that any of the votes were cast by illegal voters. Plus, tossing out millions of mail-in ballots would be drastic and unprecedented, disfranchising a huge swath of the electorate and upsetting all down-ballot races. Similarly, as Judge Linda Parker of the Eastern District of Michigan framed it--she said: [S]tunning in its scope and breathtaking in its reach. If granted, th relief would disenfranchise the votes of . . . more than 5.5 million Michigan citizens who, with dignity, [and] hope, and a promise of a [vote], participated in the 2020 General Election. Donald Trump told his supporters: They are stealing the election. They took away your vote. It is rigged. That was not true. According to judge after judge, the truth was exactly the opposite. Trump was not suing to ensure election integrity; he was pursuing lawsuits that would, in effect, strip away American votes so that he could win. In other words, Donald Trump was asking the judiciary to take away votes from Americans so that he could steal the election for himself. Then, after losing in all the courts, Trump turned to another tactic: pressuring and threatening election officials. You saw what happened in Michigan after Trump attacked the State and its election officials. His supporters surrounded the secretary of state's home, as you saw in the earlier slide, chanting, calling her a felon. On November 17, the Board of Canvassers for Wayne County, MI, home to Detroit, unanimously certified the election results for Biden. That same night, after their vote to certify the results, Trump called the two Republican members of that board, pressuring them to change their minds. The call worked. The next day, both Monica Palmer and William Heartmann, the Republican board members, attempted to rescind their vote to certify Michigan's election results, but they simply couldn't. President Trump didn't stop there. He then contacted majority leader of the Michigan Senate, Mike Shirkey, and the speaker of the Michigan House, Lee Chatfield, to lobby them to overturn Michigan's results. Trump invited Mr. Chatfield and Mr. Shirkey to Washington to meet with him at the White House, where the President lobbied them further. Let's be clear. Donald Trump was calling officials, hosting them at the White House, urging them to defy the voters in their State and instead award votes to Trump. The officials held strong, and so Trump moved on to a different State, my home State of Pennsylvania. I am certain my Senators, Casey and Toomey, remember what happened there. In early December, as he did in Michigan, he began calling election officials, including my former colleagues in the Pennsylvania Legislature, Republicans, Majority Leader Kim Ward and Speaker of the House Bryan Cutler. Majority Leader Ward said the President called her to ``declare there was a fraud in the voting.'' Then, on November 25, President Trump phoned in to a Republican State senate policy hearing, trying to convince the Republican legislators, senators, and house members that there had been a fraud in the vote. He even had his lawyer hold a phone up to the microphone in that hearing room so the committee could hear him. Here is what he said: (Text of audio presentation.) President TRUMP. We can't let that happen. We can't let it happen for our country. And this election has to be turned around because we won Pennsylvania by a lot, and we won all of these swing States by a lot. This was a gathering--I have attended many, I have to tell you, as a former State legislator, a lot of policy hearings. I have to say with some confidence, that was likely the first time a President of the United States of America called in to a State legislative policy hearing. And, remember, here is the President saying he won Pennsylvania, and Pennsylvania had been certified, that Biden had won by more than 80,000 votes. Less than a week after calling in to that meeting, he invited multiple Republican members of the Pennsylvania Legislature to the White House--the same scheme he had used on the Michigan legislators. It didn't work with those public servants either. Think about it. The President of the United States was calling public officials, calling from the White House, inviting them into the Oval Office, telling them to disenfranchise voters of their State, telling them to overturn the will of the American people. All so he could take the election for himself. And then in Georgia, a State Trump had counted on for victory, his conduct was perhaps the most egregious. On November 11, Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger confirmed that he believed ballots were accurately counted for Biden. Trump went on a relentless attack. Here are just a few examples. In all, Trump tweeted at Raffensperger 17 times in the coming weeks--there are just a few--calling him a ``disaster,'' ``obstinate,'' not having a clue, being played for a fool, and being a ``so-called Republican,'' all because Raffensperger was doing his job, ensuring the integrity of our elections. And these attacks had consequences. Mr. Raffensperger and his family received death threats: Your husband deserves to face a firing squad. You better not botch this recount. Your life depends [upon] it. The Raffenspergers should be put on trial for treason and face execution. Just some of the threats they received. After these death threats, on November 25, Mr. Raffensperger wrote an op-ed, where he said: My family voted for [Trump], donated to him and are now being thrown under the bus by him. But he also noted: Elections are the bedrock of our democracy. They need to be run fairly and, perhaps more [importantly], impartially. That's not partisan. That's just American. It is important to remember that this wasn't just a random attack. Trump wasn't just criticizing a politician over policy or saying he didn't agree. Donald Trump was savagely attacking a secretary of state because the official did his job and certified