Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I proudly stand in strong support of H.R. 4601, the Commitment to Veteran Support and Outreach Act, which will authorize the VA to provide grants to states to implement programs that improve outreach and assistance to veterans and their families to ensure that such individuals are fully informed about veterans' benefits and programs. As our veterans have put their lives on the line for defense of our nation, we must do everything in our power to support them when they return home after their service. This bill achieves this goal by increasing outreach to veterans and their families to ensure that they are fully informed about their benefits and can get the assistance they need to apply for and get the benefits to which they are entitled. According to a report by the Department of Veterans Affairs, America has over 19 million veterans, of whom over 1,567,000 live in Texas, the second most of any state. Over 179,000 live in Harris County and about 29,000 live in my district. Of the total veteran population, the VA reports that only 49% (9.8 million out of 20.0 million) used at least one VA benefit or service in FY 2017. That percentage is far too low. Too few veterans are taking advantage of the programs and services available to them to cope with the ravages of war. Their ailments include everything from respiratory problems caused by burn-pit toxic exposure to combat conditions such as Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Prompt and easy access to services to address these problems determines a veteran's ability to recover from them. For example, according to research conducted by the VA, veterans who received care soon after the end of their service had lower levels of PTSD upon a follow-up evaluation a year after they initiated care. According to the study, for each year that a veteran waited to initiate treatment, there was about a 5 percent increase in the odds of their PTSD either not improving or worsening. In 2018, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine found that post-9/11 veterans who had not sought VA mental health care didn't know how to apply for benefits--or were unsure whether they were even eligible. Some didn't know what services the VA offered or felt that they didn't deserve care even if they could get it. This bill addresses that problem by making grants available to states to help the thousands of veterans who need services for their conditions acquired or exacerbated by military service but who don't know how to access them. This legislation will not only be key to assisting veterans to get over barriers to access their benefits but will also improve veteran mental health and help reduce the veteran suicide crisis. This bill focuses on equity by prioritizing grants to areas with high suicide rates among veterans and high referrals to the Veterans Crisis Line. This approach will help save veterans' lives and ensure this funding is directed to areas most in need. Smoother access to VA mental health care and suicide prevention has never been more important than it is today. A disproportionate number of veterans die by suicide following separation from military service. Veterans ages 18 to 34 have the highest rate of suicide. As reported by the Houston Chronicle, in 2020, the suicide rate for Texas veterans was 36.6 suicides per 100,000 veterans while the nationwide rate was 34.4, according to data from the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs. This rate is in stark contrast to the suicide rate among Texans overall, which is 13.3 per 100,000 people. I am proud to support this legislation because it will reduce veteran suicide among Texans and nationwide, and it will enable states to better serve veterans who are in need of many types of assistance. This is especially important because of the Texas governor's recent actions impacting troops and veterans in Texas with regard to the southern border. Texas's governor has thrust our National Guard into a disastrous border operation, Operation Lone Star, by declaring a fictional ``migrant invasion'', and falsely claiming that activation of the National Guard is needed for what he describes as ``secure our communities against record-breaking illegal border crossings and transnational criminal activity.'' The result is that our National Guard troops are being forced to commit major human rights violations. The governor's use of the National Guard to police misdemeanor trespassing by migrants has sparked a civil rights probe by the Justice Department. According to Human Rights Watch, the operation results in arrests that target people based on race and national origin and disregard due process, including abuses in detention. Black and Brown migrants, and even US citizens, are subjected to racially discriminatory arrests, prosecutions on flimsy pretexts, and detention with substandard food and inadequate or nonexistent health care, according to detainees cited in a complaint filed with the US Justice Department. Defendants have been forced to wait weeks or months in pretrial detention before they have an opportunity to see a judge. Troops commanded to carry out this operation are so affected that at least four confirmed suicides have occurred since the operation began, while ten soldiers linked to the operation have died since September 2021, all via accident or suicide. In addition to human rights abuses, Texas Guard troops have complained about pay problems, poor living conditions and inconsistent guidance from leaders since the operation expanded massively last Fall. I strongly denounce the program, its abuses, and the trauma that it is inflicting on our troops who are charged to carry out the program's edicts. This legislation, H.R. 4601, will help these veterans who struggle with the aftermath of the psychological and physical toil of serving on this operation, just as veterans of combat in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere continue to wrestle with the aftereffects of their service. We must help veterans access the benefits and services that they earned and so definitely deserve.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4772, the Mark O'Brien VA Clothing Allowance Improvement Act. This legislation would amend the VA's existing clothing allowance program by enabling automatic payments to continue being made to eligible veterans on a recurring basis until the veteran opts out of the program or is no longer eligible. The bill will make it easier for veterans--especially veterans living with lifelong disabilities--to receive their earned clothing benefits which enables them to live with the dignity and comfort that they earned and so rightfully deserve. Millions of veterans will live the rest of their lives with disabilities due to service-incurred injuries and physical impairments that resulted after they made the decision to protect our nation and safeguard our freedom. Our courageous servicemembers have pledged that, on the battlefield, they will leave no soldier behind. In carrying out this sacred obligation, many have suffered life-altering injuries, including loss of limbs. These injuries often result in loss of mobility or the need for a prosthetic which require specialized clothing and cause accelerated deterioration of standard garments. In full appreciation of their devotion and the consequences they suffered from it, as a nation, let it be our pledge that when they return home, we leave no veteran behind. H.R. 4772, the Mark O'Brien VA Clothing Allowance Improvement Act will alleviate these veterans' burden of needing to reapply for clothing benefits every year for our 1.9 million veterans with a service-connected disability. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 4772, the Mark O'Brien VA Clothing Allowance Improvement Act. Veterans have kept their promise to serve our nation; they have willingly risked their lives to protect the country we all love. We must now ensure that we keep our promises to our veterans. Let us resolve together that we will provide returning veterans with the welcome, services, care, and compassion that they deserve.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Michigan for managing and her leadership and the gentleman from Oklahoma for his leadership. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee that has dealt with PFAS over the years, I am extremely grateful for this legislation that has come from the Senate and particularly grateful because I use as a backdrop having been on the Homeland Security Committee since its origins, on 9/11, when firefighters rushed in to save lives. Some, of course, tragically lost their lives along with other law enforcement as they were attempting to save people from the burning buildings. But we do know that their long journey that was taken in order to get coverage and compensation for the terrible exposures that they had in the chemicals in the aftermath of 9/11. This brings to mind the importance of this legislation having dealt with PFAS in many different forms, particularly in the agriculture arena, the Homeland Security Committee has looked at these chemicals and how they can be made safe, if you will, in the midst of the utilization that they have. This legislation is extremely important because it works to develop guidance to firefighters and other emergency response personnel on training, education, and best practices to protect them from exposure from PFAS, these chemicals that they are bound to engage when they rush in to save lives and to save property from the terrors of fire. I am excited about this legislation and hope that it gets to the President's desk because I have seen what chemicals can do in the midst of a 9/11 but also in the midst of an ordinary house fire or business fire. I applaud the proponents of this bill. I am excited about it reducing and eliminating exposure to PFAS from firefighter foam, personal protective equipment, PPE, prevent the release of the PFAS from firefighting foam into the environment so that it provides for an environmentally safe pathway, and educating firefighters and other emergency response personnel on the foams and non-foam alternative.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman and continue to say that I think what we have here is an important directive for the Department of Homeland Security. Under their jurisdiction are the first responders, and we clearly know the wide range of needs that firefighters face. Look at the West and the series of wildfires that have spread from California to the far Northwest. Fires are never- ending; chemical exposures are never-ending; and firefighters never stop going into places where people are desperate or there is a need. Mr. Speaker, I am excited about this legislation because it is long overdue. I hope it gets to the President's desk as quickly as possible. I believe that once we pass this, we will give a new lifeline to the Nation's firefighters. As a member of the Fire Caucus, I know that this is a bill long overdue. Mr. Speaker, as I conclude my remarks celebrating the firefighters and supporting this legislation, let me say: Go USA against Iran. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, I rise in strong support of S. 231, the Protecting Firefighters from Adverse Substances Act. Known as PFAS, for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, the chemicals in this class of approximately 5,000 substances have become notorious for their danger to human health. Because the chemical bonds that hold the compounds together don't break down easily, they last a very long time. This has led to a commonly used name for the group: ``Forever chemicals.'' According to monitoring by the Environmental Protection Agency, millions of Americans are easily exposed to unsafe levels of PFAS through outlets as simple as drinking water. PFAS chemicals have been associated with several health problems, including testicular and kidney cancers, reduced immunity, thyroid problems, and reproductive harms. Our first responders are at the front lines of PFAS exposure. Firefighters have been shown to have a 14% higher risk of dying from cancer than the general U.S. population does. This is a result of direct exposure to PFAS chemicals in firefighting foam and personal protective equipment. It is time we do something to protect the brave men and women who, even in the face of danger, continue to put themselves at risk for our safety and protection. Mr. Speaker, it is urgent that this Congress enact this legislation because agencies such as the Environmental Protection Administration have failed to address known threats presented by PFAS chemicals. The EPA has known about the risks from PFAS chemicals for decades but failed to act to prevent the spread of this contamination. Because of such negligence, the persistent and toxic effects of PFAS linger and firefighters are now forced to work around these ``forever chemicals.'' With S. 231, the Department of Homeland Security will be required to develop guidance for firefighters and other emergency response personnel on training and education programs to protect them from exposure to PFAS. This curriculum would not only educate firefighters on how to protect themselves, but also educate them on how to prevent the release of PFAS into the environment. Clear and swift action from Congress is needed to address the PFAS crisis, and we need an all-hands-on-deck effort to protect both the health of our first responders and our environment. Backing our first responders should be a non-partisan issue, so I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for S. 231, the Protecting Firefighters from Adverse Substances Act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. This legislation is widely supported. It is bipartisan; and I thank Mayor-Elect, Congresswoman Karen Bass for her leadership on the companion bill. I also thank my colleague, Senator Cornyn from Texas for his commitment and concern. Mr. Speaker, I quickly want to acknowledge that the faith community is squarely in support of this, and they certainly care about law enforcement and bringing down crime. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by Catholic Charities USA, Catholic Prison Ministry Coalition, Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, United Sates Conference of Catholic Bishops, Center for Public Justice, Jesuit Conference, Office of Justice and Ecology, National Association of Evangelicals, National Latino Evangelical Coalition, National Hispanic Christian Leadershp Coalition, and Prison Fellowship; a letter from CPAC; a letter from National Fraternal Order of Police; and a letter from Major Cities Chiefs Associations. November 29, 2022. Senator John Cornyn, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senators Cornyn and Whitehouse: Our faith-based organizations write to urge for broad co-sponsorship among your colleagues and the swift passage of the Law Enforcement De-escalation Training Act of 2022 (S. 4003) as it would help police officers better serve vulnerable populations and keep our communities safe. Furthermore, this bill would promote a more restorative justice system that respects the God-given dignity of each person and promote safe communities for both law enforcement officers and residents. The bill would also provide law enforcement officers with the skills and tools needed to respond appropriately to the needs of the communities they protect and serve. Police officers respond every day to calls for service for men and women grappling with grave mental and behavioral health challenges. However, they are not consistently trained to address these situations effectively. Inadequate training can undermine law enforcement officers' wellbeing and job satisfaction, and increase incidents of excessive use of force that erodes public trust. Policymakers must better equip law enforcement officers with evidence-based training for interactions with people in crisis that fosters community partnership, promotes understanding of mental illness, and prioritizes the lowest level of force necessary to keep communities safe. Several key provisions position the Law Enforcement De- escalation Training Act (S. 4003) to be a catalyst for modernizing American policing. The legislation would create a new federal funding stream to provide training for law enforcement agencies on de-escalation techniques, on participation in crisis intervention teams, on making referrals to community-based service providers, on safely responding to individuals in a behavioral or mental health crisis, and on alternatives to use of force. Furthermore, the bill would advance transparency and accountability to best practices through strong reporting and evaluation requirements from the Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, and Government Accountability Office. To foster public trust, the Department of Justice will develop training curriculum in collaboration with mental health providers, law enforcement agencies, civil rights organizations, and other stakeholders. The legislation would provide funding for continuing education for law enforcement officers to further refine their knowledge and tactical skills beyond initial training requirements. We support the passage of the Law Enforcement De-escalation Training Act of 2022 as it would provide law enforcement officers the training needed to carefully respond to the needs of the community in a way that would promote human dignity and strengthen public trust. Sincerely, Catholic Charities USA, Catholic Prison Ministry Coalition, Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Center for Public Justice, Jesuit Conference Office of Justice and Ecology, National Association of Evangelicals, National Latino Evangelical Coalition, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Coalition, Prison Fellowship.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to counter my good friend and indicate that this is important legislation. It is documented to be important legislation, and the documentation is clear because of the widespread support of such a wide range of Americans. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the floor to support S. 4003. I thank my colleagues, Senator Cornyn from Texas and Congresswoman Bass. As this legislation came out of the Judiciary Committee as well, this is legislation that fits very well under the Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee, which I chair. Our responsibilities are to address the question of crime but also to address the question of social justice and reform. We have heard over the last couple of months--many of us have been in the mode of campaigning--challenges against Democrats, as to whether or not we are tough on crime or whether or not we can work to protect our communities. One thing that protects our communities is strong law enforcement that knows how to engage with the community and is given the tools that will help them do so, and to help the community engage with law enforcement so that they can collectively solve crime. This legislation is a bipartisan bill that would improve public safety and strengthen public trust in law enforcement, one of the first steps toward bringing down crime. S. 4003 would require the Department of Justice to develop a de- escalation training curriculum in collaboration with mental health providers, law enforcement agencies, civil rights organizations, and associations representing individuals with mental health diagnoses. How many times have mothers and fathers had to deal with the loss of a child because they were having a mental health episode? This legislation continues to be a need to improve the practices that law enforcement officers can use to reduce use-of-force incidents and also protect themselves. When individuals are in crisis, police are often the first to respond. We understand that is not their total responsibility, but because of our lack of access to mental health resources, they have been on the front lines; and so, without training necessary to recognize a mental health crisis, someone winds up injured or dead. Interactions between law enforcement and civilians can escalate to potentially deadly consequences. As the country faces an epidemic of violence committed by officers and the disproportionate impact that this violence has on people of color, we remember the lives lost to police violence, including Nicolas Chavez, who was killed by law enforcement, among others in cities across the land. Just this week, we learned that two Colorado deputies that killed Christian Glass in June have been indicted. That was a sad circumstance. We wish it had not happened, and it did not need to happen. This legislation will give us the opportunity, again, to do what we want to do; to keep America safe; to bring down crime; and to protect our officers and to give them the training that helps them to be able to engage in de-escalation tactics. Somewhat similar to the overall bill that I introduced, and John Conyers before me, I introduced the Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act, which I hope to reintroduce again, and seeking bipartisan support; this would authorize $70 million in annual grant funding for training that includes improving community officer relations and engage in training on use of force or de-escalation scenario-based exercises. In addition, this bill would provide support to law enforcement agencies to train and equip officers. This legislation, of course, is widely supported.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise, first of all, to thank the chairman and to thank the sponsor, my friend from Virginia, Congressman Bobby Scott. As I think of my dear friend from Virginia, let me also acknowledge my deep sadness for the loss of our dear friend, Congressman McEachin, and acknowledge the beauty of his service and, of course, his compassion and his true spirit, a true American hero. Mr. Speaker, I will quickly say that any of us who have been engaged in the criminal justice arena, who have engaged with police officers, whether they are local, State, or Federal, those of us who have served as judges, understand the value of this important legislation. It is bipartisan and will build on the success of the JMHCP grant program and make necessary improvements to enable State and local governments to better serve their communities. This reauthorization will make critical improvements to the JMHCP program which supports services for individuals with mental health issues who are involved in the criminal justice system, including expansions in suicide prevention in jails and prisons, co-responder programs that pair law enforcement with mental health professionals and, of course, recognizing that though we give them this responsibility, law enforcement needs to have wraparound services and those that have the expertise to work with those suffering from mental health crises. With the continued impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, communities across the country have suffered increased challenges in addressing mental health. We, as Democrats, have consistently said that we need a holistic approach. Again, I said that we take no back seat to fighting crime and being successful, but we understand public safety and civil rights. I thank Chairman Scott for this work and for acknowledging where we are at a loss; that is, with people who are suffering mental health issues. Now, we have had a series of mass murders, mass killings, of course using the weapon of choice for young men who espouse hatred, but many have been determined or assessed to have had mental health crisis issues, at least that has been the defense. We now need to really invest in this program and ensure that this is a national program. In 2018, Harris County Jail, mental health division expanded as an alternative to jail, diverting individuals with mental health illnesses away from incarceration. I want to see this program grow. The updated diversion program allows law enforcement to direct individuals with mental illness over to these programs; those picked up for low-level, nonviolent offenses. Many of us know that these are sometimes homeless persons, and many of these persons are veterans. By the way, we have a veterans' court in Harris County. So I am excited about this bipartisan legislation that would also support State implementation of the newly established 988 suicide crisis hotline. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters of support from the National Fraternal Order of Police, the Conference of Chief Justices Conference of State Court Administrators, among others. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. National Fraternal Order of Police, April 29, 2022. Hon. John Cornyn III, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Cornyn: I am writing on behalf of the members of the Fraternal Order of Police to advise you of our support for S. 3846, the ``Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Reauthorization Act.'' According to recent studies, one in ten calls for service to law enforcement involve a person suffering from a mental illness. One in three people taken to a hospital emergency room for psychiatric reasons are transported there by law enforcement. Our officers respond to these calls for service with care, compassion, and professionalism. While we have come a long way in our ability to handle these incidents safely and effectively, law enforcement officers need the training and resources this legislation provides. The legislation would reauthorize the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program (JMHCP) through 2026. First authorized in 2004, JMHCP grants have funded mental health courts, other court-based initiatives, diversion and deflection programs, crisis intervention teams, training for local police departments, and other programs to improve outcomes for people with mental illness and co-occurring substance use conditions who come into contact with the justice system. In addition to adding $10 million to program funding, this legislation would also expand the allowable uses of grants to include the funding of crisis response teams, suicide prevention in jails, and the hiring of community health workers. Law enforcement officers have one of the toughest and most dangerous jobs in the United States. They are tasked with keeping our streets and neighborhoods safe from crime, ensuring that every citizen can live free and without fear. By putting funding and resources into improving mental health outcomes across the criminal justice system, this bill ensures that law enforcement officers will have a reduced risk of encountering dangerous situations on a day-to-day basis. On behalf of the more than 364,000 members of the Fraternal Order of Police, I am pleased to offer our support for this legislation. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me or Executive Director Jim Pasco in our Washington, D.C. office. Sincerely, Patrick Yoes, National President.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, this bill must be passed. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 3115, the ``Pro Bono Work to Empower and Represent Act of 2021,'' also known as the ``POWER 2.0 Act,'' which extends the authorization of vital programs that help victims and survivors of domestic abuse and sexual violence receive free legal assistance--without which they would be unlikely to receive any semblance of justice, let alone safety and security. No community is safe from domestic violence. It touches people of every socioeconomic status, race, and ethnicity--in red states and blue states Nearly a quarter of women in this country experience domestic violence or sexual assault at some point in their lives. Many victims of domestic violence are poor, helpless, and living in underserved communities. Many are mere children. In Texas, 40.1 percent of women and 34.9 percent of men experience intimate partner physical violence, intimate partner rape and/or intimate partner stalking in their lifetimes. Thousands of incidents are reported daily. On a single day in 2020, domestic violence hotlines across the country received 21,321 calls--an average of almost 15 calls every minute. The provision of legal services following the first occurrence of domestic violence can be a proactive solution that minimizes the likelihood of victims experiencing farther incidents of abuse. But without access to legal representation, those most in need of protection--which our courts can provide--are often unable to receive the help they need to escape the cycle of violence. Unfortunately, less than one third of domestic violence victims successfully obtain protective orders if they seek one on their own, without the assistance of counsel. That is why in 2018, Congress enacted the Power Act, which requires every judicial district within the United States and its territories to hold annual public pro-bono summits to recruit and encourage attorneys to provide free legal services to survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, and sexual assault. It also requires targeted programs in areas with large populations of Native Americans and Alaska Natives. The Power Act has had an indelible impact on the lives of the most vulnerable Americans. From 2019 to 2021, our courts have held nearly 250 pro bono summits, reaching more than 60,000 attorneys--educating them about the need for their services and letting them know how they can help, While that is a promising start, it is only the beginning. An innumerable number of domestic and sexual violence victims still need legal assistance to survive. Yet the programs authorized under the Act are set to expire in just a few short weeks. That is why it is imperative we pass the POWER 2.0 Act, which would remove the 4-year sunset provision from the original legislation and allow us to continue growing an army of capable, volunteer attorneys available to represent, protect, and provide a lifeline to victims and survivors, who so desperately need their help. I commend Representative Mary Sattler Peltola for her work on the POWER 2.0 Act, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, although the Terry decision bars crack offenders convicted of offenses involving small amounts of crack--like the 3.9 grams of crack that the petitioner possessed--that do not trigger the mandatory minimum penalties, Congress can address this injustice. H.R. 5455, aptly named the Terry Technical Correction Act, would guarantee the ability to seek a sentence reduction to all individuals who have unfairly lost years of freedom under the unfounded 100-1 disparity, including those whose requests for sentence reduction was previously denied based on the narrow interpretation of the First Step Act. While I continue to look forward to the day that we will fully eliminate the powder-to-crack disparity, I thank Representatives Cicilline, Jeffries, Owens, Massie, and Delegate Holmes Norton for working with me on this crucial bipartisan piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this. It is long overdue. I also include for the Record a press release from the Maryland Attorney General. [Press Release from Brian E. Frosh, Maryland Attorney General, Sept. 2, 2021] Attorney General Frosh Calls on Congress to Clarify First Step Act and Apply Fair Sentencing Reforms to Low-Level Drug Offenses Baltimore, MD.--Attorney General Brian E. Frosh today joined a bipartisan coalition of 25 attorneys general urging Congress to amend the First Step Act and extend critical resentencing reforms to individuals convicted of the lowest- level crack cocaine offenses. The coalition is calling on legislators to take this needed step in the wake of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Terry v. United States, which held that certain mid-level and high-level crack cocaine offenders could seek resentencing under the law, but low-level offenders were not eligible. ``The intent of the First Step Act was to correct disproportionately harsh sentencing. Ironically, the does not apply to low-level offenders,'' said Attorney General Frosh. ``Congress needs to fix this oversight and ensure that the law provides relief to those who committed lower-level crimes and were subject to inequitable sentencing.'' The First Step Act, a landmark criminal justice reform law, passed Congress with strong bipartisan support in 2018. One key reform aimed to correct injustices caused by the earlier crack cocaine vs. powder cocaine sentencing regime. That now- discredited regime punished users and dealers of crack cocaine much more harshly than users and dealers of powder cocaine, which disproportionately harmed communities of color. In 2010, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act to reduce the disparity between sentences for crack cocaine and powder cocaine. However, the law did not help the many people sentenced for crack cocaine offenses before 2010 who remained in prison. The First Step Act then included a provision that made previous drug sentencing reforms retroactive, allowing those serving harsh sentences imposed under the former federal law to seek relief. U.S. Senators Richard J. Durbin, Charles E. Grassley, Cory A. Booker, and Mike Lee--the drafters of the First Step Act-- confirmed in an amicus brief that the sentencing relief was intended to apply to all crack cocaine offenders sentenced before 2010. Nevertheless, in Terry v. United States, the Supreme Court concluded that while the First Step Act clearly authorized certain mid- or high-level crack cocaine offenders to seek resentencing, it failed to extend relief to the lowest-level offenders. In today's letter, the attorneys general urge Congress to close that gap and clarify that the sentencing relief provided by the First Step Act extends to all individuals convicted of crack cocaine offenses under the earlier regime, including the lowest-level offenders. They argue that there is no reason that only these low-level offenders should continue to serve sentences informed by now-discredited standards, and that they should have an opportunity to seek a second chance. Attorney General Frosh is joined in the letter by the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Guam, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5455, the ``Terry Technical Correction Act.'' As Justice Thomas noted in his opinion in Terry v. United States, citing my introduction of H.R. 4545, the ``Drug Sentencing Reform and Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2007,'' I have long worked to address the sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses--introducing legislation to eliminate the disparity completely. That is why I introduced H.R. 5455, the ``Terry Technical Correction Act''--which reaffirms Congress's intent to provide retroactive sentencing relief to all individuals convicted of crack cocaine offenses before the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 took effect. With the declaration of the ``War on Drugs'' in the early 1970's began a dramatic rise in the U.S. prison population--fueled largely by excessive, unwarranted drug sentences. The federal government played a pivotal role in America's era of mass incarceration. During the 1980s and 1990s, Congress passed several pieces of legislation that moved away from rehabilitation toward excessive punishment. One such example is the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which created mandatory minimum penalties for most drug offenses, and established the 100-to-1, cocaine to crack disparity. And, as Justice Sotomayor acknowledges in her concurring opinion in Terry, African Americans ``bore the brunt of the disparity.'' Between 1992 and 2006, roughly 80 to 90 percent of those convicted of crack offenses were African American. There were many who sounded the alarm during this time, including the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which repeatedly called upon Congress to revisit the mandatory minimum sentencing structure because of the racial disparities in cocaine versus crack sentencing. Sadly, Congress refused to listen for many years. Thankfully, members of Congress, on an increasingly bipartisan basis have worked hard to reduce the harmful impact of the failed policies of the War on Drugs, including putting an end to the crack to powder sentencing disparity. Through our efforts, we have learned that there is no greater danger to public safety from crack offenders than powder cocaine offenders, and that the 100-to-1 ratio overstated the relative harmfulness of the two forms of cocaine and diverted federal resources away from prosecuting the highest-level traffickers. In 2010, Congress began the process to eradicate the devastating consequences of the poorly conceived War on Drugs--and the punitive response to the crack epidemic. The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 reduced the sentencing disparity to 18-to-1, and the First Step Act of 2018 made the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive. Although the Terry decision bars crack offenders convicted of offenses involving small amounts of crack--like the 3.9 grams of crack that the petitioner possessed that do not trigger the mandatory minimum penalties--Congress can correct this injustice. H.R. 5455, aptly named the ``Terry Technical Correction Act,'' would guarantee the ability to seek a sentence reduction to all individuals who have unfairly lost years of freedom under the unfounded 100 to 1 disparity, including those whose requests for sentence reductions were previously denied based on the narrow interpretation of the First Step Act. While I continue to look forward to the day that we will fully eliminate the powder to crack disparity, I thank Representatives Cicilline, Jeffries, Owens, and Massie, and Delegate Holmes Norton for working with me on this crucial, bipartisan piece of legislation and ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the full committee, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 5455, the Terry Technical Correction Act, which has widespread support from really the people who count that deal with these issues day after day, our law enforcement officers and attorneys general across America. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from several attorneys general, as well as the Major Cities Chiefs Association. September 2, 2021. Hon. Chuck Schumer, Senate Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Washington, DC. Hon. Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Washington, DC. Dear Leader Schumer, Leader McConnell, Speaker Pelosi, and Leader McCarthy: As our jurisdictions' Attorneys General, we are responsible for protecting the health, safety, and well- being of our residents. Although our jurisdictions vary in size, geography, and political composition, we are united in our commitment to an effective criminal justice system that safeguards the communities of our states. To that end, a bipartisan coalition of Attorneys General supported the passage of the First Step Act of 2018--landmark legislation that brought common sense improvements to myriad aspects of the criminal justice system. Central to these reforms was retroactive relief for individuals sentenced under the discredited 100-to-1 crack-to-powder cocaine ratio that Congress abolished in 2010. Following the Supreme Court's recent opinion in Terry v. United States, however, the lowest level crack cocaine offenders remain categorically ineligible for resentencing. We write today to urge Congress to amend the First Step Act, and to clarify that its retroactive relief applies to all individuals sentenced under the prior regime. Congress enacted the historic First Step Act of 2018 to modernize the criminal justice system, implementing comprehensive reform in areas such as corrections, criminal charging, community re-entry, and beyond. The product of a unique bipartisan consensus, the Act passed with overwhelming support from organizations across the ideological spectrum, including the Heritage Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union, Freedomworks, the National Urban League, the American Conservative Union, the Public Defender Association, Americans for Prosperity, and the Center for American Progress, among many others. Over three dozen Attorneys General supported the Act as a critical tool for strengthening our criminal justice system and better serving the people of our states. One of the First Step Act's key pillars was sentencing reform. This reform included Section 404, which provides retroactive relief for individuals sentenced under the discarded 100-to-1 crack cocaine-to-powder-cocaine ratio that Congress repudiated through the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. That earlier legislation abolished the 100-to-1 ratio going forward, reflecting the overwhelming consensus that treating crack cocaine and powder cocaine radically differently exacerbated racial inequality in the criminal justice system and resulted in unjustly severe sentences for low-level crack cocaine users. But the Fair Sentencing Act applied only to sentences imposed after the Act's passage. As Senator Cory Booker explained, it left thousands of ``people sitting in jail . . . for selling an amount of drugs equal to the size of a candy bar'' based solely on their sentencing date, underscoring the need, in Senator Mike Lee's words, to apply the law ``equally to all those convicted of cocaine and crack offenses regardless of when they were convicted.'' Congress therefore included Section 404 in the First Step Act, which allowed individuals sentenced under the discarded 100-to-1 ratio to seek discretionary resentencing. Unfortunately, that critical work remains incomplete. In Terry v. United States, the Supreme Court concluded that while Section 404 clearly authorized certain mid- or high- level crack cocaine offenders to seek resentencing, it did not extend relief to the lowest-level offenders sentenced under the prior regime. Specifically, the Court relied on Section 404's definition of a covered offense as any ``violation of a Federal criminal statute, the statutory penalties for which were modified by'' the Fair Sentencing Act. The Court reasoned that because the Fair Sentencing Act did not formally change the elements or penalties for the lowest level era offensesg--it merely changed the quantities needed to trigger mid- and high-level charges--the Act failed to modify the ``statutory penalties'' for the lowest category of offenders. As a result, these individuals are now the only ones sentenced under the earlier crack cocaine quantities that remain categorically ineligible for the First Step Act's historic relief. We urge Congress to close this gap. There is no reason why these individual--and these individuals alone--should continue to serve sentences informed by the now-discredited crack-to-powder ratio. Discretionary relief is unambiguously available to serious dealers and kingpins sentenced under the prior regime; extending Section 404's scope would simply allow individual users and other low-level crack cocaine offenders to have the same opportunity for a second chance. We therefore urge Congress to clarify that Section 404 of the First Step Act extends to all individuals convicted of crack cocaine offenses and sentenced under the 100-to-1 ratio-- including the lowest level offenders. We thank you for your leadership on this important matter. Sincerely, Karl A. Racine, District of Columbia Attorney General; Rob Bonta, California Attorney General; William Tong, Connecticut Attorney General; Leevin Taitano Camacho, Guam Attorney General; Tom Miller, Iowa Attorney General; Brian Frosh, Maryland Attorney General; Dana Nessel, Michigan Attorney General; Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney General; Hector Balderas, New Mexico Attorney General; Sean D. Reyes, Utah Attorney General; Phil Weiser, Colorado Attorney General; Kathleen Jennings, Delaware Attorney General; Kwame Raoul, Illinois Attorney General; Aaron M. Frey, Main Attorney General; Maura Healey, Massachusetts Attorney General; Keith Ellison, Minnesota Attorney General; Andrew Buck, Acting New Jersey Attorney General; Letitia James, New York Attorney General; Ellen F. Rosenblum, Oregon Attorney General; Peter F. Neronha, Rhode Island Attorney General; Mark R. Herring, Virginia Attorney General; Joshua L. Kaul, Wisconsin Attorney General; Josh Shapiro, Pennsylvania Attorney General; T.J. Donovan, Vermont Attorney General; Robert W. Ferguson, Washington Attorney General. Major Cities Chiefs Association, October 20, 2021. Hon. Dick Durbin, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Cory Booker, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Mike Lee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Grassley, Senator Booker, and Senator Lee: I write on behalf of the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA) to register our support for S. 2914, the Terry Technical Corrections Act. The MCCA is a professional organization of police executives representing the largest cities in the United States and Canada. In 2010, Congress reduced the federal sentencing disparity for crack versus powder cocaine offenses. However, due to an unclear definition in statute, the Supreme Court recently held in Terry v. United States that individuals convicted of some of the least serious crack cocaine offenses are ineligible to be resentenced under the reduced disparity. The Terry Technical Corrections Ad will address this issue by clarifying that all offenders sentenced for a crack cocaine offense before the disparity was reduced are eligible to be resentenced. While the MCCA believes Congress should eliminate the federal sentencing disparity, until that happens, this legislation will help address inequities in our criminal justice system related to sentencing for crack cocaine offenses. Thank you for your leadership on this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me if the MCCA can be of any additional assistance. Sincerely, Chief Jeri Williams, Chief, Phoenix Police Department, President, Major Cities Chiefs Association.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. As Justice Thomas noted in his opinion in Terry v. United States, citing my introduction of H.R. 4545, the Drug Sentencing Reform and Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2007, I have long worked to address the sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses, introducing legislation to eliminate the disparity completely. Mr. Speaker, I include this opinion that cites this legislation, among others, for the Record. 141 S.Ct. 1858 Supreme Court of the United States Tarahrick TERRY, Petitioner v.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. That is why I introduced H.R. 5455, the Terry Technical Correction Act, which reaffirms Congress' intent to provide retroactive sentencing relief to all individuals convicted of crack cocaine offenses before the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 took effect; and now I support Mr. Jeffries' EQUAL Act, which we hope will be on the President's desk. With the declaration of the war on drugs in the early 1970s began a dramatic rise in the U.S. prison population. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it was teeming over, fueled largely by excessive, unwarranted drug sentences, some for minimal drug sentences and actions, putting particularly young African-American men in incarceration for decades. The Federal Government played a pivotal role in America's era of mass incarceration. During the 1980s and 1990s, Congress passed several pieces of legislation that moved away from rehabilitation toward excessive punishment. One such example is the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which created mandatory minimum penalties for most drug offenses and established the 100-1 cocaine to crack disparity. We have found that that does not bring down drug use. It does not bring down crime. What brings down crime is an effective rehabilitation system so that law enforcement officers do not have to confront recidivists ever again because we have given them a pathway to enter into society. As Justice Sotomayor acknowledges in her concurring opinion in Terry, African Americans ``bore the brunt of the disparity.'' Between 1992 and 2006, roughly 80 to 90 percent of those convicted of crack offenses were African American. There were many who sounded the alarm during this time, including the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which repeatedly called upon Congress to revisit the mandatory minimum sentencing structure because of the racial disparities in cocaine versus crack sentencing. Sadly, Congress refused to listen for many years, and they did not see any strong impact on that approach. Thankfully, Members of Congress, on an increasingly bipartisan manner, have worked hard to reduce the harmful impact of the failed policies of the war on drugs, including putting an end to the crack to powder sentencing disparities. Those who are supporting us--law enforcement officers, attorneys general--are Republicans and Democrats alike. Through our efforts, we have learned that there is no greater danger to public safety from crack offenders than powder cocaine offenders, and that the 100-1 ratio overstated the relative harmfulness of the two forms of cocaine and diverted Federal resources away from prosecuting the highest level of traffickers. In 2010, Congress began the process to eradicate the devastating consequences of the poorly conceived war on drugs and the punitive response to the crack epidemic. We have had circumstances where false warrants were used to enter people's homes under the false premise that they were using drugs. That didn't bring down crime. That didn't help eliminate those who were doing ill to people. That was not the right approach. The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 reduced the sentencing disparity to 18-1, and the First Step Act of 2018 made the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 744-- Condemning the Government of Iran's state-sponsored persecution of its Baha'i minority and its continued violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This resolution condemns Iran's state-sponsored persecution of its Baha'i minority and its continued violation of the international covenants on human rights. Further, the resolution calls on Iran to immediately release all imprisoned or detained Baha'is, and it urges the President and the Department of State to impose sanctions on Iranian officials and others who are responsible for serious human rights abuses, including abuses against Iran's Baha'i community. Persecution of religious minorities in Iran is rampant. For over 40 years, the Government of Iran has persecuted members of the Baha'i faith, killing over 200 Baha'i leaders, dismissing more than 10,000 from their government and university jobs, and using intimidation and violence to target them as enemies of the state. The Iranian regime routinely arrests Baha'is and imposes lengthy prison sentences. Between 50 and 100 Baha'is were reported to be in prisons in Iran during 2020, despite the widespread prevalence of COVID-19. Since 31 July 2022, Ministry of Intelligence agents have raided and confiscated dozens of Baha'i properties and arrested at least 30 members of the Baha'i community on account of their faith in various cities throughout Iran. Iranian state-sponsored propaganda encourages citizens to avoid all dealings with Baha'is citing that they ``create anxiety in the minds of the public and those of the Iranian officials.'' The onslaught against the Baha'i community is yet another example of the Iranian government's brutal and degrading treatment of minorities and women and is a vivid reminder of the regime's extremist and intolerant foundation. Iranians from all socioeconomic backgrounds are desperate for a democratic government that respects the universal rights of all humans, basic respect for human rights, and the rule of law. The arrest and murder of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old woman arrested by ``morality police'' in Tehran on September 13, 2022, for allegedly violating Iran's strict rules requiring women to cover their hair with a hijab, or headscarf, sparked massive protests around Iran and the world. For the past two months, since the day of Mahsa Amini's funeral, women and men have taken to the streets, risking their lives for a free and democratic Iran. Since the protests started in September, more than 350 protesters have been killed, and thousands have been arrested. Two weeks ago, an Iranian court issued the first death sentence linked to the protests, convicting an unnamed person of ``enmity against God'' and ``spreading corruption on Earth.'' Three more people have since been sentenced to death on the same charges, according to the Iranian government. We are presented with evidence everyday of Iranians putting their lives at risk in pursuit of a better tomorrow. To all the Iranian women, men, children, and protestors who are leading the fight for democracy, I say loud and clear that I stand with you. The United States Congress will always support a democratic movement in Iran. We support the organized and peaceful resistance by women, students, and youth against this extremist regime. Let us remain dedicated to advocating for a democratic secular government in Iran founded on universal respect for human rights, religious tolerance, and equality among all citizens. I urge all my colleagues to support H. Res. 744--Condemning the Government of Iran's state-sponsored persecution of its Baha'i minority and its continued violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We must consistently demonstrate to the Iranian people and the entire world that we stand with them in solidarity for the atrocious injustices being committed by the Iranian Government, to give voice to the oppressed support human rights, and freedom in Iran, because freedom is a universal right. I will always champion global democracy stand against human rights violations, and never shy away from speaking truth to power in the presence of oppression. May the Iranian people soon enjoy all the rights and benefits of freedom and democracy.