Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7276 the Ukraine Invasion War Crimes Deterrence and Accountability Act, to direct the President to submit a report to Congress on the United States efforts to collect and analyze evidence and information related to the war crimes committed by the Russian Federation during their full-scale invasion of Ukraine. This legislation requires the Administration to detail the process our government will undertake to collect, analyze, and preserve evidence of these war crimes, so that perpetrators of these and other atrocities are held accountable. There is no question of whether the Russian Federation, under the direction of Vladimir Putin has been defying the laws of war throughout its unprovoked, unjust, and unlawful invasion of Ukraine. H.R. 7276 will ensure the U.S. maintains a coordinated effort to collect evidence to be used to prosecute Russian war crimes in Ukraine. This bill will help to deter future war crimes by ensuring Russian troops and their commanders know the world is watching closely. In the three decades since gaining its independence, Ukraine has sought its own path to sovereignty and has pursued closer economic, social, and political ties with the free market and democratic nations of the West. Since 2013, the Russian Federation under the direction of President Vladimir Putin, has imposed a campaign of political, economic, and military aggression against Ukraine. In February 2014, the Russian military began the invasion of eastern regions in Ukraine, including the Crimean Peninsula. The military also backed separatist insurgents in the Donbass region, where fighting has killed over 14,000 people. Today the world is witnessing the unprovoked aggression and invasion ordered by Vladimir Putin. President Putin and his associates must be held personally liable for the war crimes committed against the people of Ukraine. Russia claims it is not attacking civilians, yet thousands of people have been killed, mostly from explosive weapons with a wide impact area, including shelling from heavy artillery and multi-launch rocket systems, and missile and air strikes. Families are being separated by war, adults and children are being ruthlessly killed, and civilian infrastructure has been completely obliterated in parts of eastern Ukraine. These reckless Russian attacks have leveled homes, preschools, post offices, museums, sports facilities, hospitals, and factories. Power and gas lines have been severed, bridges and railway stations blown up intentionally to restrict refugee movement within the country. Civilians have been killed in their cars, while waiting in bread lines, and while seeking treatment in hospitals. Remnants of a missile were found in a Ukrainian zoo, residential neighborhoods have been shelled to pieces and morgues are overflowing with bodies. Additionally, a rogue Russia is violently crushing political speech opposing the war from its own citizens. As Russian ground forces advance in Ukraine, Ukrainians are sheltering from artillery shells and cruise missiles in subways and bomb shelters. But in addition to the conventional military forces that Russia brings to bear, Russia has been utilizing nonconventional warfare for years. Russia has been running a long-running campaign to cast Ukrainians as Nazis and the perpetrators of genocide against Russian-speakers in eastern Ukraine in order to justify an invasion. The western world must continue to march in lockstep against this senseless Russian invasion of a sovereign nation. We will make it clear to President Putin that there is no possibility for him to win this war when our alliances are as united and as fortified as they are now and will continue to be throughout the entire duration of this conflict. Putin may seize ground, but he will never hold it. Thank you, and I look forward to discussing recommended measures to hold Russia accountable for this manufactured war.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, the people of the United States deserve to know the truth. With all the ranting of my friends across the aisle, the Constitution indicates that this Nation was formed to create a more perfect Union. There were those who incited January 6. There were those who surrounded President Trump who did nothing to stop the violence and terrorism of January 6. If witnesses come before a duly authorized bipartisan committee and refuse to provide the American people with the truth, then we need to stand here and provide them with a contempt order so that the truth can be found. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for this contempt order for the truth for the American people and the sanctity of the Constitution.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the manager for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership. I thank, of course, the chairwoman of the Small Business Committee, Mr. Blumenauer, and the many supporters who have provided support for this legislation. I am hoping that as my colleagues begin to see the light, that they will understand that it will be far worse for all of the employees who are in restaurants that may close that they will not even be employed to think about paying for any gas prices no matter how much they might be. I stand with them to ensure that inflation goes down and that we respond to gasoline prices. But they are not clear in what we are doing today. We are helping small and hard-hit businesses--sole proprietors, independent contractors, and businesses that are not over 200 employees--to keep these employees who have suffered from the devastation of the pandemic. We are doing more. We are not spending an extra penny because we are capturing those dollars from those who fraudulently used dollars before. So we are making good on our promise to spend the American tax dollars correctly. We are having a data collection. We are going to have oversight on this particular program to ensure that it is spent effectively. We are going to respond, if you will, to the needs of the mom and pops, the really oldest and distinguished restaurants like This is It in Houston, Texas; Burns Original BBQ; and J&J; as people who have stood the storm yet, have kept employees but that didn't know whether they could keep their doors open. This is an important and vital piece of legislation. I support the underlying legislation, which is the bill that deals with relief for restaurants and other hard-hit small businesses and the underlying rule. Don't you get it? We are keeping businesses open and keeping people employed. That is what we are doing today. Support the rule and the underlying bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule to consider H.R. 3807, the ``Relief for Restaurants and Other Hard Hit Small Businesses Act of 2022,'' which provides $70.6 billion in FY2022 for the Restaurant Revitalization Fund. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this committee is reconsidering this critical piece of legislation for America's restaurant owners. The American Rescue Plan made great progress in providing the funding in an equitable manner, prioritizing women, veteran, and economically and socially disadvantaged restaurant owners. In addition, the majority of funds were reserved for restaurants whose gross receipts were no more than $1,500,000 dollars. It is essential to promote equity through the Restaurant Revitalization Fund Mr. Speaker, considering that only 8 percent of restaurants are owned by blacks and 23.8% of Asian owned businesses are restaurants. As legislators we must do everything we can to ensure their survival. To underscore the personal importance this funding holds to me, I would like to mention a widely loved, black owned, and historic Third Ward restaurant: Cream Burger. Cream Burger sits on the corner of Elgin and Scott and has been in operation for 60 years. It is a cash only restaurant that has only had two additions to the menu across the entirety of its existence: chili cheese fries and bacon. The Greenwood family has been serving the residents of the Third Ward their delicious burgers and homemade ice cream for decades and has no plans of closing any time soon. The original owners of the restaurant, Verna and Willie Greenwood, opened the restaurant to generate their own income and create generational wealth, which they certainly have done. Ever since their tragic passing, the business is now owned and operated by their daughters, Beverly and Sandra. Beverly and Sandra hope to pass the business onto the next generation of children so they can, ``see it through. Maybe 100 years,'' Beverly said. The restaurant sees a range of Third Ward customers every day, from the students at the University of Houston to the cashiers working at the historic Houston Food Mart just down the street. Cream Burger is iconic in the city of Houston, and I hold it in the highest reverence. It, and so many restaurants like it, is one of those restaurants that would receive funds from this legislation. It is for that reason Mr. Speaker I support the rule to consider H.R. 3807, the ``Relief for Restaurants and other Hard Hit Small Businesses Act of 2022.'' It will help save so many businesses like the beloved Cream Burger, so I urge my colleagues to support the rule as well.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I will start with associating myself with my colleagues who have just spoken and say, ``Glory to Ukraine'' and to indicate that my heart is broken. The words will not elevate the despicable actions of Vladimir Putin. Today we voted to secure and seek, I hope, an indictment. He is a war criminal, and he is killing children. But I must, Mr. Speaker, suggest that we have a difficult problem at the border exacerbated by Governor Greg Abbott, who wishes to make a mockery of the desperate people coming, including Ukrainian refugees, who gather at the southern border. Today, he has announced that he will bus these migrants to Washington, D.C. I am embarrassed. With the likes of George H.W. Bush, Ann Richards, Henry B. Gonzalez, as well as Barbara Jordan, who are brothers and sisters of Texas, I now have to live with Governor Greg Abbott who disgraces us by suggesting that we must take migrants and drop them off on the steps of the Capitol. I welcome them. Why don't we sit down and resolve how we deal with these desperate people? Why don't we find a way, as we were trying to do with George W. Bush, to have an immigration policy? But when he does that, he will also do that to Ukrainian refugees at the southern border. Enough is enough.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his consistent leadership as he serves as chair and ranking member of a number of subcommittees of the Homeland Security Committee. He has been not only an effective manager here on the floor, but he has been a very effective Member and effective leader on so many issues. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 4209 from my colleague and friend from Texas (Mr. Pfluger). After years of service on the Homeland Security Committee and any number of times going to the border, I would like to first describe and acknowledge that the southern border is many things. It is a lifeline to desperate people who are fleeing horrible, violent situations that include the decapitating of their sons and daughters or their husbands and even wives. With the violence of some of the oppressive states in Central and South America, where young boys are recruited right out of their homes for gangs, gang warfare, those families are intimidated and frightened if they do not give their boys to these major gangs and cartels. We have had any number of a series of the flow of massive influx of migrants from the region. Many may come out of desperation for economic reasons, but many come with credible fear. We expect that that may even occur as early as the next couple of months. I implore my colleagues to respond to that desperation in a unified, committed, and dedicated way of Democrats and Republicans reminding themselves that the Statue of Liberty may be along the New York shore, but people view this place as a refuge. As a resident of Houston, I can attest to the fact that Ukrainians, Afghans, Africans, Haitians, and, yes, those from South and Central America, and as far away as Southeast Asia, are now congregating at the southern border. I, too, was in Del Rio when the massive movement of human beings flowed for desperate reasons. This DHS Illicit Cross-Border Tunnel Defense Act is what we need as it relates to the known cartels and persons who are desperate to do evil and to bring the goods that will destroy our young and others who are addicted into the United States. This is the way. They have proudly said that we build tunnels with lights, air-conditioning, in whatever manner to make them palatable to be able to block, if you will, our law enforcement from achieving their goals. As the first Member of Congress to bring a human trafficking hearing to Houston, which is known as the epicenter of human