the State according to how the people in that State voted. Donald Trump was trying to undermine our elections by taking votes away from the American people so that he could remain President, and he was willing to blame and betray anyone--anyone--even his own supporters, if they got in the way. Remember, Senators, those threats were to Mr. Raffensperger's family. So some may say Trump didn't know his attacks against Mr. Raffensperger would result in death threats--except that all of this was very public. The secretary published his op-ed in USA TODAY, and major networks, including FOX, covered the threats against the Raffenspergers. What did Trump do? Did he stop? Did he say: No, no, supporters; that isn't what I meant? No. He doubled down. Let's see the evidence. (Text of audio presentation of 11-26-2020.) President TRUMP. This was a massive fraud. This should never take place in this country. We're like a third world country. Look at--look at Georgia. But I understand the secretary of state who is really, uh, uh, he's an enemy of the people. The secretary of state--and whether he's Republican or not, this man, what he's done. . . . this character in Georgia, who is a disaster. Let that sink in. A Republican public servant doing his job, whose family had just received death threats, and the President of the United States labeled him ``an enemy of the people.'' And that is why this is different, because this was not just one attack or one comment. This was attack after attack in the face of clear threats of violence. And on December 1, another official, Gabriel Sterling, a Republican who voted for Trump, made this point and appealed directly to our President to stop his dangerous conduct: (Text of audio presentation 12-1-20.) Mr. STERLING. Mr. President, it looks like you likely lost the State of Georgia. We're investigating. There's always a possibility--I get it--and you have the right to go through the courts. What you don't have the ability to do--and you need to step up and say this--is stop inspiring people to commit potential acts of violence. Someone's going to get hurt, someone's going to get shot, someone's going to get killed. Mr. Sterling put this perfectly. In this country, we can appropriately challenge a close count or go to the courts or disagree with others or make bold statements, but what Trump was doing was different. Someone's going to get hurt, someone's going to get shot, someone's going to get killed. Mr. Sterling saw what Trump's conduct was fomenting. He warned him on live TV that violence was already happening and that more violence was foreseeable and inevitable. Sterling's pleas were played over and over on every network. Rather than heed that warning, Trump escalated again. In early December, Trump called Brian Kemp, the Governor of Georgia, and pressured him to hold a special session of the State legislature to overturn the election results and to appoint electors who would vote for Trump. A few weeks later, on December 23, Trump called the chief investigator for the Georgia Bureau of Investigations, who was conducting an audit, an audit of the signature-matching procedures for absentee ballots. Trump urged him, ``[F]ind the fraud,'' and claimed the official would be a ``national hero'' if he did. Let's call this what it is. He was asking the official to say there was evidence of fraud when there wasn't any. The official refused, and the investigation was completed. And on December 29, Raffensperger announced that the audit found ``no fraudulent absentee ballots'' with a ``99 percent confidence'' level. On January 3, Trump tweeted about a call he had with Georgia election officials the day before. He said: I spoke to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger yesterday about Fulton County and voter fraud in Georgia. He was unwilling, or unable, to answer questions such as the ``ballots under the table'' scam, ballot destruction, out of state ``voters'', dead voters, and more. He has no clue! On January 5, the Washington Post released a recording of that call which had occurred on January 2--remember, just 4 days before the attack on the Capitol. Here is what President Trump said: (Text of audio presentation of 1-2-2021.) President TRUMP. It's more illegal for you than it is for them because you know what they did and you're not reporting it. That's the--you know, that's a criminal--that's a criminal offense. And you know, you can't let that happen. That's--that's a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. That's a big risk. Let's be clear. This is the President of the United States telling a secretary of state that if he does not find votes, he will face criminal penalties--and not just any number of votes. Donald Trump was asking the secretary of state to somehow find the exact number of votes Donald Trump lost the State by. Remember, President Biden won Georgia by 11,779 votes. In his own words, Trump said: All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes. He wanted the secretary of state to somehow find the precise number, plus one, so that he could win. Here is what he said. (Text of audio presentation of 1-2-21.) President TRUMP. So, look, all I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. He says it right there, the President of the United States, telling a public official to manufacture the exact votes needed so he can win. Senators, we must not become numb to this. Trump did this across State after State, so often, so loudly, so publicly. Public officials like you and me received death threats and calls threatening criminal penalties, all because Trump wanted to remain in power. These public officials exercised great political and personal courage in the face of unprecedented pressure from a President of the United States. Senators, ours is a dialogue with history, a conversation with the past, with a hope for the future. Senators, I thank you today for your kind attention