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4785, the Uyghur Policy Act of 2021, a bill that addresses the human rights issues concerning the Uyghurs and other minority groups in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in China. The Uyghur Policy Act would authorize the establishment of a Special Coordinator for Uyghur Issues position within the Department of State. The bill would also allow the State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs make certain funds available to human rights advocates working on behalf of Uyghurs and members of other minority groups. The funds, if made available, shall be used to facilitate the presence of such human rights advocates at public diplomacy forums to speak on issues related to the human rights and religious freedoms of minority groups in Xinjiang. Mr. Speaker, in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China, the Government of the People's Republic of China has, since 2017, arbitrarily detained as many as 1.8 million Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, and members of other Muslim minority groups in a system of extrajudicial mass internment camps. Additionally, the Chinese government has arbitrarily detained many in formal prisons and detention centers, and has subjected detainees to forced labor, torture, political indoctrination, and other severe human rights abuses. Forced labor exists within the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region's system of mass internment camps, and throughout the region. These assertions have been confirmed by the testimony of former camp detainees, satellite imagery, official media reports, publicly available documents, official statements, and official leaked documents from the Government of the People's Republic of China as part of a targeted campaign of repression of Muslim ethnic minorities. These atrocious acts are indicative of a state sponsored systematic effort to eradicate the ethnic and cultural identity and religious beliefs of religious minorities in China. Recent reports have also indicated that the Chinese Government is aiming to prevent the births of, Uyghurs, ethnic Kazakhs and Kyrgyz, and members of religious minority groups. Recent data has shown a significant drop in birth rates among Uyghurs due to enforced sterilization and enforced abortion. Indeed, the birth rate in the Xinjiang region fell by 24 percent in 2019 compared to a 4.2 percent decline nationwide. In addition, there are credible reports of the Peoples Republic of China's Government campaigns to promote marriages between Uyghurs and Han and to reduce birth rates among Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims. It has also been reported that many Uyghurs have been assigned to factory employment under conditions that indicate forced labor, and some former detainees have reported food deprivation, beatings, suppression of religious practices, family separation, and sexual abuse. Reporting from international news organizations has found that over the past decade, family members of Uyghurs living outside of China have gone missing or been detained to force their return to China or silence dissent. Mr. Speaker, on January 19, 2021, the Department of State determined the Peoples Republic of China's Government, under the direction and control of the Chinese Communist Party, has committed crimes against humanity and genocide against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minority groups in Xinjiang. The Chinese government must answer for the barbaric acts of terror they have afflicted on their own people. H.R. 4785 the Uyghur Policy Act of 2021 call for the Government of the People's Republic of China to open the XUAR to regular visits by United States Members of Congress, Congressional staff delegations, the United States Special Coordinator for Uyghur Issues under section 4, and members and staff of the Congressional-Executive Commission on the People's Republic of China to monitor the human rights violations and abuses occurring in Xuar. As members of the United States Congress, we must use our voice to condemn, monitor and oppose the atrocities occurring in China. I and this chamber stand with the Uyghurs, ethnic Kazakhs and Kyrgyz, and members of other religious minority groups in China being terrorized by their own governments. I encourage all my colleagues to support H.R. 4785--Uyghur Policy Act of 2021 to promote justice globally.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Manufacturing.gov Act, H.R. 6290, a bill that would refine the Manufacturing.gov website to serve as the main source for key information regarding federal manufacturing programs. Manufacturing.gov brings together industry, academia and federal partners within a network of advanced manufacturing institutes to increase U.S. manufacturing competitiveness and promote a robust and sustainable national manufacturing R&D infrastructure. This legislation would specify improvements to the website to make it even more useful and valuable by requiring the inclusion of relevant contact information, opportunities for public input, and webpages focusing on topics related to the website. Small and medium sized manufacturers are an essential part of the U.S. economy. In Texas, they make up approximately 13 percent of output and employ just above 7 percent state's workforce. Manufacturing companies need easy access to critical information within their industrial field to optimize their efficiency and ability to compete. To promote domestic production and provide job opportunities to hard-working Americans, these companies need real-time data on sourcing, markets, supply chains, and fulfillment. As the U.S. elevates domestic manufacturing to a top economic priority, we must improve and update our systems to better equip these companies, and the public, with the resources they need to succeed. This bill would establish a new section of the Manufacturing.gov website titled ``Manufacturing.gov hub'' to include federal manufacturing program information. To ensure that the Manufacturing.gov hub serves the needs of the people, it is important that the public has the ability to suggest input and feedback. Allowing the public to give feedback on the website's functionality, as well as its content, allows the site to better serve the needs of U.S. manufacturing while providing a safe, constructive environment to present concerns and solutions. In order to support the interests of the free market, it is imperative that we make transparent the types of technologies and research that are being developed. Texas is home to companies that manufacture a wide range of advanced and essential goods, including railcars and railways, clean energy equipment, and everyday household items such as backpacks, blankets, and towels. Providing these companies with easily accessible sites that are dedicated to their respective industries provides them with the necessary information they need to improve their production. This bill would provide industrial sectors with accurate, up-to-date information webpages within each hub. Finally, the Manufacturing.gov Act will utilize machine learning to highlight frequently asked questions and provide corresponding answers for such questions. By introducing machine learning into the hub, we can refine the website to fit the needs of U.S. manufacturers. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill dedicated to bolstering the U.S. manufacturing and production industry by establishing a hub that supplies U.S. small and medium manufacturing companies with recent technological and research developments.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4275, the ``Ensuring Phone and Internet Access Through Lifeline and Affordable Connectivity Program Act of 2022.'' This bill would increase internet and communications access for low- income consumers by promoting enrollment in the Lifeline Program and Affordable Connectivity Program. In today's technological age, internet and phone communications have become integral to the ever-growing United States economy and to society overall. Having access to the internet is crucial for all Americans, whether that be for educational purposes, business usage, or contacting friends and family. Given the rapid development in the technological sector, one might be inclined to believe that high-speed internet access has become even more widespread and easily available to all Americans. However, despite critical developments in high-speed data, the U.S. Census Bureau has indicated that 2.8 million households and 7 million individuals in Texas lack broadband access. Lack of access to broadband internet has impeded not only Texans, but also Americans nationwide from attending classes, filling job forms, and seeing healthcare providers. For low-income families, lack of internet and communication access acts as an economic barrier, impeding opportunities, furthering the socioeconomic gap, and elevating the risk of eventual poverty. The Ensuring Phone and Internet Access Through Lifeline and Affordable Connectivity Program Act intends to promote access to broadband internet and phone connectivity by proactively providing low- income Americans the information they need to enroll into either of the two programs. The Lifeline program helps bring phone service to low-income consumers at a heavily discounted price, allowing them to connect with family, job opportunities, and emergency services. This bill aims to increase enrollment of millions of eligible Americans who suffer from financial barriers. The Affordable Connective program, like the Lifeline program, helps bring fast, reliable internet access to low-income consumers at discounted prices. After the COVID-19 pandemic, it is obvious how essential online communication has become for modern society to function. Providing access to internet allows for low-income individuals the freedom to explore more opportunities to develop their lives via online education and jobs. Furthermore, this bill also plans to provide oversight of the enrollment numbers by requiring the Commission to submit annual reports to Congress with enrollment statistics for both programs. Finally, the Ensuring Phone and Internet Access Through Lifeline and Affordable Connectivity Program Act of 2022 requires that the Comptroller General submit annual reports identifying outreach initiatives that aim to increase awareness of both programs so that potential beneficiaries will take advantage of them. With this data, Congress can look to refine and expand both programs, creating innovative ways to circumvent lack of internet and phone access. Mr. Speaker, I urge my fellow Members of Congress to support this bill that is dedicated to the principles of equity and opportunity for all Americans. Since internet access and phone connectivity are crucial for success and advancement in today's society, we must ensure that everyone is aware of resources that provide these services at subsidized prices, so that, ultimately, internet and phone access are available to everyone.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7299, the Strengthening VA Cybersecurity Act of 2022, to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to obtain an independent cybersecurity assessment of information systems of the Department of Veterans Affairs. According to the Department of Defense, cyber criminals target victims in order to weaken U.S. supply chains, threaten national security, and endanger the American way of life. Although cyberattacks can potentially harm all Americans, attacks against veterans are especially problematic because of the vast population of veterans and the amount of data that is maintained about their service and benefits. In the United States, there are an estimated 18.5 million veterans. Currently, there are 1.2 million active-duty military members and 778,000 reserve forces. More than half of active-duty personnel have family member dependents. Because there are so many veterans--and future veterans--the data systems that manage their service records, salaries, health conditions, and benefits provided to them and their families must be maintained securely and insulated from risk of being exposed, corrupted, deleted, or held for ransom. Just as veterans have served America, protecting our safety and freedoms, it is vital that we protect veterans when they complete their service, start a new chapter of their life, and depend on our government to protect their personal information and privacy. The Department of Veterans Affairs stores important material such as social security numbers, health records, financial information, and more. It is the Department's responsibility to protect and preserve veterans' data for future use and needs that the veterans may have. In 1973, a firestorm at the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri destroyed the records of veterans that served from 1912 to 1964. Almost 18 million records went up in flames. Up to 80 percent of veterans who discharged during this time had their records destroyed. We learned from that conflagration, and since 1973, we have become increasingly reliant on technology, although that, too, creates exposure to potential vulnerabilities. If cybersecurity is not protected appropriately, then millions of records could be at risk just like they were in 1973. Strengthening information systems at Veterans Affairs will protect against cybersecurity threats, ransomware, insider threats, threats from foreign actors, phishing, and any other attacks that seek to cause harm. Congress must require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to obtain an independent cybersecurity assessment of information systems at the Department of Veterans Affairs to ensure that this fragile information is protected. This bill should be extremely important to all of us because it is personal. Many of our colleagues in Congress are veterans. Many of our neighbors are veterans or have family and friends who are veterans. They are our constituents, our community leaders, and often, our heroes and sheroes. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this critical bill that will safeguard the information of millions of veterans and their families.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5721 the ``VA Infrastructure Powers Exceptional Research Act of 2021'' or ``VIPER Act.'' As a senior member of the House Committees on Judiciary and Homeland Security, I care deeply about our veterans. I offer my deepest gratitude to our nation's troops and reservists, their families, and the 21.6 million veterans, including 29,126 in the 18th Congressional District of Texas that I proudly represent. In Congress, I have sponsored many legislative proposals and co- sponsored well over 50 pieces of legislation that will positively benefit our veterans and their families. Of all veterans, 50 percent use at least one VA benefit or service. Majority of those using health care benefits. H.R. 5721 addresses the misguided legal reinterpretation that eliminated a 75-year long allowance of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to accept grant money through private universities. Over the past 75 years, the VA has developed the most sophisticated and powerful research enterprises in the United States. It is extremely important that we pass this bill because it would give critical resources and tools to better serve our nation's veterans by further improving its groundbreaking research program. The VIPER Act would: Ensure program continuity by authorizing the VA's Office of Research and Development; Eliminate burdensome paperwork requirements for VA scientists and administrators; Allow VA to recruit and retain data scientists and researchers on loan from other federal agencies more efficiently; Create opportunities for researcher at smaller universities to expand the STEM pipeline serving veterans; Grant VA transactional authority in line with 11 other federal agencies; and Mandate a Government Accountability Office study on the retention of VA clinician-scientists and the productivity of their research. H.R. 5721 would benefit our veterans and the global community as VA- funded research has led to medical breakthroughs such as the first pacemaker, the first successful liver transplant, effective treatments for PTSD, and prosthetics that enhance mobility for amputees. VA research is key to the world-class care it delivers to its nine million patients. I hope you will join me in passing this legislation, to ensure VA researchers can be on the forefront of health research and novel discoveries. Without H.R. 5721, thousands of veterans and civilians will be impacted. The great state of Texas is home to over 1.4 million veterans, the most out of any state. The debt we owe our veterans is immeasurable. Their sacrifices and those of their families are freedom's foundation. Without the brave efforts of all the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and Coast Guardsmen and their families, our country would not live so freely.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise this morning to engage in a limited, but hopefully important, discussion about America's history and to encourage my colleagues for collaboration. It is in reference to H.R. 40, the Commission to Study Slavery and Develop Reparation Proposals. I stand on the perspective of how important it is for us to engage in dialogue. We are hearing across America that Americans are frightened about the discussion of our differences. This land was first held by the indigenous people, Native Americans. Every other group came to America, whether or not you are of European heritage, Hispanic heritage, Asian-Pacific, Southeast Asian, or whether you are African heritage. As a descendant of enslaved Africans, we are the only group that came as slaves to this country and held in bondage for over 200 years. You have not seen African Americans refuse their patriotism, refuse to serve. We have served in every war since the Revolutionary War. You have never seen African Americans refuse to shed blood for the freedom of this country or to wear the uniform. You have not seen us shy away from serving as firefighters and law enforcement, teachers, businesspersons, social justice leaders, such as Dr. King, John Lewis, and, yes, Malcolm X. You have not seen us, as women--Rosa Parks, Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, Coretta Scott King--stand away from the fight. We have embraced freedom, justice, and equality. You did not see us attack this most solid and somber institution, sacred, on January 6, 2021. We were not the masses that were trying to undermine democracy. In fact, in this last election, I stood on the premise of defending democracy, and I take no back seat to my love of this Nation. And so I ask my colleagues, why do you in any way doubt the value and importance of H.R. 40? The purpose is to acknowledge the fundamental injustice and inhumanity of slavery in the United States and to establish a commission to study and consider a national apology and proposal for reparations for the institution of slavery. It was based on the premise of racism. There was, in fact, no compensation, no life insurance, no salaries. Slaves were born, lived, and died in slavery, never seeing freedom. They worked from sunup and beyond, and they worked until they fell dead in the fields. They built this Nation. They built the United States Capitol. They built the White House. They, in fact, created an economic engine by making cotton king, and they created an economic engine by this transatlantic slave trade. The traders decided to stop trading spices and gold and to use the human beings that they marched for 300 miles to weaken the slaves so they would not have a fight before getting on those ships. Many dropped into the watery grave before they got on. Many died in the dark passage. But yet, here we are today. And so this is not pointing the finger. This is not accusatory. This is, in fact, a reconciliation. I insist that we establish this commission, and we must establish it by a vote or establish it by executive order. Reverend Mark Thompson, a political activist for social justice, said: If we were granted H.R. 40 by executive order, it would be America once and for all saying Black lives actually do matter and this Nation must be repaired. It is restoration and repair, but it stands on the basis of facts. There is no doubt that we have been impacted, that DNA in the trajectory of slavery to today. For example, COVID, Black African Americans got COVID at a rate nearly 1\1/2\ times higher than that of White people, were hospitalized at a rate nearly 4 times higher, and 3 times more likely to die. COVID hit us very desperately. Interestingly, a recent peer-reviewed study from Harvard Medical School suggests that reparations for African Americans could have cut COVID-19 transmission and infection rates both among Blacks and the population at large. Reparations are curative, they are not punishment. The analysis continued to look at data throughout the Nation. And so as we move in this lame duck session, it is important that we come together for reconciliation, restoration, and provide the Commission to Study Slavery and to Develop Reparation Proposals. I thank my colleagues for their support, and I believe together we make America strong, America free, America just, and America equal. Madam Speaker, I am proud to have authored H.R. 40, legislation that establishes a commission to study and develop reparation proposals for African Americans. Congress must pass this bill to begin the process toward reconciliation with the Black community. I have also called upon President Biden to create the H.R. 40 Commission by Executive Order. The purpose of H.R. 40 is to acknowledge the fundamental injustice and inhumanity of slavery in the U.S. and to establish a commission to study and consider a national apology and proposal for reparations for the institution of slavery, its subsequent racial and economic discrimination against African Americans, and the impact of these forces on living African Americans. The Commission is also charged to make recommendations to Congress on appropriate remedies. Now--more than ever--the timing is ripe for the enactment of H.R. 40. We have a President in the White House who has expressed his undeniable support and we urge President Biden to institute this executive order. My Democratic colleagues in the 117th Congress and I have made historic strides in advancing H.R. 40 since it was first introduced in 1989 by the late Michigan Congressman Rep John Conyers. H.R. 40 garnered more support over the past 33 years; it has approximately 200 co-sponsors, including 25 U.S. senators. Also, it is supported by over 300 organizations and allies, including the National Conference of Mayors. One of my top priorities for this lame duck session of Congress in November and December, regardless of who controls Congress, is to have H.R. 40 pass the House of Representatives because. This will send a message of broad support to President Biden and strengthen our hand in urging him to create the Commission to Study and Develop Reparations Proposals through Executive Order. Reparations are overdue. Our entire country needs reparations, to allow us to move forward as an untied society. The concept of reparations is a well-established principle of international law, defined as the act or process of repairing or restoring. It is payment for an injury; redress for a wrong done. In the context of Black people in North America, the concept of reparations essentially constitutes four elements: 1) the formal acknowledgment of an historical wrong; 2) the recognition that there is a continuing injury; 3) the commitment to redress by the federal government which sanctioned the enslavement and subsequent discrimination; and 4) the actual compensation in whatever form or forms that are agreed upon. The reparations movement does not focus on payments to individuals. The harms under discussion from the legacy of slavery and racial discrimination are seen in well-documented racial disparities in access to education, health care, housing, insurance, employment and other social goods. Reparations settlements can be created in as many forms as necessary to equitably address the many forms of injury sustained from chattel slavery and its continuing vestiges. Now--more than ever--the facts and circumstances facing our nation demonstrate the importance of H.R. 40 and the necessity of placing our nation on the path to reparative justice. Reverend Mark Thompson, a political activist for social justice remarked ``If we were granted H.R. 40 by executive order, it would be America once and for all saying Black lives actually do matter, and this nation must be repaired.'' I along with many others share in the same sentiment. The impact of the pandemic changed the nature of the conversation. COVID has devastated the African American community. According to the latest estimates from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, Black people get COVID-19 at a rate nearly one and a half times higher than that of white people, are hospitalized at a rate nearly four times higher, and are three times as likely to die from the disease. Interestingly, a recent peer-reviewed study from Harvard Medical School suggests that reparations for African Americans could have cut COVID-19 transmission and infection rates both among Blacks and the population at large. Their analysis, based on Louisiana data, determined that if reparations payments had been made before the COVID-19 pandemic, narrowing the wealth gap, COVID transmission rates in the state's overall population could have been reduced by anywhere from 31 percent to 68 percent. In 2019, we have also seen hundreds of thousands peacefully take to the streets in support of Black Lives and accountability for law enforcement. Many of those protesters carried signs in support of H.R. 40 and made the important link between policing and the movement for reparative justice. Tragically, we have also witnessed insurrectionist attack this institution, brandishing symbols of division and intolerance, that echo back to the darkest periods of our nation's history. Clearly, we require a reckoning to restore national balance and unity. Four hundred years ago, ships