trafficking, this is vital legislation to stop the scourge of human trafficking, of bringing young children and young women. We already know that at the Ukrainian borders in different countries, there is trafficking of young kids who are not killed by Putin; that they are trafficking children and women in that crisis situation. They have no moral compass. This bill, which strengthens DHS' efforts to identify and remediate illicit cross-border tunnels built and utilized by transnational criminal organizations and smugglers on the southwest border, is crucial. Mr. Speaker, I particularly support the Secretary's direction to issue a strategic plan that addresses resource needs, including technology and staffing needs. What is needed is a million dollars in funding for fiscal years 2023 and 2024 to acquire material to remediate illicit cross-border tunnels. I have said that they have regular, good living conditions in these tunnels because they are so extensive. This material includes specialized concrete with enough viscosity to efficiently fill tunnels with fewer insertion points. We need to combine our efforts as we deal with the scourge of the violent cartels: bloody, guns, intimidating people, and, of course, bringing in illegal entities, some that are human life, into the United States. The southern border is quite different from the northern border, and we must provide the technology for those who are there. But as I make that point, Mr. Speaker, I do believe as well that we are never going to get anywhere as Americans, we are never going to win the fight on immigration, on migration, or refugees if we continue to stand in our individual corners. We have to face it. People view this as a beacon of light. You can try to snuff that out, you can try to turn the light off, and you can try to tell them to go back, but they are entrenched with legacy history passed down that this is the place to seek opportunity and refuge. So I support the legislation. I thank the gentleman from Texas for his hard work. I believe this is an important element to bipartisan commitment to securing our borders in the right way, and I thank him for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, the chairman, and the ranking member of the full committee.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1218, the ``Data Mapping to Save Moms' Lives Act'' which directs the Federal Communications Commission to identify areas of the country where poor maternal health rates overlap with deficiencies in broadband access that are needed to effectively deploy telehealth services. In the United States, black women are 2 to 6 times more likely to die from complications of pregnancy than white women, depending on where they live. Dating back to maternity mortality analysis from 1979 to 1992, the overall pregnancy-related mortality ratio was 25.1 deaths per 100,000 for black women, 10.3 for Hispanic women, and 6.0 for non-Hispanic white women. During 2011-2015, the pregnancy-related mortality ratios were-- 42.8 deaths per 100,000 live births for black non-Hispanic women; 32.5 deaths per 100,000 live births for American Indian/Alaskan Native non-Hispanic women; 14.2 deaths per 100,000 live births for Asian/Pacific Islander non- Hispanic women; 13.0 deaths per 100,000 live births for white non-Hispanic women; and 11.4 deaths per 100,000 live births for Hispanic women. Madam Speaker, Black women in the United States experience unacceptably poor maternal health outcomes, including disproportionately high rates of death related to pregnancy or childbirth. Both societal and health system factors contribute to high rates of poor health outcomes and maternal mortality for Black women, who are more likely to experience barriers to obtaining quality care and often face racial discrimination throughout their lives. Health inequity stems from economic inequality and its contributing factors including sexism and racism. To that point, Black women are typically paid just 63 cents for every dollar paid to white, non- Hispanic men. Median wages for Black women in the United States are $36,227 per year, which is $21,698 less than the median wages for white, non- Hispanic men. These lost wages mean Black women and their families have less money to support themselves and their families and may have to choose between essential resources like housing, childcare, food, and health care. These trade-offs are evident in Black women's health outcomes and use of medical care. Compared to white women, Black women are more likely to be uninsured, face greater financial barriers to care when they need it and are less likely to access prenatal care. Black women experience higher rates of many preventable disease and chronic health conditions including diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease. When Black women choose to become pregnant, these health conditions influence both maternal and infant health outcomes. To improve Black women's maternal health, we need a multi-faceted approach that addresses Black women's health across the lifespan, improves access to quality care, addresses social determinants of health and provides greater economic security. Comprehensive data on maternal health is certainly a part of that approach. Black women are three to four times more likely to experience a pregnancy-related death than white women. Black women are more likely to experience preventable maternal death compared with white women. Black women's heightened risk of pregnancy-related death spans income and education levels. Black women experience more maternal health complications than white women. Black women are more likely to experience complications throughout the course of their pregnancies than white women. Black women are three times more likely to have fibroids (benign tumors that grow in the uterus and can cause postpartum hemorrhaging) than white women, and the fibroids occur at younger ages and grow more quickly for Black women. Black women display signs of preeclampsia earlier in pregnancy than white women. This condition, which involves high blood pressure during pregnancy, can lead to severe complications including death if improperly treated. Black women experience physical ``weathering,'' meaning their bodies age faster than white women's due to exposure to chronic stress linked to socioeconomic disadvantage and discrimination over the life course, thus making pregnancy riskier at an earlier age. Primarily Black-serving hospitals provide lower quality maternity care, where seventy-five percent of Black women give birth. Those same hospitals also have higher rates of maternal complications than other hospitals. They also perform worse on 12 of 15 birth outcomes, including elective deliveries, non-elective cesarean births and maternal mortality. Many Black women have a difficult time accessing the reproductive health care that meets their needs. Access to reproductive health care, which helps women plan their families, improves health outcomes for women and children. Black women experience higher rates of unintended pregnancies than all other racial groups, in part because of disparities in access to quality contraceptive care and counseling. Many Black women lack access to quality contraceptive care and counseling. For example, in a recent analysis of California women enrolled in Medicaid, Black women were less likely than white or Latina women to receive postpartum contraception, and when they did receive it, they were less likely to receive a highly effective method. Black women's access to abortion is limited, and they may be more likely to experience the ill effects of abortion restrictions--such as delayed care, increased costs or lack of access to care. Black and Hispanic adults in the United States remain less likely than White adults to say they own a traditional computer or have high- speed internet at home, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted Jan. 25 to Feb. 8, 2021. In addition, only 40 percent of Black adults report having broadband access in their homes. This figure is another testament to the inhibitions black women face in getting the care they need, which this act aims to resolve. It is for that reason Madam Speaker I support the ``Data Mapping to Save Moms' Lives Act.'' Comprehensive data on maternal health will play a role in saving the lives of pregnant black women, so I am proud to support this Act. Though there is still much work to be done, this bill is a good first step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to support this potentially life-saving piece of legislation. For far too long black women have disproportionately suffered lower maternal health rates and outcomes. The passage of this Act finally provides us a route to remediation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2501, the ``Spectrum Coordination Act'' which requires the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Federal Communications Commission to update the Memorandum of Understanding on Spectrum Coordination to improve the process for resolving frequency allocation disputes in shared or adjacent spectrum bands and ensure the efficient use or sharing of spectrum. The memorandum of understanding formalizes the cooperative relationship between the two agencies to ensure that spectrum policy decisions promote efficient use of spectrum consistent with both the economic interests and national security of the Nation. Spectrum encompasses a variety of communications, from extremely low frequencies which are used by military submarines to communicate with one another, to extremely high frequencies which allow all of us to use Wi-Fi in our homes and at work. Spectrum is also critical for air travel, one of the most important industries in the United States and the world. It provides pilots and air traffic controllers the ability to communicate from surface to air, ensuring passenger safety and scheduled arrival at their destinations. In terms of domestic national security, spectrum is crucial in saving lives. Due to the devastating effects of climate change, we are seeing natural disasters that are more devastating than ever before. The effects of these disasters demand an equally significant response from our first responders, from local police all the way to FEMA. Thanks to the manipulability of spectrum, we have created dedicated interoperable frequencies for first responders, allowing them to effectively communicate with their counterparts and save more lives. Madam Speaker, properly designating jurisdiction of spectrum or radio wave oversight is critical in maintaining this country's economic prosperity and national security. Our society is increasingly relying on technology, and therefore spectrum, every day. We must update this memorandum to accurately assess and subsequently assign jurisdiction based on the technological advances we have made since the memorandum's last update in 2003. Since 2003, the Internet has transitioned from a luxury to a commodity, smart phones are mandatory to be able to fully participate in society, and threats to national security have evolved in ways we never thought possible. In addition, spectrum allocation will even be increasingly important in the distant future. Astronomers use specialized devices to read radio waves emitted from outer space, allowing us to learn more about the universe and its origins. Just last week The South African Radio Astronomy Observatory released a new image of what it called astronomy's newest mystery: the Odd Radio Circle or ORC. Astronomers have spotted only a handful of ORCs. They're huge, about a million light-years across which is 16 times bigger than our Milky Way galaxy. Despite this, the ORCs are hard to see. They're visible only at radio wavelengths. Right now, we don't know what ORCs are or what causes them, but one day we will. The case could be made that when we do know more, it will be objectively critical knowledge because humans are explorers, and space is our next frontier. Space is the next place we will go, and maybe not in this generation nor the one after that, but one day we will go. Humans will need all the information they can get while exploring the unknown, and all of it will be thanks to radio waves and those who read them and understood them. Their importance truly cannot be understated. Madam Speaker, I firmly believe these factors make updating this memorandum of the utmost necessity, so I am proud to support the ``Spectrum Coordination Act'' and urge my colleagues to as well.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5657, the Medical Marijuana Research Act. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Controlled Substances Act to make marijuana accessible for use by qualified marijuana researchers for medical purposes, and for other purposes. This bill establishes new, separate registration requirements to facilitate medical marijuana research. It will remove the barriers on conducting cannabis research, by allowing scientists to access products from dispensaries that are legally authorized by state law. Current barriers include the burdensome registration process, redundant protocol reviews, lack of adequate research material, and unnecessarily onerous security requirements. The act will speed up the process for researchers to apply and get approved to study cannabis. It will also set clear deadlines on federal agencies to act on their registration applications. The bill also makes it easier for scientists to modify their research protocols without having to seek federal approval. It would additionally require that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) license more growers. With this requirement there would be no limit on the number of additional entities that can be registered to cultivate marijuana for research purposes. For half a century, researchers have only been able to study marijuana grown at the University of Mississippi, because it is the only federally approved facility. These researchers have complained that it is difficult to obtain the medical marijuana at the facility, and when they do obtain it, it is low quality. The medical marijuana that researchers at the University of Mississippi have access to is often compared to industrial hemp, a botanical class of Cannabis sativa that is grown specifically for industrial and medical use. There are many differences between hemp and marijuana such as: Hemp is specifically bred to produce plants because of its strong durable fibers, whereas marijuana is bred specifically for its resin properties, which is used for recreational purposes. Hemp is bred to have less than .03 percent THC. THC is the mood- altering compound in marijuana. Regular marijuana has 1 percent to 30 percent of THC. The hemp plant produces a high level of CBD oil and low levels of THC resin. Marijuana has a low level of CBD oil, and high levels of THC resin. In humans, the CBD oil produced by the hemp plant works on the inflammatory systems of the brain which is why some patients say they get relief after using it. Marijuana works on the part of the brain that regulates mood and hunger. The cannabis that government-authorized institutions typically access is more like hemp than marijuana, and marijuana is what consumers use in the real world. These researchers need to have access to marijuana and not facility- grown hemp to further our education around the drug. With this bill, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. attorney general would be required to create a process for marijuana manufacturers and distributors to supply researchers with cannabis from dispensaries. This will allow researchers to be able to study the recreational marijuana that is being used and sold from state-legal businesses, instead of having to use only government grown cannabis. Ninety-nine percent of Americans live in a state that has legalized some form of cannabis, yet the federal law is still hindering researchers' ability to study all the full range of health benefits. Providing researchers with the actual marijuana that consumers are purchasing is the only way to provide the most efficient and relevant results. We need to stop making researchers jump through regulatory hoops in their efforts to study the medical potential of the plant. Expanding the marijuana studies will help ensure that Americans have adequate access to these potentially life changing medicines and treatments. There are about 4 million registered cannabis patients in the United States, and likely millions more are self-medicating. The United States leads the world in biomedical research yet research on cannabis, a drug that many of our citizens benefit from and are already using, lags far behind. Limiting the resources for this research will leave patients, health care professionals, and policy makers without the evidence needed to make sound decisions about the use of marijuana. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 5657 because providing the resources for this research could make the difference in millions of lives.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1916, the Ensuring Lasting Smiles Act. The purpose of this bill is to provide health insurance benefits for outpatient and inpatient items and services related to the diagnosis and treatment of congenital anomalies and birth defects. This bill requires private health insurance plans to cover the diagnosis and treatment of birth defects, congenital disorders, or congenital malformations, conditions developed prenatally and may be identified before or at birth, or later in life. The coverage must include services and items that functionally improve, repair, or restore any body part that is medically necessary for normal bodily functions or appearance, as determined by the treating physician. This bill protects patients against increased insurance premiums by clearly specifying that coverage for these treatments may be subjected only to the same limits that apply to other injuries or sicknesses without imposing any greater financial responsibilities on the patient or family. This legislation would also close an insurance coverage loophole for people born with congenital anomalies who need complex oral restorative care. It would ensure that health plans cover medically necessary services related to a patient's anomaly or birth defect, including any serious dental and oral-related procedures that are necessary to maintaining health and overall function. Insurance companies usually cover the preliminary procedures to treat congenital anomalies, but often deny and delay follow-up reconstructive procedures. Denial or delay of these reconstructive procedures could lead to long-term physical and psychological injuries. Insurance companies claim these follow up procedures are only cosmetic in nature, which then places a significant burden on patients and their families. It is relatively rare for a child with a congenital deformity or developmental anomaly to undergo just one procedure that corrects all the associated health implications the first time. On average, these children can expect anywhere from three to five surgical procedures and many more treatments before achieving structural normalcy and function in the affected body parts. These families are then forced to pay huge out-of-pocket costs for treatment coverage or, in worst case scenarios, terminate treatment. For example, people born with ectodermal dysplasia's are often unable to properly develop teeth. Their teeth may be missing, completely absent, have defective enamel or be shaped differently. If the teeth are not repaired or replaced, these individuals could have chewing, swallowing, digestive, speech and self-esteem issues. Someone born with ectodermal dysplasia spends a significant amount of money on necessary medical and dental care throughout their lifetime. This amount of money can become so excessive that families may have no option other than selling their cars, remortgaging their homes, and foregoing a college education to afford medically necessary dental care. Far more families simply go without care because they can't afford it. Dental care is also subject to a double-standard, while some individuals who lose their teeth due to an accident receive dental benefits under the existing statutes, those who are missing teeth due to ectodermal dysplasias, a medical condition they were born with, do not receive these same dental benefits. The Ensuring Lasting Smiles Act would fix this. This bill would help more families than those affected by the ectodermal dysplasias. It would cover a broad range of congenital anomalies. Many people born with congenital anomalies suffer from severe oral defects such as: Cleft lip or palate Hypodontia Enamel hypoplasia Skeletal defects like craniosynostosis Vision defects like congenital cataracts or aphakia Hearing defects like microtia Other loss of bodily functions According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), one in 33 babies in the United States is born with a congenital anomaly. Of those 120,000 children born annually with birth defects, approximately 40,000 require reconstructive surgery. Medical professionals and surgeons are fortunately able to correct many of these problems, however some insurance companies deny access to care by labeling the procedures as ``cosmetic'' or ``non-functional'' in nature. Too many children born with congenital anomalies are denied coverage despite the long-term harm of such conditions. The Ensuring Lasting Smiles Act would address delays and denials in coverage and guarantee that children suffering from birth defects and anomalies get the treatment they need. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 1916 because this law guarantees the payment of health insurance benefits for necessary medical care and treatment due to any congenital anomaly. These families deserve to see the day when they no longer have to fight for coverage of medically necessary treatments and their children and loved ones receive the treatments they desperately need and deserve.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, today, I sat in the Senate Judiciary Committee as a historic vote was taken. Since the appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor, only four women have ascended to the United States Supreme Court. In particular, longer than any other demographic group, African- American women have been subjected to coercive laws, yet they have been excluded from the political and judicial positions to impact those laws. I am glad that President Biden saw fit to nominate one of the most-- and probably the most--qualified judge ever to be nominated to the United States Supreme Court--not my words; the words of many others. So this day that Dr. King died, we know that the dreamer may have been killed, but the dream still lives. They voted today. Eleven Democrats voted yes. Unfortunately, 11 Republicans voted no. I hope, as this goes to the floor, we will stand as Americans, and Democrats and Republicans will ascend to the United States Supreme Court this African-American woman, more qualified than ever, again, to take a rightful place on the United States Supreme Court. I pray that that will happen.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the lead sponsor, Chairman Nadler, for problem solving, along with Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Cohen, Congresswoman Lee, and all of those who galvanized all of us. I was pleased to be able to lead this through the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee. The war on drugs simply failed, and I am glad that one interpretation that has just been evidenced by my good friend on the other side of the aisle will have little weight and little basis because what we are doing here is solving a problem. Let me just indicate from the Health Affairs Culture of Health, a Black person is still nearly four times more likely to be arrested for cannabis possession than a White person. To summarize this bill, it deals with Federal decriminalization, taxation, and expungement. It does not stop the DA, the Department of Justice, the FBI or anyone else from doing their job. The bill would remove cannabis from the list or schedule of federally controlled substances. This means that, going forward, individuals can no longer be prosecuted federally for marijuana offenses. This does not mean that marijuana would now be legal throughout the United States. The bill would simply remove the Federal Government from the business of prosecuting marijuana cases, which would leave the question of legality to individual States. Forty-seven States already have some form of legal use of marijuana. Let me share, my friends, the points that they are going to make. The bill was designed to help individuals who have been caught up in the criminal justice system for possessing more small amounts of marijuana for personal use. It was not designed to help drug traffickers. By the way, the President has given over a billion dollars to Ukraine as one of the steadfast leaders and has galvanized NATO and our allies, and not one of us needs to challenge the President or any one of us in our fight to help Ukraine. Let me make it very clear about crime. Read the President's budget. He has a massive piece in there to reduce crime. It is everywhere, including rural America, where Republicans say they are, but I don't look at it that way. It is Americans, we stand together. This bill is about America. The expungement provisions are limited to nonviolent marijuana possession convictions that have loaded up our Federal prisons. If an individual has other criminal convictions in addition to a covered nonviolent offense, marijuana offense, the bill already includes a stated exemption for drug kingpins, meaning anyone who received an increased sentence for being a leader or organizer of drug trafficking will not qualify for expungement. Once this bill is passed, it would enable individuals to possess and use marijuana for personal use. Marijuana will be regulated as a