Ms. DEAN

Ms. DEAN. Madam Speaker, 1 week ago today, I was trapped in this House Chamber as the banging on the doors began. I feared for colleagues, reporters, and staff. I feared for myself. The attack on the Capitol will never be forgotten. The President and many in this Chamber have shamelessly peddled dangerous untruths about the election, despite the warnings of where those lies would lead. Last Wednesday, those lies and dangers found themselves inside this Capitol. This hateful rhetoric is another deadly virus. It is time to remove it from its host. To heal, we need accountability and truth. That begins by acknowledging the President's dangerous lies and their deadly consequences. Removing Donald Trump is the beginning of restoring decency and democracy. What happened last week will not be forgotten, and what we do this week will long be remembered. Vote ``yes'' on impeachment.

Ms. DEAN

Ms. DEAN. Madam Speaker, this is a sad day for America--a day of shame, a day of ignominy, an attack on this Capitol, an attack on our country. Madam Speaker, our words matter. Mobs, thugs, insurrectionists, domestic terrorists attacked our government with the aim of attacking our free and fair elections. Make no mistake, these terrorists came armed, armed with false flags; armed with hate; armed with weapons; and, tragically, armed with lies force-fed to them by those at the highest level of government, including some from the legislative and, yes, the executive branches. Incited by the one at the highest level of government, they attacked people, property, this Capitol, this cathedral of democracy. Words matter. In his last words to our Nation and to all of us here, our dear colleague, John Lewis, wrote last July: ``Democracy is not a state. It is an act.'' And each generation has an obligation to preserve its institutions. Democracy is a series of acts, acts by you and by me, by citizens, one building upon the other and another--not acts that we have heard and seen and suffered today, words and acts to incite violence, acts that tear at the very fabric of our democracy. Madam Speaker, yet, I have hope. We, too, are armed. We are armed with the facts. We are armed with the truth. We are armed with the love of our country. We are armed with our sworn oaths. And we are armed with our precious Constitution. We have faced tyranny and insurrection before. We are here tonight to herald to America and to the world: We will defend our democracy, and we will endure. Madam Speaker, when I came into work this morning, as I was preparing to come to the floor, I read Tom Friedman's op-ed, which began with the words from the Gospel of Mark: For what shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world but lose his soul? For what shall it profit any man. Madam Speaker, I urge my Republican colleagues to have the courage to uphold their oath, courage like that of Congresswoman Margaret Chase Smith, a lifelong Republican and the first in her party to speak out against McCarthyism. Putting duty over fear, she said: ``I do not want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the Four Horsemen of Calumny--Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear. Surely, we Republicans are not that desperate for victory.'' Madam Speaker, for today, we have seen the cost of victory by such means. It shook the very walls of this building. Our colleagues know there is no truth to this challenge. For what shall it profit a man. Madam Speaker, it has been my solemn honor to participate in this sad day. I pray for our country.