set sail from the west coast of Africa and in the process, began one of mankind's most inhumane practices: human bondage and slavery. For two centuries, human beings--full of hopes and fears, dreams and concerns, ambition and anguish--were transported onto ships like chattel, and the lives of many forever changed. The reverberations from this horrific series of acts--a transatlantic slave trade that touched the shores of a colony that came to be known as America, and later a democratic republic known as the United States of America--are unknown and worthy of exploration. Approximately 4,000,000 Africans and their descendants were enslaved in the United States and colonies that became the United States from 1619 to 1865. The institution of slavery was constitutionally and statutorily sanctioned by the Government of the United States from 1789 through 1865. American Slavery is our country's original sin and its existence at the birth of our nation is a permanent scar on our country's founding documents, and on the venerated authors of those documents, and it is a legacy that continued well into the last century. The framework for our country and the document to which we all take an oath describes African Americans as three-fifths a person. The infamous Dred Scott decision of the United States Supreme Court, issued just a few decades later, described slaves as private property, unworthy of citizenship. And, a civil war that produced the largest death toll of American fighters in any conflict in our history could not prevent the indignities of Jim Crow, the fire hose at lunch counters and the systemic and institutional discrimination that would follow for a century after the end of the Civil War. The mythology built around the Civil War has obscured our discussions of the impact of chattel slavery and made it difficult to have a national dialogue on how to fully account for its place in American history and public policy. While it is nearly impossible to determine how the lives touched by slavery could have flourished in the absence of bondage, we have certain datum that permits us to examine how a subset of Americans-- African Americans--have been affected by the callousness of involuntary servitude. We know that in almost every segment of society--education, healthcare, jobs and wealth--the inequities that persist in America are more acutely and disproportionately felt in Black America. This historic discrimination continues: African-Americans continue to suffer debilitating economic, educational, and health hardships including but not limited to having nearly 1,000,000 black people incarcerated; an unemployment rate more than twice the current white unemployment rate; and an average of less than 1/16 of the wealth of white families, a disparity which has worsened, not improved over time. H.R. 40 follows the successful model of the reparations campaign for Japanese-Americans interned during WWII. The campaign began with a 1980 congressional bill establishing a commission to investigate the internment, evaluate and consider the amount and form reparations would take, and make recommendations to the Congress for remedy. Based on the Commission's findings, President Reagan signed into law the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. In short, H.R. 40 is not about direct payments to individuals. The legislation creates the framework for a national discussion on the enduring legacy of slavery, and the complex web of discriminatory conduct sanctioned by the Federal government well into the 20th century, to begin the necessary process of atonement and recovery. Assessing the quantifiable amount owed to Black citizens due to generational racism and injustice should be left in a commission's hands. H.R. 40 seeks to establish a national commission to examine the lasting economic effects of slavery, Jim Crow segregation, and racially discriminatory federal policies on income, wealth, educational, health, and employment outcomes; to pursue truth and promote racial healing; and to study reparations. The committee should comprise of appointed members (seen in section 4) and pioneers in the field of reparatory justice. I also support President Eiden in creating a reparations committee through executive action. Given the political limitations of moving legislation in the Senate, an executive order is the only practical method for establishing an H.R. 40 commission. Black household wealth is less than one fifth of the national average. The median black household had a net worth of just $17,600 in 2016. Yet in that same year, the median white household held $171,000 in wealth while the national household median was $97,300. The black unemployment rate is 6.6 percent more than double the national unemployment rate. Approximately 31 percent of black children live in poverty, compared to 11 percent of white children. The national average is 18 percent, which suggests that the percentage of black children living in poverty is more than 150 percent of the national average. In the healthcare domain, the disparities suffered by African Americans is also troubling. Over 20 percent of African Americans do not have health insurance, compared to a national average between 8.8 percent and 9.1 percent. One in four African American women are uninsured. Compared to the national average, African American adults are 20 percent more likely to suffer from asthma and three times more likely to die from it. Black adults are 72 percent more likely to suffer from diabetes than average. Black women are four times more likely to die from pregnancy related causes, such as embolisms, and pregnancy-related hypertension, than any other racial group. In our nation, among children aged 19-35 months, black children were vaccinated at rates lower than white children: 68 percent versus 78 percent, respectively. Education has often been called the key to unlocking social mobility. African American students are less likely than white students to have access to college-ready courses. In fact, in 2011-12, only 57 percent of black students have access to a full range of math and science courses necessary for college readiness, compared to 81 percent of Asian American students and 71 percent of white students. Black students spend less time in the classroom due to discipline, which further hinders their access to a quality education. Black students are nearly two times as likely to be suspended without educational services as white students. Black students are also 3.8 times as likely to receive one or more out-of-school suspensions as white students. In addition, black children represent 19 percent of the nation's preschool population, yet 47 percent of those receiving more than one out-of-school suspension. In comparison, white students represent 41 percent of pre-school enrollment but only 28 percent of those receiving more than one out-of- school suspension. Even more troubling, black students are 2.3 times as likely to receive a referral to law enforcement or be subject to a school-related arrest as white students. School districts with the most students of color, on average, receive 15 percent less per student in state and local funding than the whitest districts. And, of course, we cannot consider the disparities between black and white in America without considering the intersection of African Americans and the Criminal Justice system. There are more Black men in bondage today who are incarcerated or under correctional control, than there were black men who were enslaved in the 1800s. The United States locks up African American males at a rate 5.8 times higher than the most openly racist country in the world ever did: South Africa under apartheid (1993), African American males: 851 per 100,000. United States (2006), African American males: 4,789 per 100,000. Incarceration is not an equal opportunity punishment. For example, incarceration rates in the United States by race were: African Americans: 2,468 per 100,000. Latinos: 1,038 per 100,000. Whites: 409 per 100,000. African American offenders receive sentences that are 10 percent longer than white offenders for the same crimes and are 21 percent more likely to receive mandatory-minimum sentences than white defendants according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Looking at males aged 25-29 and by race, you can see what is going on even clearer: For White males ages 25-29: 1,685 per 100,000. For Latino males ages 25-29: 3,912 per 100,000. For African American males ages 25-29: 11,695 per 100,000. (That's 11 percent of Black men in their late 20s.) Looking at males aged 25-29 and by race, you can see what is going on even clearer: For White males ages 25-29: 1,685 per 100,000. For Latino males ages 25-29: 3,912 per 100,000. For African American males ages 25-29: 11,695 per 100,000. (That's 11 percent of Black men in their late 20s.) And African Americans are more likely to be victims of crimes. Black children die from firearm homicides at a rate 10 times higher than their white counterparts. Overall, one in 50 murders is ruled justified--but when the killer is white and the victim is a black man, the figure climbs to one in six. A handgun homicide is nine times more likely to be found justified when the killer is white and the victim is a black man. Handgun killings with a white shooter and a black male victim exhibit an even more dramatic bias: one in four is found justified. But then again, we knew these inequities existed because for many Black Americans, these disparities are just a part of daily life. Examined in the aggregate, they represent a stunning chasm between the destinies of White America and that of Black America. This is why, in 1989, my predecessor as the most senior African American on this august Judiciary Committee, the honorable John Conyers, a past Chairman of this Committee introduced H.R. 40, legislation that would establish a commission to study and develop proposals attendant to reparations. Though many thought it a lost cause, John Conyers believed that a day would come when our nation would need to account for the brutal mistreatment of African-Americans during chattel slavery, Jim Crow segregation and the enduring structural racism endemic to our society. I would like to take this moment to personally thank the estimable John Conyers for his work on this legislation for the last thirty years. With the rise and normalization of white supremacist expression during the Trump administration, the discussion of H.R. 40 and the concept of restorative justice have gained more urgency, garnering the attention of mainstream commentator, and illustrating the need for a national reckoning. H.R. 40 is intended to create the framework for a national discussion on the enduring impact of slavery and its complex legacy to begin that necessary process of atonement. The designation of this legislation as H.R. 40 is intended to memorialize the promise made by General William T. Sherman, in his 1865 Special Field Order No. 15, to redistribute 400,000 acres of formerly Confederate owned coastal land in South Carolina and Florida, subdivided into 40 acre plots. In addition to the more well-known land redistribution, the Order also established autonomous governance for the region and provided for protection by military authorities of the settlements. Though Southern sympathizer and former slaveholder President Andrew Johnson would later overturn the Order, this plan represented the first systematic form of Freedmen reparations. Since its introduction, H.R. 40 has acted to spur some governmental acknowledgement of the sin of slavery, but most often the response has taken the form of an apology. However, even the well intentioned commitments to examine the historical and modern day implications of slavery by the Clinton administration fell short of the mark and failed to inspire substantive pubic discourse. For many, it was not until The Atlantic published Ta-Nehisi Coates' The Case for Reparations that the mainstream public began to reckon with, or even consider, the concept of reparations. Though the Federal government has been slow to engage the issue of reparations, individuals, corporations and other public institutions have engaged the discussion out of both necessity and conscience. In 1994, a group of California plaintiffs brought suit against the Federal government and by 2002, nine lawsuits were filed around the country by the Restitution Study Group. Though litigation has yielded only mixed success in court, a serious foundation was laid for alternative forms of restitution. For example, in 2005, J.P. Morgan & Company tried to make amends for its role in the slave trade with an apology and a $5 million, five-year scholarship fund for Black undergraduates in Louisiana. In 2008, the Episcopal Church apologized for perpetuating American slavery through its interpretation of the Bible and certain diocese have implemented restitution programs. In 2003, Brown University created the Committee on Slavery and Justice to assess the University's role in slavery and determine a response. Similarly, in 2016, Georgetown University apologized for its historical links to slavery and said it would give an admissions edge to descendants of slaves whose sale in the roth century helped pay off the U.S. school's debts. In 2017, my alma mater Yale University announced that it would rename Calhoun College--named for John C. Calhoun--would be changed to honor Grace Murray Hopper, a