commodity, but let me tell you what else will happen. We will be able to research, the scientists will be able to study what is happening to our young people, our juveniles if that is the case. We have a definitive position in there about helping those who may become addicted. We do not overlook those who might as well be using it, so let us go forward with this bill. I ask support for the bill. This bill was designed to help individuals who have been caught up in the criminal justice system for possessing small amounts of marijuana for personal use. It was not designed to help drug traffickers. The expungement provisions are limited to nonviolent marijuana possession convictions only. If an individual has other criminal convictions in addition to a covered nonviolent marijuana offense, those other convictions will not be expunged. The bill already includes a stated exemption for ``drug kingpins,'' meaning anyone who received an increased sentence for being a leader or organizer of drug trafficking will not qualify for an expungement. Once passed, this bill would enable individuals to possess and use marijuana for a personal use. Marijuana will be a regulated commodity like alcohol and the transportation, distribution, or selling of marijuana without complying with federal regulations will continue to be illegal. For example, an individual will not be able to transport marijuana across the border without complying with import regulations and appropriate tax requirements. The bill already includes a requirement that a study be conducted to understand the societal impacts of decriminalizing marijuana, including the impact on juveniles, education, transportation, veterans, employment, and many others. Because marijuana will now be considered a commodity or good to be sold and purchased, like alcohol and even cigarettes, the MORE Act preserves the FDA's ability to issue regulations to address the regulation, safety, manufacturing, product quality, marketing, labeling, and sale of products containing cannabis or cannabis derived compounds. Cannabis will be regulated along the same lines as alcohol and cigarettes, which have age requirements for consumption, sale, and purchase. Regulation of cannabis protects children and minors because the black market and street dealers are not required to ask for the age or ID of their customers, unlike permitted and regulated sellers. Driving while impaired is illegal in the United States. The MORE Act does not change this fact. Impaired driving occurs when someone operates a vehicle while impaired by a substance like marijuana, or any other drug, including prescribed and over-the-counter medicines, or alcohol. Law enforcement officers are trained to detect impairment of drivers by substances other than alcohol through field sobriety tests. Many states have supported the establishment of Drug Recognition and Classification programs within their State and local police, and the training of special Drug Recognition Experts, which are law enforcement officers trained to identify drug-impaired driving using a 12-step, standardized evaluation that includes behavioral tests and physical assessments to determine impairment among seven categories of drug classification.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record Health Affairs' ``Culture of Health,'' which shows the importance of cannabis liberalization policy, and a letter from all of these individuals, religious groups, and the Center for American Progress. [From HealthAffairs, July 2021] Cannabis Liberalization in the US: The Policy Landscape The cannabis--or marijuana--policy landscape has shifted rapidly in past decades, with increasing numbers of states decriminalizing cannabis possession and legalizing its medical and recreational uses. Yet under federal law, cannabis remains prohibited because of the potential for drug misuse and negative health consequences. This disconnect between federal and state law has allowed a for-profit commercial industry to flourish in many states, absent consistent regulation to ensure product safety. Increasing cannabis accessibility in the states thus raises important public health concerns while expanding certain therapeutic opportunities. A second Health Affairs Health Policy Brief accompanying this one explores the health effects of cannabis legalization. It is also important to understand the framework of policies governing legal cannabis markets, as each policy category likely has differential impacts on health benefits and harms associated with canna-bis use and inconsistencies across jurisdictions have important population health implications. Federal Cannabis Policy The US federal government began taxing cannabis production and sales by enacting the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 only after most states had prohibited the substance. In 1970, this law was replaced by the Controlled Substances Act, which designates marijuana as a Schedule I substance considered to have high abuse potential and no accepted medical use. Under federal law, the production, sale. possession. and distribution of cannabis can carry fines and prison time. During the Obama administration, the federal government relaxed its enforcement of cannabis-related crimes. In a series of executive actions, culminating in the 2013 Cole memorandum, the Department of Justice deprioritized prosecution of federal cannabis crimes in states where these activities were legal and robustly regulated. First passed in 2014, the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment prohibited the use of federal funds to prosecute medical cannabis-related activities permissible under state law. Other recent federal actions have further facilitated access to cannabis plant derivatives. although these differ from the botanical products and simple extracts that tend to dominate state cannabis markets. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved several synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) products in 1985 and 2016. each of which was placed on a higher controlled substance schedule than cannabis. The 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp, a substance extracted from the cannabis plant that contains only 0.3 percent THC. Also in 2018. the Drug Enforcement Administration designated FDA-approved cannabis-derived cannabidiol (CBD) products containing no more than 0.1 percent THC as Schedule V substances. Under this authority, the FDA approved the first CBD product, Epidiolex, to treat childhood seizures. Evolution of the State Policy Landscape Public support for the legalization of cannabis use in the US rose from 12 percent to 66 percent between 1969 and 2019. Concurrently, states liberalized their approaches to cannabis markets. Four central policy categories have evolved: prohibition, decriminalization, medical legalization, and recreational (also known as adult use) legalization. Decriminalization regimes were generally adopted first (in the 1970s-1980s, with a resurgence in the 2010s). Decriminalization laws were later complemented by medical legalization or replaced by recreational legalization. Exhibit 1 shows the current status of these four policies, and exhibit 2 depicts state adoption of legalization policies for medical and recreational cannabis since 1996. Prohibition States began prohibiting cannabis cultivation, distribution, and possession in the early twentieth century. By 1937, every state had some form of cannabis legislation, often motivated by concerns (largely unsubstantiated by scientific evidence at the time) that cannabis products were psychologically addictive, produced insanity, and motivated crime. Although liberalization policies have largely replaced prohibitions, two states--Idaho and Kansas--still ban cannabis in all forms and assign criminal penalties for the possession of even small amounts. Another ten states permit the use of ``low-THC, high-CBD'' products but maintain prohibitions and criminal penalties for all other cannabis activities (included in the ``prohibition'' category in exhibit 1). Decriminalization Decriminalization is the repeal of criminal penalties associated with cannabis possession for personal use and casual exchange (that is, not sales). ``Depenalization'' policies that lower these penalties without removing them do not qualify as decriminalization regimes. Decriminalization also differs from the nonenforcement policies adopted in several US cities, where enforcement of low-level cannabis- involved offenses is deprioritized. Decriminalization falls short of legalization because it still prohibits and criminally penalizes cannabis cultivation, production, and sales and maintains civil penalties for possessing cannabis. Since the 1970s, states have increasingly adopted decriminalization policies. By 2020, sixteen states had such a policy (exhibit 1). The laws vary along several dimensions, including the levels of civil fines, penalties for repeat offenses, and threshold amounts of cannabis that are exempt from criminal penalties. Medical Cannabis Legalization Medical cannabis laws typically permit patients with ``qualifying conditions'' certified by a medical professional to purchase cannabis at dispensaries operating within the state. Medical cannabis laws differ from low-THC and high-CBD laws, which only legalize the supply and use of cannabis products with low THC content. The most common qualifying condition for which medical users can be certified is chronic pain, although states regularly add conditions to their lists. Since California passed the first medical cannabis law in 1996, the number of jurisdictions adopting such programs has grown steadily (exhibit 2). Today, more than two-thirds of Americans live in one of the thirty-six states and four territories that have approved medical cannabis use (exhibit 1). The first medical cannabis laws passed (1996-2000) were vague and defined medical use broadly. Although laws passed between 2000 and 2009 offered more regulatory guidance over the legal supply chain, laws passed or modified in more recent years (2009-17) feature more comprehensive regulatory programs that prioritize product safety. Still, the vast majority of participants in medical cannabis programs are in what are considered ``nonmedicalized programs,'' which lack components consistent with evidence-based medicine and pharmaceutical regulation (for example, testing and labeling) and are largely divorced from medical practice. Ways in which current laws differ from each other include the qualifying conditions approved, channels of access {dispensaries, collective versus home cultivation, and so on), registration card renewal requirements, and use by patients from other states. Recreational Cannabis Legalization Recreational cannabis laws remove the criminal and civil penalties associated with supply or possession of the substance by adults ages twenty-one and older. These laws typically allow individuals to grow four to six cannabis plants and limit possession and purchase to one to two ounces; most also impose at least a 10 percent retail excise tax on sales. Most states with recreational laws prohibit the use of cannabis while operating a motor vehicle, although four states have specific per se THC limits while driving. Legalization of recreational use is a relatively new phenomenon. In 2012, Colorado and Washington were the first jurisdictions globally to allow adult cultivation and possession of cannabis. In 2020, fifteen states and Washington, DC, had laws that legalize adult cannabis supply and possession in some form (exhibit 1), resulting in more than one-third of the US population having legal access to the substance. With the exception of Illinois and Vermont, all laws passed through 2020 have advanced via ballot measures rather than through the legislature. States have choices in their recreational cannabis regulatory regimes. Most states have opted for a commercial model, wherein private industry is allowed to produce, supply, and sell cannabis subject to regulation at the state and sometimes local levels. Washington, D.C., uniquely does not allow for commercial production or retail sale but, rather, permits only small amounts of cannabis for personal possession, use, and cultivation. Although Vermont originally prohibited commercial sale, the state authorized the establishment of a commercial retail market in October 2020. Factors that can vary within commercial regimes include how producers and suppliers are regulated, the types of products that may be distributed, taxes, prices, marketing restrictions, and ways in which products can be used or personally cultivated. States that enacted recreational legalization laws saw declines in adult cannabis-related arrests, although racial disparities in those arrests persist. Some cannabis policies, including the 2021 New Mexico, New York, and Virginia legalization initiatives, incorporate reforms to address harms experienced by communities disproportionately affected by cannabis criminalization. Some laws