Ms. DEAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the challenge.

Ms. DEAN

Ms. DEAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear colleague. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3884, the MORE Act. Since the war on drugs began, the Nation's prison population increased from 300,000 to a staggering 2.2 million people behind bars. In the decade between 2001 and 2010, 8.2 million people were arrested on marijuana charges. Nearly 90 percent of those arrests were for simply having marijuana. Most troubling is the fact that, despite equal use rates, Black Americans are four times more likely than White Americans to be arrested for marijuana. People of color have disproportionately borne the burdens of these draconian policies, facing longer prison sentences and the lifetime economic consequences of having a criminal record. Generations of Black and Hispanic communities have suffered--families ripped apart, businesses shuddered, educations unfinished. This is neither law nor order; it is injustice. Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity here to right our wrongs. The MORE Act is a sweeping effort for equity to our criminal justice system by removing marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act and requiring Federal courts to expunge prior convictions. The bill goes a long way to reduce racial disparities that plague our criminal justice system. Marijuana reform is long overdue. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for bringing the bill forward.

Ms. DEAN

Ms. DEAN. Madam Speaker, I wear a mask so my granddaughter, Aubrey, can return to third grade in-person schooling as soon as possible. I wear a mask so that one day I can go to church and be surrounded again by a community in prayer. I wear a mask to look forward to the day when my entire family can get together. I wear a mask so more people do not have to experience the feeling of loss my family felt when my mother-in-law, Joan Cunnane, passed away from the COVID virus. Wearing a mask is not a political statement; it is a simple way of saying: ``I value the lives around me.'' Nearly 250,000 Americans are dead because of this brutal virus, and it is up to each of us to do our part. Today, I put on my mask as an act of public health, of compassion, of care, and of respect, as a way of asking not what others can do for me, but what I am always saying behind my mask: ``What can I do for you?''

Ms. DEAN

Ms. DEAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4712, the Fairness in Orphan Drug Exclusivity Act. This legislation would close a current loophole that is used to block competition in the pharmaceutical marketplace. This could deny innovative treatments for opioid use disorder and limit the types of treatments for those in recovery and what they can access. The Orphan Drug Act of 1983 has provided incentives for prescription drug manufacturers to develop products to treat rare diseases. This includes an exclusive 7-year marketing right for therapies that receive an orphan drug designation. For a drug to qualify, it must either be a treatment for a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 people in the United States; Or a drug intended for diseases that there is no reasonable expectation to recoup research and development costs. For the latter criterion, this legislation would require all drug manufacturers who obtain orphan drug status to prove that they have no reasonable expectation that they will recover their R&D costs. Importantly, this legislation is narrowly tailored and would not affect any product that does receive orphan drug status under the first criterion. The scenario this legislation works to prevent, as the chairman has said, is companies continuing to use orphan drug exclusivity status for a newly approved drug with an identical ingredient to the former version without having to prove the inability to recoup costs. Closing this loophole would ensure that a product does not receive unfair market advantage and, therefore, remains consistent with the spirit and the intent of the Orphan Drug Act. In addition, H.R. 4712 clears barriers for innovative medication- assisted treatments, or MATs, coming to market that will help treat those with substance use disorder. Substance use disorder is by no means a rare disease and should not be treated as such. Medication- assisted treatments can and do save lives. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, in 2016 more than 2.1 million Americans were living with opioid use disorder, but just over 17 percent of people received specialty treatment. Medication- assisted treatment is one of those personalized options. We must work to ensure more people can gain access to newer therapies and MAT treatments that are currently blocked due to an orphan designation. Mr. Speaker, I thank the bipartisan group of legislators who introduced this bill with me: Congressmen Buddy Carter, Marc Veasey, and David McKinley, as well as Chairman Pallone and Ranking Member Burgess, for supporting the bill, and passing it unanimously out of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this bill.

Ms. DEAN

Ms. DEAN. Madam Speaker, more than 207,000 Americans are dead, and there is no end in sight. One in six Americans is jobless. These are not just numbers. These are people. They have lost their livelihoods, their health, their careers. Many have lost everything. It did not have to be this way. Our Nation had its first confirmed COVID case in January, and yet 9 months later, there is no national testing strategy, no leadership from the White House. We have a President who would rather save face, save power to himself, than save lives, who corrosively continues to play politics as people die. We are a Nation in crisis. People are in despair. Government has a role to play. We must act with urgency and decency as we support one another with direct cash relief, funds for State and local governments, widespread testing, and the guarantee of free COVID treatment and vaccines for all. Let us live up to Elijah Cummings' command: ``We are better than this.''

Ms. DEAN

Ms. DEAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend and chair for yielding, and I thank my colleague on the other side of the aisle for his support for this bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6934, the Uniform Treatment of NRSROs Act. NRSROs are nationally recognized statistical rating agencies. This is a bipartisan bill that addresses businesses' need for greater access to Federal lending facilities in the time of COVID and a uniform treatment of credit rating agencies in the application process for these much- needed loans. In response to the economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, several lending facilities have been created to assist struggling businesses at this difficult time. The Federal Reserve and Treasury, however, have limited access to these facilities to businesses whose assets have been rated by only a select few credit rating agencies, making it unnecessarily difficult for many businesses to access much-needed resources. In Pennsylvania alone, several small and mid-sized companies as well as municipal bond issuers have been excluded from the facilities or have their ratings from nonapproved rating agencies called into question by the market. This legislation seeks to remove these barriers by amending the CARES Act to require that the Federal Reserve and Treasury accept ratings from any nationally recognized statistical rating organization, or NRSRO. This would have the effect of opening up access to the facilities to issuers with a rating from any duly recognized NRSRO that has been approved in the relevant asset class by the SEC. This legislation would also require the Comptroller General to issue, within 1 year of enactment, a study on the quality of credit rating agencies across NRSROs, including during the 2008 crisis. The study would also explore the effect of competition on the quality of credit ratings and on the ability of small and mid-sized companies and financial institutions to access the capital markets. At a time of unprecedented economic uncertainty, we need to make sure that small and mid-sized businesses have access to capital markets needed to survive and recover. By expanding eligible NRSROs, this legislation opens up access, transparency, and healthy competition, without compromising quality, at a time when it is needed most. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairwoman Waters, the Financial Services Committee staff, and, importantly, my Republican colead, Representative Andy Barr, for their work on this legislation to help struggling businesses get the capital they need. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. DEAN

Ms. DEAN. Madam Speaker, recovery is challenging and isolating even during normal days, and this pandemic has only made it more difficult for those who suffer from addiction and substance use disorder. That is why National Recovery Month, this month, takes on even greater meaning as many are navigating isolation and distance from family and support networks. National Recovery Month is personal for me and my family. My son, Harry, is in long-term recovery from opioid addiction. Now he is healthy, he is well, and he works now to help others who struggle with substance abuse disorder. In his work, he reminds me that, during the pandemic, so many have it even tougher on the road to recovery. He reminds me that not all are as fortunate as we have been, and we recognize National Recovery Month for its importantly shining a light on this issue. I call on us to dedicate more resources to support those suffering with addiction and substance use disorder to live happy, rewarding, healthy lives. And for those suffering with substance use disorders: You are not alone. There is hope.