include provisions to expunge or pardon cannabis-related minor offenses Other states have initiated programs to increase minority participation in the legal market. Some jurisdictions have earmarked tax revenue generated from cannabis sales to support socioeconomically disadvantaged communities. Policy Challenges And Opportunities Limited national regulation of cannabis, the persistent divide between national and state policy, and the growth of state cannabis markets present numerous challenges for population health, in part because the safety of many cannabis products is uncertain and varies from state to state. A dearth of federal regulation around cannabis products has resulted in an unevenly regulated for-profit industry that generates high profits and maintains substantial control over marketing, promotion, and products supplied. Cannabis's Schedule I designation under federal law poses additional challenges. It hinders the research into the safety and adverse effects of cannabis-based products that would be required for FDA approval. It also restricts cannabis supplied for clinical trials to that which comes from federal sources, which fails to reflect the potency and type of products actually marketed in the states, although the Drug Enforcement Administration is poised to approve several manufacturers' applications to cultivate marijuana for research needs. Institutions for higher education may be reluctant to allow cannabis to be used in research on their campuses for fear of losing federal funding. Cannabis consumers remain uncertain over the stability of their supply chain and risks that they may be prosecuted under federal law or become ineligible for federal benefits. Finally, cannabis cultivators and distributors face barriers accessing financial services, given that the banking industry is subject to federal laws, resulting in an inability to design investment and growth strategies that could enhance the legitimacy of the industry and safety of the products. The lack of comprehensive, consistent oversight of cannabis products and the disconnect between federal and state policy suggest a number of important considerations for policy makers. Enhanced Federal Oversight of Product Safety and Development Several options exist to improve federal oversight of cannabis markets and products and to better align national and state policies. Modifying cannabis's classification in the Controlled Substances Act would facilitate enhanced product safety research at the federal and state levels, relax consumer and industry fears of criminal prosecution, and facilitate legitimate financial transactions for cannabis companies. It also would provide federal policy makers with additional regulatory controls, such as premarketing approval, which is currently unavailable for substances designated as Schedule I, and would acknowledge cannabis's medical benefits This modification could be accomplished by amending the Controlled Substances Act to remove cannabis from Schedule I and moving it to a higher schedule; descheduling cannabis altogether, but having it meet the threshold for FDA oversight, similar to nicotine and tobacco products; or creating a new schedule for cannabis that distinguishes it from other Schedule I substances. The Medical Marijuana Research Act recently approved by the US House of Representatives promotes cannabis research by allowing scientists to access cannabis from state-level dispensaries. Federal policy makers could also further facilitate state regulation of cannabis supply by passing legislation that restricts federal prosecutorial interference with state cannabis markets. Notwithstanding the above changes, the FDA already possesses some regulatory powers to enhance the safety of cannabis products. Under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 and Section 351 of the Public Health Service Act as affirmed in the 2018 Farm Bill, the FDA can regulate cannabis-containing and cannabis-derived compounds. Under this authority, the FDA has taken particular interest in overseeing the science and safety of CBD products. Of concern are health claims made by some cannabis product manufacturers and the introduction of foods containing THC or CBD into interstate commerce--both of which are areas under FDA jurisdiction. The agency could take more aggressive action than issuing warning letters to questionable (CBD-related commercial practices and could extend the rigor of its investigations into THC products. For example, it could limit the allowable THC content, which is concerningly high in many cannabis products and is capable of inducing dependence or cannabis use disorder. State Strategies for Overseeing Cannabis Product Safety Without changes in the federal regulatory architecture or enhanced FDA oversight, states that move forward with legalization must carefully consider how to safely oversee cannabis markets. Medical and recreational legalization have encouraged a proliferation of product forms. Data from early recreationally legalized states suggest that although the flower of the plant still accounts for the largest proportion of the market, heterogeneous extracts for inhalation are the fastest-growing market segment. Cannabis products vary not only in form but also in the potency of THC, CBD, and other cannabinoids, as well as in the types and amounts of pesticides and other impurities. Cannabis food and drink products pose unique regulatory challenges. The health risks associated with edibles, including for minors, likely result from minimal consistency across products relating to potency, inaccurate labeling, and the fact that many edibles contain multiple servings of the advised THC dose. Further, users may fail to appreciate the delayed effects of ingestion compared with inhalation. State legalization provides an opportunity for enhanced regulatory oversight that can improve the safety of legal cannabis products and limit the health risks and other risks associated with the illegal marketplace. Policy makers can consider ways to align legal cannabis markets with public health strategies gleaned from tobacco and alcohol, such as minimizing youth advertising exposure, restricting sale and marketing locations, and requiring childproof packaging. Frameworks could also consider medical and recreational legalization regimes that adopt safety standards, for instance, by limiting the concentration of THC in products to levels not associated with dependence. Standards for Medical Training Despite the increasing prevalence of cannabis use in states with and without legalization, many physicians do not receive training on the potential health benefits and harms of medical and recreational cannabis. To address this gap, states could mandate that state-licensed physicians complete continuing medical education credits on medical cannabis use before certifying patients for medical cannabis registration. Medical schools and residency programs could also design coursework on the biochemical effects, clinical relevance, and legal evolution of cannabis policy. These education activities could be regularly updated with emerging evidence on the health effects of cannabis. Outreach could extend to patients and the public to inform them of the evidence-based therapeutic uses of cannabis. All such training would be better informed by enhanced research, as discussed above. Considerations for Criminal Justice and Racial Equity As cannabis liberalization progresses throughout the country, states must address the collateral consequences of cannabis-related criminal justice contact. Although states with legalization and, to a lesser degree, decriminalization regimes have experienced overall declines in arrests for cannabis across racial groups, disparities in arrests across races remain notable. Although cannabis-related arrests decreased by 18 percent during the past decade, a Black person is still nearly four times more likely to be arrested for cannabis possession than a White person. Cannabis policy reforms that aim to address criminal justice and social disparities warrant consideration. Cumbersome and expensive expungement processes, significant entry obstacles associated with the legal market, and declines in price that in turn reduce funds earmarked for community programs threaten initiatives that address harms produced by cannabis criminalization. As states begin to implement social equity measures, they should carefully assess which communities have been disproportionately harmed by cannabis prohibition; how to encourage equitable, sustainable participation in the cannabis industry--including training and business support; and how earmarked cannabis revenue will be disseminated to equity-enhancing initiatives. Conclusion Cannabis policy liberalization provides opportunities for therapeutic benefit but also presents the potential for health harms, the full consequences of which remain unknown, given the nascency of the research and inconsistency in findings (see the accompanying Health Affairs Health Policy Brief) For policy makers considering reforms, policy choices extend beyond blunt categories of prohibition, decriminalization, medical legalization, and recreational legalization and involve decisions related to the panoply of regulatory provisions that govern legal and illegal cannabis. The specifics of how to implement and enforce cannabis policy and regulation are important to health, and researchers should endeavor to evaluate these nuances as well as the broader policy categories. Some states have included within their legalization initiatives provisions requiring policy evaluation. For example, Washington State earmarked cannabis tax revenue to fund a continuous cannabis research program. Other states, including Vermont and New York, reviewed the potential impacts of regulating a recreational cannabis supply chain before policy reform. More efforts such as these will help to unpack the independent and comparative health harms and benefits of various cannabis policy regimes and regulatory approaches.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3617, the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act of 2021, or the MORE Act of 2021. I am pleased to support this long-overdue measure and encourage my colleagues to do the same. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the MORE Act, which is an important step in our continuing efforts to reform the criminal justice system, and I commend our Chairman for introducing this bill once again. To summarize, the provisions of the MORE Act fall into three main categories--federal decriminalization, taxation, and expungement. First, the bill would remove marijuana, or cannabis, from the list-- or schedule--of Federally controlled substances. This means that, going forward, individuals could no longer be prosecuted, federally, for marijuana offenses. This does not mean that marijuana would now be legal throughout the United States--the bill would simply remove the Federal government from the business of prosecuting marijuana cases and would leave the question of legality to the individual States. Those states choosing to decriminalize can do so, without ongoing interference from the Federal government, and those states that choose to continue to make marijuana illegal can continue to do so, as well. Second, the bill would establish a taxation structure to collect a sales tax on marijuana, which, over the course of five years would increase from five to eight percent. The funds collected from this tax would be used to establish a trust fund to reinvest in communities ravaged by the War on Drugs, particularly communities of color. The trust fund would be used for rehabilitation and reentry programs in the Department of Justice and for programs in the Small Business Administration to ensure that participants in the burgeoning marijuana market are diverse and provide opportunities for entrepreneurship in communities that have been adversely impacted by the War on Drugs. Finally, the bill would expunge and seal Federal marijuana arrests and convictions and resentence offenders, as appropriate--a much-needed measure of this bill to attempt to undo some of the damage done to black and brown communities by decades of unjust enforcement. Thousands of men and women have suffered needlessly from the federal criminalization of marijuana, particularly in communities of color, and have borne the burden of collateral consequences that have damaged our society across generations, such as the denial of affordable housing, educational opportunities, and employment. The laws enacted for the purpose of perpetuating the ``War on Drugs'' have led America to imprison more people than any other country. Expunging and sealing the arrest and conviction records of people affected by the cannabis laws would remove barriers that helped create a permanent second-class status for millions of Americans. Our outdated federal laws and policies unwisely require scarce law enforcement resources to be expended on cannabis offenses