Ms. DEAN

Ms. DEAN. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. DEAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my amendment No. 6 to H.R. 2639, the Strength in Diversity Act. This amendment would allow State education agencies to apply for the grants provided under this bill and would require these agencies to have procedures in place to assess and to prevent the redrawing of school district lines in a manner that increases racial or socioeconomic isolation. Specifically, agencies applying for grants will have to demonstrate procedures to, number one, assess and prevent redrawing of school district lines that increase isolation; number two, assess segregation impacts of new school construction proposals and prioritize construction funding that will increase integration; and, number three, identify progress toward reduction of racial and economic isolation in their State plans. Mr. Speaker, diversity is our strength, and ensuring equity in our education systems will benefit all students and school districts across this Nation. I am a parent, a grandparent, and a former teacher. I know that access to a good education is the key to determining one's future, and each child deserves equal opportunity to that promise. Yet, we are reminded every day that we have a racial and economic divide in this country that leaves too many children behind. This amendment is about good government and about equitable education, giving all children the opportunities they deserve while also ensuring the prevention of school secessions, which usually create wealthy White enclaves separated from more diverse communities. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DEAN. Mr. Speaker, I am a little puzzled by those remarks. After all, the Allen amendment sought some rather drastic changes to ESEA, but that didn't seem to generate that same comment. We all know that equal educational opportunities enrich us all, and they are the right of all and lead to better financial outcomes later in life. Though we need to collectively do better across this Nation in increasing diversity in our educational systems, my home State of Pennsylvania, in particular, demonstrates the need for greater action. According to a 2015 report by the UCLA Civil Rights Project, the amount of majority-minority and intensely segregated schools statewide more than doubled, 21 percent and 11 percent, respectively, over two decades. In fact, 17 percent of Philadelphia schools have a student body that is 99 percent to 100 percent minority students. Also, in the Philadelphia metro area, a typical Black and Latino student attended a school with, respectively, 71 percent or 68 percent low-income students, while a typical White student attended a school with only 21 percent low-income students. This is a problem. These inequities isolate and segregate students, which in turn separate our communities, limit student growth, and hurt the educational resources in highly segregated schools. Our schools are meant to serve all students equally, no matter their race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status. Without adequate educational resources, students do not have the necessary tools to perform to the best of their abilities and to further their education. This not only hurts students who are racially or socioeconomically isolated; it hurts us all because America works best when we all succeed. Despite Pennsylvania's need for further action to combat these problems, there is promise and hope in the fact that my State has shown real change can happen. From the early sixties to the late nineties, there were intentional desegregation efforts that resulted in evidence- based decreases in segregation. New, competitive grants to State agencies would direct resources to States looking to advance and support these efforts moving forward. Mr. Speaker, I want to close by saying that I thank Chairman Scott and Representative Fudge for their leadership. I urge Members to support this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DEAN

Ms. DEAN. Mr. Speaker, we are halfway through this year and 6 months into this pandemic, and our Nation still lacks a national testing strategy. The President claimed that he was a wartime President, but with 150,000 Americans dead, this administration has not given this the wartime seriousness it deserves. The administration must get serious about this virus. Invoke our full powers through the Defense Production Act and urge the Senate to pass the testing resources the House has made available in the HEROES Act. Protect American citizens across this Nation. Our Nation needs a national strategy. It needs results, not long waiting times making it impossible to manage and mitigate the pandemic. In my district alone, people are waiting for 10 days or more to receive their results. That is simply unacceptable. And while they wait, they may be going out, putting others at risk. Mr. Speaker, it is dangerously irresponsible to have such inadequate testing in the United States of America, where our resources are so vast. I urge this administration to summon our vast resources and the courage to command a national testing strategy.

Ms. DEAN

Ms. DEAN. Madam Speaker, our student loan debt crisis predates the pandemic. We encourage high school students to attend college, to claim their education, yet too many graduates are shackled with a mountain of debt that limits their future, impedes their financial freedom, and diminishes their purchasing power. The pandemic has only worsened this problem. During this pandemic, we owe it to a generation of debt-laden young people, veterans, and transitioning adults to take bold action, to pass meaningful debt forgiveness. Freeing up the ability to claim an education without crushing debt will be a relief to so many Americans and our economy. An educated public should enrich us all, not create unsustainable debt. So I call upon this body to pass bold and meaningful debt forgiveness for millions of bright young people so that their futures are determined not by the debt they incurred but by the knowledge they gained.

Ms. DEAN

Ms. DEAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, like many others in this Chamber, the last time I heard Mr. Lewis' voice was on a Caucus call recently. Congressman Lewis implored us: Be bold. Be brave. Keep the faith. Keep your eyes on the prize. Keep working. There is much work to be done. Don't get weary. Continue the work. John Lewis was a hero to all of us for causing ``good trouble'' and for standing on the right side of history, for standing for our common humanity. His humility, strength, and belief in the greatness of this country never faltered. What a blessing it has been to me to serve with him. I had the privilege of being with him on a visit in Florida to the detention camp where immigrant children were kept separated from their parents, and through an interpreter, he spoke to the children. He had two messages. So whether he was speaking to us in Congress or to a President or to children, his message was the same, and the same was: Believe in the promise of America. Keep the faith. Be bold. Don't be disturbed. His other message, his second message, was one of welcome, and the beaming children loved that. He said: Welcome to America. We welcome you. His was a memory of kindness and humility and optimism for a better place, an America that was promised in our founding documents. On many occasions, we have fallen short, short of the American promise of equality and justice for all. Mr. Lewis' scars revealed that. His memory will be a beacon for justice and equality and for the unfinished business of the people to be a country of mercy, of decency, and of love. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Lucky us to have passed this way with you.

Ms. DEAN

Ms. DEAN. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. DEAN. Just for some final thoughts, Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that this is a commonsense requirement that helps both the servicers and the borrowers. Remember, the servicers will receive a lump-sum payment and should, therefore, be able to make sure that the subsequent payments by borrowers are sustainable for borrowers. Forbearance is something that we built into the CARES Act, but not in any way for student loan borrowers. This is not without precedent. It is valuable to help student loan borrowers when, through no fault of their own, they are in an economic position of possible default. I will close, mindful of the great loss that we had over the weekend. I am mindful, prayerful, and thankful for the role model and friendship of our colleague, John Lewis, and how he fought for equity for all people and how he fought to lift up others. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DEAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and all the members of the committee for their fine work in the proposed legislation. I rise today in support of my amendment, No. 11, to H.R. 6395. This amendment would provide much-needed assistance to roughly 6 million private student loan borrowers by authorizing appropriations of up to $10,000 per borrower to pay down their student loan debt. Additionally, this amendment would require private student loan servicers to modify the loan to lower the monthly payments by re- amortizing the loan and/or lowering the interest rate when the borrower resumes payment. This is a commonsense requirement that helps both the borrowers and the servicers, who will receive a lump sum payment and should, therefore, make sure that subsequent payments by borrowers are affordable and sustainable. Private student loan borrowers did not receive any of the reprieve that the Federal student loan borrowers were able to access through the CARES Act. This means that roughly 6 million private student loan borrowers have had to continue to make payments during an unprecedented health and economic crisis, hurting not only their economic health but our country's, too. We know the private student loan borrowers are particularly vulnerable. Prior to the pandemic, one in seven student loan borrowers were more than 90 days delinquent. COVID-19 has only exacerbated this problem. According to the Student Borrower Protection Center, the number of private student loan borrowers unable to make payment obligations between January and April of this year increased by 36 percent. This amendment would rectify the inequity we created in not including private student loan borrowers and bring them much-needed assistance, just as this body did with Federal student loan borrowers. Importantly, this amendment will help our veterans, who take out an average of $8,000 in private student loan debt to attend for-profit schools each year, and for the estimated 200,000 servicemembers who collectively owe billions in student loan debt. While many were able to access relief for Federal funds, these borrowers were not. They are languishing from the burden of private student loans. This amendment is good for our borrowers, good for our economy, good for our veterans. I urge Members to support this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.