while conflicting with many states' laws regarding cannabis. Cannabis does not fit the definition of a Schedule One drug and federal law must be updated to reflect this reality--just as most states have already begun to do. Public support for legalization has surged. Thirty-seven states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam have adopted laws allowing legal access to cannabis. And eighteen states, the District of Columbia, and the Northern Mariana Islands have adopted laws for legalizing cannabis for adult recreational use. A total of 47 States have reformed their laws in one form or another pertaining to cannabis, despite its continued Federal criminalization. The State legal-cannabis industry already employs almost a quarter of a million people, and the federal government needs to get out of the way of state-level decision making. We need to open the door to research, therapeutic treatment for veterans, better banking and tax laws, and we need to help fuel economic growth within the industry. We need to do all of this without continuing to spend federal resources on criminalization and unjust incarceration for marijuana offenses. Congress needs to pass the MORE Act. That is why I support passage of this bill today and ask my colleagues to do so, as well. I thank our Chairman Jerry Nadler, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, and Congressman Earl Blumenauer for their commitment to this potentially life-changing bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his thoughtful amendment, and I thank him for helping to further enhance this bill. For clarity's sake, let me be very clear. This bill decriminalizes possession on the Federal level. All State laws and all State law enforcement are able to do their job. But let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, the President has put in an enormous amount of money for reducing crime in his budget. This legislation is extremely important for those of us who recognize the key responsibilities on the Nation's highways. That is a Federal responsibility, and the gentleman has offered an important amendment to give $10 million to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to find the technology to enhance safety on highways. The bill also includes a requirement that a study should be conducted to understand the societal impacts of decriminalizing marijuana, including the impact on juveniles, education, transportation, veterans, employment, and many others. The gentleman's amendment, Mr. Gottheimer's, enhances this bill and makes it a direct response to the concerns that Americans may have. Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment and the underlying bill, and I thank the gentleman for clarifying this important responsibility.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, it is incredulous when good ideas come to the floor that should draw bipartisan support--one cannot look, in the old country, they say, a gift horse in the mouth. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for recognizing that what we do in Washington, what we do for the people of this Nation, is to make sure we give them good facts. It will be good facts if his amendment is assessing a very important place in our lives, the workplace, or another very important place in our lives, schools. This legislation, as I indicated, the underlying legislation just decriminalizes possession. It gives people another lifeline. It takes the criminalization away from this mounting incarceration of people of color. I support the gentleman's amendment and say it is reasonable and good law. Let us support that amendment and the underlying bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5343, the ``FEMA Caseworker Accountability Act.'' This bill directs FEMA to report to Congress on case management personnel turnover. Specifically, FEMA must report on the turnover rate for their case management personnel, the average and median length of employment for such personnel, the steps that FEMA is taking or plans to take to lower the turnover rate, and other specified points. Madam Speaker, FEMA's importance cannot be overstated. They have invaluable abilities to plan, coordinate, and execute very complex strategies to fulfill the disaster response and mitigation needs of local and state governments through collaboration and cooperation among a broad range of federal government agencies. Following the havoc inflicted by Hurricane Harvey, I experienced firsthand the power of FEMA's skill, care, and rapid execution. The nine-county Houston metro area that was impacted by Hurricane Harvey covers 9,444 square miles, an area larger than five states, including New Hampshire, New Jersey and Connecticut. Harris County covers 1,778 square miles, enough space to fit New York City, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, Seattle, Austin and Dallas, with room still to spare. Over 41,500 square miles of land mass were impacted by Hurricane Harvey and the subsequent flooding that covered an area larger than the States of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont combined. Hurricane Harvey dropped 21 trillion gallons of rainfall on Texas and Louisiana, most of it on the Houston Metroplex. Harvey dropped 51.88 inches of rain near Cedar Bayou, the highest total ever recorded for a single U.S. weather event. At its peak on September 1, 2017, one-third of Houston was underwater. At the peak on August 31, there were 34,575 evacuees in shelters across Texas. Hurricane Harvey is the largest housing disaster to strike the U.S. in our nation's history, damaging 203,000 homes, of which 12,700 were destroyed. Months after Hurricane Harvey, in February 2018, an estimated 10,098 families were still residing in hotel rooms, in over 1,500 hotels. Thousands of others whose homes were severely damaged were living with family or friends. It was also the second costliest disaster ever recorded in the United States, with an estimated $125 billion dollars in damages. In its wake, 889,425 people registered for assistance with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. There were scores of families, including small children and the elderly, living in mold-infested or gutted-out homes. When this once-in-a-lifetime disaster struck my district, FEMA did their jobs exceedingly well, for which I am incredibly grateful. However, there is always room for improvement in federal agencies, and FEMA is no exception. A high rate of caseworker turnover is the last thing that vulnerable families need. In my district, the recovery from Hurricane Harvey is ongoing, which can be seen in the caved-in roofs, torn-up streets; and shuttered buildings across my district. Those problems do not linger singularly because of caseworker turnover, but it is certainly a significant reason. If no one is working on closing these cases, or they are being managed by only a few overwhelmed individuals, that's a problem which needs fixing. Therefore, passing this legislation will set us on a path to fix that problem, Madam Speaker, which is why I strongly support this legislation and urge my colleagues to support it as well. H.R. 5343 will play a critical role in FEMA's post-disaster response operations, and I look forward to reviewing Administrator Criswell's future report and implementing its recommendations.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 6833, and I acknowledge Ms. Craig and Mrs. McBath. I tell my friends on the other side of the aisle that we can walk and chew gum at the same time, but right now people are dying because they are apportioning or putting in proportion their insulin that they need--not taking the full amount, but doing it proportionately. That is a death sentence. Let me indicate: Native Americans, 14.7 percent diabetic; Hispanic, 12.5 percent; Black Americans, 11.7 percent. Many of them are on Medicare and many of them are on Medicaid. We can do both. I do rise to support this legislation--$35 in 2023, regardless of whether a beneficiary has reached the annual out-of-pocket spending; $35 beginning in 2024. It is well-known that those who had diabetes suffered more with COVID-19. This is an important step. In the 18th Congressional District uninsured residents paid 23 times more for the brand of insulin, and we must begin to work on that. I join with my colleagues in making that the next step. I rise for this. Mr. Speaker, I also rise to support the new response to marijuana, and to insist that we pass the MORE Act that came out of my subcommittee on the Judiciary Committee. Public support for legalization of marijuana has surged in the past two decades. A total of 47 States have reformed their laws. We must reform the banking aspect of it. We need to open the door to research, therapeutic treatment for veterans, better banking and tax laws, and we need to help fuel the economic growth within the industry. We need to do this by sending dollars out to help our respective communities bring down the cost of crime, be able to help those who are in business. We must do this and spend Federal resources to end criminalization, build the economic engine, and to ensure that we are in step with 47 of our States. Thousands of men and women have suffered needlessly from the Federal criminalization of marijuana with mandatory minimums, particularly Black and Brown. All these persons incarcerated need to be able to be constructive, but they are in there on the false war on drugs. Mr. Speaker, I support both the insulin bill and the MORE Act, and I ask my colleagues to support the underlying rule. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the Rule governing House consideration of H.R. 3617, the ``Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act of 2021,'' or the ``MORE Act of 2021.'' The Rule that is being considered is carefully crafted and provides Members of the House an opportunity to address the existing conflict between federal and state laws regarding marijuana, or cannabis, and to provide reasonable solutions to resolve this conflict. The bill is straightforward and responds to the need to leave the question of the legality of cannabis to the individual states while attempting to restore and reinvest in communities that have been ravaged by the War on Drugs. Specifically, the bill decriminalizes cannabis on the federal level, provides a taxation structure for the sale of cannabis that will support a community reinvestment trust fund, and provides for expungement of convictions and arrests for federal cannabis offenses. The Rule provides for debate and full consideration of the solutions and opportunities for cannabis reform offered by H.R. 3617 by the Congress. The subject of the bill is public knowledge and well known by members of this body. I have worked to provide sensible reforms to our criminal justice system. Our outdated federal laws and policies unwisely require the expenditure of scarce law enforcement resources on cannabis offenses while conflicting with many states' laws regarding cannabis. Cannabis does not fit the definition of a Schedule One drug and federal law must be updated to reflect this reality--just as most states have already begun to do. Thirty-seven states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam have adopted laws allowing medical use of cannabis. Eighteen states, the District of Columbia, and the Northern Mariana Islands have adopted laws for legalizing cannabis for adult recreational use. As public support for the legalization of marijuana has surged in the past two decades, a total of 47 States have reformed their laws in one form or another pertaining to cannabis, despite its federal criminalization. We need to open the door to research, therapeutic treatment for veterans, better banking and tax laws, and we need to help fuel economic growth within the industry. We need to do this without continuing to spend federal resources on criminalization and unjust incarceration for marijuana offenses. Thousands of men and women have suffered needlessly from the federal criminalization of marijuana, particularly in black and brown communities. These individuals have borne the burden of collateral consequences that have damaged our society across generations--such as the denial of affordable housing, educational opportunities, employment, and the right to vote. Meanwhile, the laws enacted for the purpose of perpetuating the ``War on Drugs'' have led America to imprison more people than any other country. The Rule allows the House to address these historical wrongs by voting on H.R. 3617. I thank the Committee on the Judiciary, on which I serve, for the work it has done to bring H.R. 3617 to the floor for a vote. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in support of the Rule and the underlying bill H.R. 3617. Mr. Speaker, I rise also to speak in strong support of the Rule governing House consideration of H.R. 6833, the Affordable Insulin Now Act. The Rule that is being considered is well crafted and provides Members of the House an opportunity to address an urgent need of constituents who require life saving insulin. The bill is simple and gets to the urgent need to limit cost-sharing for insulin under private health insurance and the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Specifically, the bill caps cost-sharing under private health insurance for a month's supply of selected insulin products at $35 or 25 percent of a plan's negotiated price (after any price concessions), whichever is less, beginning in 2023. The bill caps cost-sharing under the Medicare prescription drug benefit for insulin products at: $35 in 2023 regardless of whether a beneficiary has reached the annual out-of-pocket spending threshold, and $35 beginning in 2024 for those who have not yet reached this threshold. The Rule provides for debate and full consideration of the benefits offered by H.R. 6833 by the Congress. The subject of the bill is public knowledge and well known by members of this body. I have worked closely with the healthcare community that serve Houstonians to ensure that programs are receiving the appropriate level of federal support. One of the most difficult challenges are the hurdles to healthcare created by lack of health insurance such as a lack of access to necessary medications due to the high costs of many prescription drugs. Diabetes is a life-threatening disease that disproportionately affects communities of color. Diabetes is associated with serious health problems, including heart disease and stroke, kidney failure, and blindness. There are 15,000 Medicare beneficiaries in the Eighteenth Congressional District who have been diagnosed with diabetes. These individuals are my constituents and I know that on average, each of them pays 4.8 times the cost of similar medication in Australia, 3.6 times the cost in the United Kingdom, and 2.6 times the cost in Canada. Additionally, in the Eighteenth Congressional District, 26.7 percent of residents are uninsured. For example, an uninsured resident of this congressional district pays 23 times more for this brand of insulin than their counterparts in Australia, 15 times more than they would in the United Kingdom, and 13 times more than they would in Canada. The consequences of these staggering costs are not benign. Many patients often speak of having to make heart-wrenching decisions about what to buy with the commonly fixed incomes attendant to seniors. Many medical professionals indicate that the high prices for prescription drugs are a function of a lack of competition, and authorizing Medicare to create a program to negotiate drug prices may be an estimable way to lower the cost of prescription drugs. All told this reflects a disturbing trend: in our country, the cost of branded drugs tends to go up, whereas in other countries, the costs tend to go down. Before insulin the prognosis for diabetics was bleak. Over the past two decades, manufacturers have systematically and dramatically raised the prices of their insulin products by more than tenfold--often in lockstep. In 2017, diabetes contributed to the death of 277,000 Americans--and was the primary death for 85,000 of those individuals. That same year diagnosed diabetes cost the United States an estimated $327 billion--including $237 billion in direct medical costs and $90 billion in productivity losses. Diabetes drugs, including insulin and oral medications that regulate blood sugar levels, play a critical role in helping people with diabetes manage their condition and reduce the risk of diabetes-related health complications. Although insulin is the most well-known diabetes medication, diabetes patients are often prescribed other oral drugs to use in place of or alongside insulin. Many of these non-insulin products used to regulate blood sugar levels are brand drugs that lack generic alternatives. In recent years, the high prices of diabetes drugs have placed a tremendous strain on diabetes patients as well as the federal government, which provides diabetes medications to more than 43 million Medicare beneficiaries. Because Medicare lacks the authority to negotiate directly with drug manufacturers, Medicare beneficiaries pay significantly more for their drugs than patients abroad. Patients who are uninsured or underinsured and must pay for their drugs out of pocket bear an even greater cost burden. The Rule allows the House to address this urgent need by voting on H.R. 6833. I thank the committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and Labor for the work they have done to bring H.R. 6833, the Affordable Insulin Now Act to the floor for a vote. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in support of the Rule and the underlying bill H.R. 6833. Thank you.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5547, the Care is an Economic Development Strategy Act or the CEDS Act, which requires grant applicants for certain public works and economic development projects to describe how they will increase the accessibility of affordable, quality, care-based services. These services include childcare, early childhood education, disability and long-term care, and elder care. This legislation increases the accessibility of affordable, quality, care-based services, and will expand quality childcare and support the dire needs of single parent homes. The CEDS Act will amend the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, which provides grants for public works and development facilities, and the planning and coordination needed to alleviate conditions of substantial and persistent unemployment and underemployment in economically distressed areas and regions. By amending this law, this bill would require recipients of certain grants to develop a comprehensive economic development strategy that directly or indirectly increases the accessibility of affordable, quality care-based services, and for other purposes. The economic development strategy will ensure that all funds are being dispersed to programs that need them and will utilize the funding to provide quality care-based services. The COVID-19 pandemic has unveiled and emphasized how vital care- based access is to ensure that we have a functioning economy. According to the Family Caregiver Alliance, annually, about 8,357,100 people receive support from the 5 main long-term care services. These include: Home health agencies 4,742,500; Nursing homes 1,383,700; Hospices 1,244,500; Residential care communities 713,300; Adult day service centers 273,200. The number of individuals using paid long-term care services in any setting will likely double from 13 million using services in 2000, to 27 million people by 2050. This estimate is impacted by steep growth in the population of older people who tend to need an increasing amount of care. Among the disabled and elder population in the world, about two- thirds rely solely on family members to provide care, which often results in conflicts with their professional careers. These conflicts often limit their ability to work outside the home and provide for their families. For many parents, especially single mothers, a lack of childcare reduces workforce participation and prevents upward economic mobility. Fifty-seven percent of working families spent more than $10,000 on childcare in 2020. Twenty-seven percent of families have difficulty accessing childcare because of high demand and low supply of available childcare providers who have not yet reached capacity. On average, Americans with children spend at least 10 percent of their household income on childcare. Fifty-eight percent of working parents rely on childcare centers which equates to about 6.38 million parents across the nation. This bill is a stepping stone towards economic stability and allows hardworking American parents to return to their jobs. We must continue working alongside parents, employers, and childcare advocates to secure an economy that helps working parents thrive. For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5547.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5706 the Stop Sexual Assault and Harassment in Transportation Act to protect transportation personnel and passengers from sexual assault and harassment. The bill would require certain passenger transportation carriers, including passenger airlines, buses, passenger railroads, and transportation network companies (Uber or Lyft) to establish formal policies, trainings, and reporting structures to crack down on sexual assault and harassment. The bill would also institute penalties for individuals who physically or sexually assault or threaten transportation personnel. Public transportation is essential to the lives of millions of Americans. The threat of being sexually assaulted or harassed obstructs their ability to get to work, school or to pick up their kids from day care. Passengers of public transportation live with a constant fear of being sexually victimized or threatened. Women especially have a higher chance of experiencing these sorts of encounters. In Houston there have been several cases of men and women both passengers and employees of the Metropolitan Transit Authority, that have faced harassment and assault on public transport. Public transportation should be the last place where Americans fear for their lives. We must use our authority as Members of Congress to put in place a system that would help protect passengers from these obscene crimes, This bill would help protect the single mom in Houston trying to get to work on time, or the middle schooler in New York City using the subway to get to school. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5706 the Stop Sexual Assault and Harassment in Transportation Act.

Ms JACKSON LEE

Ms JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6865 the Don Young Coast Guard Authorization Act to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard. For the last 230 years, the Coast Guard has played a vital role in protecting the marine environment, guarding our nations extensive coastline, and has performed crucial life saving missions. Over the years, I have had the opportunity to see the Coast Guard in action leading up to and following hurricanes like Ike and Harvey that impacted the Houston area. I convey thanks and appreciation from Houstonians to the members of the Coast Guard for their service to our great Nation. The history of the United States Coast Guard can be traced to the United States Revenue Cutter Service, which was founded on August 4, 1790, as part of the Department of the Treasury. The Coast Guard has protected the United States throughout its long history and served proudly in every one of the Nation's conflicts. The Coast Guard served as the nation's only armed force on the sea until Congress launched the Navy Department in 1798. On January 28, 1915, the Revenue Cutter Service and the United States Life-Saving Service were merged to become the Coast Guard. The U.S. Coast Guard conducts operations that ensure the safety of our nation's waterways and provides humanitarian assistance during national disasters. The Coast Guard conducted critical search and rescue missions in response to Hurricane Harvey, which devasted my home district in Houston, Texas. The Coast Guard's response included 2,600 active duty, reserve, civil servant, and auxiliary personnel: 50 rotary and fixed-wing aircraft, 75 shallow-water boats, and 29 coast guard cutters. The efforts from the Coast Guard resulted in the rescue of over 11,000 people along the Texas and Louisiana cost during and after Hurricane Harvey. During and in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey 51 members of the Coast Guard suffered catastrophic property loss and 124 others reported property damage in the impacted areas of Texas during Harvey. This authorization will ensure that our country's devoted naval personnel have the means to effectively protect and defend our borders as well as expand our sea and land capabilities. Authorizing funding for the Coast Guard is essential to sustaining our place in the international system as the world's most powerful naval force. Donald Edwin Young was a dear colleague of mine. For the past 49 years, he represented Alaska's at-large congressional district and made a significant impact on his constituency, I urge all my colleagues to support the Don Young Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2022.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5673, the Safeguarding Tomorrow through Ongoing Risk Mitigation Technical Corrections Act. This bill revises provisions related to the hazard mitigation revolving loan fund program, by requiring capitalization grant recipients to supplement these two most recently published editions of relevant building codes, specifications, and standards. The Safeguarding Tomorrow through Ongoing Risk Mitigation Act authorizes the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to enter into agreements with any state or Indian tribal government to make grants for the establishment of hazard mitigation revolving loan funds. The funding would enable local governments that carry out projects to reduce disaster risks for homeowners, businesses, nonprofit organizations, and communities to decrease the loss of life and property, the cost of insurance claims, and federal disaster payments. The Infrastructure Act of 2021 provides $500 million to the STORM Act, or $100 million per year for five years. This new FEMA grant program finances water, wastewater, infrastructure, disaster recovery, community, and small business development projects. This revolving loan fund can be utilized for projects intended to protect against wildfires, earthquakes, flooding, storm surges, chemical spills, seepage resulting from chemical spills and floods, and any other event deemed catastrophic by FEMA. This legislation makes a huge impact on the nation's efforts to prevent and recover from natural disasters. My community, the 18th Congressional District of Texas will benefit greatly from this bill. Houston's Hurricane Harvey wreaked $125 billion in damage to the Houston area. Houston's Third and Fifth Wards and in surrounding communities of Baytown and Gulfton, took the brunt of flooding damage due to Hurricane Harvey in 2017. In February 2021, many of these same neighborhoods endured a much higher rate of power outages from Winter Storm Uri. These low-interest loans will allow for cities and states to repay the loan, with savings from mitigation projects. It also gives states the flexibility to prepare for oncoming disasters without paying high-interest rates. They can invest in their communities--cutting red tape and they will no longer have to wait on the federal government. For my district, and others living on the coast, it is not a matter of ``if'' a hurricane will strike our coast, it's a matter of ``when'' it will strike. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 5673 because hazards are going to happen and we must do everything we can to protect our people. We need the Safeguarding Tomorrow through Ongoing Risk Mitigation Act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak from both the heart and the Constitution. The privilege of citizenship in the United States gives Americans the freedom to exert and to speak about what is in the depths of their heart while holding the Constitution that indicates: ``We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice''--the Constitution goes on to describe a myriad of justice issues in the Bill of Rights. In addition to that, we have exhibits, symbols of freedom. I begin first with the Statue of Liberty standing tall in the New York Harbor. What you can see is the throng of humanity, fleeing Ukrainians, who now will probably amount to 6 million internally displaced persons and refugees in totality. Amongst these individuals are separated families from their husbands, brothers, and cousins and others who are on the fight. But it is important to describe why we are here: one man, Putin. One man. One man has established this level of intense brutality and violence, insensitivity, rage, and attack. Mr. Putin's attack is on the babies of Ukraine. I will not give him any credence or respect that he is at war. He is in the midst of destruction and vile actions and attacked a hospital with pregnant women. He separated pregnant women from their babies who were born dead or mothers who gave birth and died and the baby died shortly thereafter. The new revelation is that babies and women and children have been stolen by Russian soldiers and carted off to Russian territory. That is the vileness of this ludicrous Putin war. Then we come to find out--which is in the public domain--that he may not be getting the right information, but let us not use that as an excuse. It didn't matter what revelations he would get. He is a violent actor living in a dream world of reimagining the Soviet Union. And so it is crucial for those of us who believe in peace that our administration determines the validity of any peace discussions because we would want to be part of ensuring that they are viable. But, at the same time, to the dismay of many of us, the weapons should be given, the drones should be given, the war has to stop, and there is no end in sight. And so the murderous attack, the destruction of cities, such as the ocean-based city, that have been destroyed, brought to their knees, individuals lost lives under the pile of rubbage, and particularly, the theater where 300 died where children were written on the outside. Mr. Speaker, we must prepare now for refugees. And may I suggest that we must prepare for refugees coming from South and Central America that will include Haitians and Africans. We are prepared to take in 125,000. Only 7,000 have been utilized. As some would say, including my late friend and colleague, Elijah Cummings, America is better than this. We know how to do this, and we must find the way to do it. Standing at podiums and banging on the desk about we don't want these people, then you must not want those who are fleeing the bloody, violent actions of this horrific person. I believe we should stand united as Americans, to capture the words: ``We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice''. . . . I want us to stand with the Ukrainian people, that nation. Mr. Speaker, I thank Marcy Kaptur for leading the Ukrainian Caucus and all of the Members, Republicans and Democrats. But as I conclude, let me quickly say in 1 minute one issue that we should not forget in establishing justice: We must have oversight over the United States Supreme Court, and the texts of a spouse, as well, must be addressed, and we will address it.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in strong support of H.R. 6833, the Affordable Insulin Now Act. The bill is simple and gets to the urgent need to limit cost-sharing for insulin under private health insurance and the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Specifically, the bill caps cost-sharing under private health insurance for a month's supply of selected insulin products at $35 or 25 percent of a plan's negotiated price (after any price concessions), whichever is less, beginning in 2023. The bill caps cost-sharing under the Medicare prescription drug benefit for insulin products at: $35 in 2023 regardless of whether a beneficiary has reached the annual out-of-pocket spending threshold, and $35 beginning in 2024 for those who have not yet reached this threshold. The subject of the bill is public knowledge and well known by members of this body. I have worked closely with the healthcare community that serve Houstonians to ensure that programs are receiving the appropriate level of federal support. One of the most difficult challenges are the hurdles to healthcare created by lack of health insurance such as a lack of access to necessary medications due to the high costs of many prescription drugs. Diabetes is a life-threatening disease that disproportionately affects communities of color. Diabetes is associated with serious health problems, including heart disease and stroke, kidney failure, and blindness. There are 15,000 Medicare beneficiaries in the Eighteenth Congressional District who have been diagnosed with diabetes. These individuals are my constituents and I know that on average, each of them pays 4.8 times the cost of similar medication in Australia, 3.6 times the cost in the United Kingdom, and 2.6 times the cost in Canada. Additionally, in the Eighteenth Congressional District, 26.7 percent of residents are uninsured. For example, an uninsured resident of this congressional district pays 23 times more for this brand of insulin than their counterparts in Australia, 15 times more than they would in the United Kingdom, and 13 times more than they would in Canada. The consequences of these staggering costs are not benign. Many patients often speak of having to make heartwrenching decisions about what to buy with the commonly fixed incomes attendant to seniors. Many medical professionals indicate that the high prices for prescription drugs are a function of a lack of competition, and authorizing Medicare to create a program to negotiate drug prices may be an estimable way to lower the cost of prescription drugs. All told this reflects a disturbing trend: in our country, the cost of branded drugs tends to go up, whereas in other countries, the costs tend to go down. Before insulin the prognosis for diabetics was bleak. Over the past two decades, manufacturers have systematically and dramatically raised the prices of their insulin products by more than tenfold--often in lockstep. In 2017, diabetes contributed to the death of 277,000 Americans and was the primary death for 85,000 of those individuals That same year diagnosed diabetes cost the United States an estimated $327 billion--including $237 billion in direct medical costs and $90 billion in productivity losses. Diabetes drugs, including insulin and oral medications that regulate blood sugar levels, play a critical role in helping people with diabetes manage their condition and reduce the risk of diabetes-related health complications. Although insulin is the most well-known diabetes medication, diabetes patients are often prescribed other oral drugs to use in place of or alongside insulin. Many of these non-insulin products used to regulate blood sugar levels are brand drugs that lack generic alternatives. In recent years, the high prices of diabetes drugs have placed a tremendous strain on diabetes patients as well as the federal government, which provides diabetes medications to more than 43 million Medicare beneficiaries. Because Medicare lacks the authority to negotiate directly with drug manufacturers, Medicare beneficiaries pay significantly more for their drugs than patients abroad. Patients who are uninsured or underinsured and must pay for their drugs out of pocket bear an even greater cost burden. I thank the committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and Labor for the work they have done to bring H.R. 6833, the Affordable Insulin Now Act to the floor for a vote. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in support of H.R. 6833.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Michigan for her leadership, along with my colleague from Texas, Congresswoman Johnson, who chairs the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, and the many, many committees that have worked on the COMPETES Act. As an alum of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee and a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I could not be more ecstatic for America, for Houstonians, for Texans. To really take the words of President Biden that were said to us in his comment on the COMPETES Act: It is transformational investment in our industrial base as well as research and development. It will help drive not only the American economy, but the global economy. It will, in fact, bring more manufacturing jobs back, and, yes, we will use the terminology, it will reimagine not only the Midwest, but it will reimagine the Southwest, the East, the West, the North, and the South. It will reimagine opportunities for young people. And the chips we have been waiting for, as indicated by the gentlewoman from Michigan, I know we will have the opportunity to really join in in a bipartisan way in conference for something that nobody disagrees with. In addition, this ugly thing called the supply chain that for a moment clogged the system, raised the prices, which still have not been stabilized, but we will have the opportunity to address that question as well by unclogging the seaways, by investing with the infrastructure bill in ports, and getting products where they need to go. Let me also suggest that we will be able to build other companies, smaller companies. Small businesses will improve or be able to result in more investment. At the same time, this bipartisan legislation will create opportunities for the next generation and the next generation. I hope as well that minority businesses, minority scientists, historically Black colleges will have the opportunity to be part of the COMPETES Act, which I know that they will. This idea that we have a distance between us as Republicans and Democrats has to be closed. This is an American bill. This is a bill to say to China: We are not going to take, sitting down, the unfair competition that you exert on many of the inventions that actually are made right here in the United States. Take the age-old internet and what China has done in many instances. Madam Speaker, I rise to support the COMPETES Act and it going to conference, and at the same time recognize that any issue dealing with China and the chips dealing with semiconductors will be addressed in conference, and, as well, we will get the job done. It is transformational and we can do no less than to invest in the great mountain of research and development in this Nation. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the COMPETES Act ultimately, and to work with conference as we go forward on this legislation.