trailblazing computer scientist who also served as rear admiral in the United States Navy. The University's president, Peter Salovey, indicated that removing Calhoun's name was consistent with its values because Calhoun had a legacy of a white supremacist and a national leader who passionately promoted slavery as a positive good. And, in April of this year, students at Georgetown University voted in favor of paying reparations to the descendants of enslaved people who were sold by the university in order to satisfy its debts. In 1838, in a practice likely far wider spread than is likely accounted for, Georgetown Jesuits sold 272 slaves who worked on plantations. When the results of the Georgetown poll were announced, the numbers were overwhelming: 2/3 of students indicated that payments should be funded to descendants of these slaves and would be paid for by a fee that would apply to all undergraduate students. While the vote was nonbinding, it nonetheless represents the first time the student body of a university has voted to implement a mandatory fee to account for reparations. These are only a few examples of how private institution have begun reckoning with their past records. I expect that a growing number of institutions will be forced to examine their histories of discrimination, if for no other reason than increasing public scrutiny will force their history to light. Since my reintroduction of H.R. 40 at the beginning of this Congress; both the legislation and concept of reparations have become the focus of national debate. For many, it is apparent that the success of the Obama administration has unleashed a backlash of racism and intolerance that is an echo of America's dark past which has yet to be exorcised from the national consciousness. Commentators have turned to H.R. 40 as a response to formally begin the process of analyzing, confronting and atoning for these dark chapters of American history. Even conservative voices, like that of New York Times columnist David Brooks, are starting to give the reparations cause the hearing it deserves, observing that ``Reparations are a drastic policy and hard to execute, but the very act of talking and designing them heals a wound and opens a new story.'' Similarly, a majority of the Democratic presidential contenders have turned to H.R.40 as a tool for reconciliation, with 17 cosponsoring or claiming they would sign the bill into law if elected. Though critics have argued that the idea of reparations is unworkable politically or financially, their focus on money misses the point of the H.R. 40 commission's mandate. The goal of these historical investigations is to bring American society to a new reckoning with how our past affects the current conditions of African Americans and to make America a better place by helping the truly disadvantaged. Consequently, the reparations movement does not focus on payments to individuals, but to remedies that can be created in as many forms necessary to equitably address the many kinds of injuries sustained from chattel slavery and its continuing vestiges. To merely focus on finance is an empty gesture and betrays a lack of understanding of the depth of the unaddressed moral issues that continue to haunt this nation. While it might be convenient to assume that we can address the current divisive racial and political climate in our nation through race neutral means, experience shows that we have not escaped our history. Though the Civil Rights Movement challenged many of the most racist practices and structures that subjugated the African American community, it was not followed by a commitment to truth and reconciliation. For that reason, the legacy of racial inequality has persisted, and left the nation vulnerable to a range of problems that continue to yield division, racial disparities and injustice. Reparations are ultimately about respect and reconciliation--and the hope that one day, all Americans can walk together toward a more just future. We owe it to those who were ripped from their homes those many years ago an ocean away; we owe it to the millions of Americans- yes they were Americans--who were born into bondage, knew a life of servitude, and died anonymous deaths, as prisoners of this system. We owe it to the millions of descendants of these slaves, for they are the heirs to a society of inequities and indignities that naturally filled the vacuum after slavery was formally abolished 154 years ago. Let us also do with the spirit of reconciliation and understanding that this bill represents. Finally, if we truly want to build better, brighter future, we can't do it on a rotten foundation. Therefore, for the house that is America, we must repair the damage caused by the original crime that separates us. A house divided against itself cannot stand. The H.R. 40 Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans must be created by executive order. Today we call on President Biden to right this historical wrong and take a monumental step towards reparative justice.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the House amendment to S. 3092, the Federal Emergency Management Agency Improvement, Reform and Efficiency Act of 2021. This legislation addresses the federal government's approach to wildfires by setting a standard for implementing proactive plans of action for responding to wildfires, and by requiring reports on the effectiveness of FEMA programs. These plans must include studies on providing housing assistance to survivors of major disasters to resolve challenges, such as the lack of proof of ownership, and to contract the National Academy of Sciences to study potential solutions to address the availability and affordability of insurance for disasters. As the consequences of climate change become our new reality, it is our responsibility to be prepared in accordance with those changes. Climate change exacerbates wildfires and vice versa, like a vicious cycle that can't be extinguished. According to a report from the United Nations Environment Prgramme, the number of wildfires worldwide is projected to grow 50 percent by the year 2100. The UN Environment Programme experts also reported that governments are not prepared for this shift. This is no longer a matter of prevention, but rather a matter of preparation for what is ahead of us and for generations to come. Across the nation, wildfires have disproportionately affected low- income families and people of color. Disaster insurance for those in rural areas, low-income neighborhoods, and immigrant communities are often inaccessible, even though they are most at risk. Native Americans are six times more vulnerable to the impacts of wildfires than their white counterparts due in part to the fact that they were forced to settle in fire-prone areas. The FIRE Act would assess the need for the federal government to produce maps that identify wildfire zones. This bill would also allow Indigenous tribal governments to apply for grants to better equip emergency operations centers. Disaster prevention insurance has increasingly become inaccessible, especially to low-income families. Disaster insurance is often beyond the reach of family budgets that are burdened with the skyrocketing prices of rent and food. In the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, tens of thousands of families were displaced after their homes were destroyed. According to community advocates, about 50 percent of those households impacted by Harvey were low-income households and many of those damaged homes were in Black and Latino neighborhoods. I worked tirelessly alongside the Houston Housing authority to reverse a FEMA decision to not provide any fundings for the 428 Program, which would repair public low-income housing damaged by the Hurricane. In cases of disaster, S. 3092 would require initiation of a process to determine the possible benefits or disadvantages of providing relocation assistance, addressing the growing housing issue for victims of disasters. In the aftermath of Hurricane Maria that wreaked havoc on Puerto Rico, 92 percent of homes were damaged and 98 percent of those homes applied for FEMA's housing assistance. According to the American Bar Association, 40 percent of those in need of housing assistance were denied due to a lack of ownership documentation stemming from generational inheritance of homes without government recordkeeping. The FIRE Act would also develop a plan to address housing assistance for those who may lack ownership documentation in case of a disaster. The effects of climate change are no longer a ``what if,'' but our new reality. Since these large-scale disasters will be inflicting damage with increasing frequency, we must be prepared for them.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, I rise in support of H.R. 8416, the ``Disasters of Survivors Fairness Act of 2022.'' The Federal Emergency Management Agency's mission is to help Americans prepare for, respond, and recover from disasters. From day one, FEMA has been committed to protecting and serving Americans who have been impacted by disasters. Unfortunately, though, the toll of disasters is much greater on most Americans than it is on those who are wealthier. A 2020 FEMA National Advisory Committee report stated that disaster relief programs ``provide an additional boost to wealthy homeowners and others with less need, while lower-income individuals and others sink further into poverty after disasters.'' It is unfair that any survivor of disasters must suffer because of disparities in FEMA disaster response that have gone unchallenged for far too long. For example, FEMA records show that low-income homeowners were denied 30 percent of the time compared to higher-income owners, who were denied 13 percent of the time, a 17-point difference. Unfortunately, these disparities reveal the experience of African American and Hispanic Americans. Threats posed by natural disasters intensify existing social and racial and ethnic inequities. After a natural disaster, people in disadvantaged communities have worse outcomes due to stresses or exposures to other risks associated with a disaster. Low-income people and people of color are more likely to live in disaster-prone areas, live in lower-quality housing that is less safe when disasters occur, and have chronic illnesses that make them more vulnerable. As climate change accelerates and intensifies, the natural disasters that it causes take a steeper toll each year. Since climate change affects health in a variety of ways, disaster mitigation and response planning must be scoped in advance to ameliorate the consequences, hardships, and inequities. To ensure that FEMA will lead equitable health interventions during disaster response, we must enable it to provide evidence-based policy, programming, and service delivery designed to protect health and promote health equity during disaster response and recovery. Our nation is ill-prepared to deal with successive extreme weather events occurring nearly simultaneously, just as in 2017, when Hurricanes Harvey, Jose and Maria hit within days of each other, while wildfires burned in California. One thing is certain after speaking with the people of Houston who, unfortunately, are all too familiar with these problems: We require a disaster recovery system that is designed to help the people who truly need it. H.R. 8416 would: develop a universal application for federal disaster assistance; remove the requirement that households must be rendered uninhabitable; authorize the president to provide direct assistance to individuals and households; remove the requirement that a household must be rendered uninhabitable; allow FEMA to enter agreements with state agencies to provide funding for a website that will have information related to post disaster recovery funding and resources; and save taxpayer dollars by ensuring that FEMA resources are going to those who need the most help. I have seen the dedication and hard work of FEMA professionals who provide relief to victims of disasters. But the unending string of disasters is stretching the fabric of emergency response systems across the nation. The pain and financial hardship that they cost the American people can be seen in headlines across the country. We in Congress must do our part to enable FEMA to do more without diminishing the support of communities before, during, and after disasters. No one was prepared for five days of subfreezing temperatures, ice- and snow-covered roads, and a failed energy grid throughout the state of Texas. Texas power providers, Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) and Entergy Corporation, did not provide the needed weatherization of power generating and delivery equipment after being warned in 2011 after a cold snap that the system would fail if these steps were not taken. The number of additional deaths uses mortality data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to compare the number of deaths from all causes that were reported in Texas during and after the storm with the number of fatalities that are normally reported during ordinary conditions. That method is known as ``excess fatalities'' and has been employed during other disasters, like the COVID-19 pandemic, to estimate related death tolls. In the aftermath of the storm millions of Texans struggled with the effects of the deadly winter storm, people of color and low-income communities who were disproportionately affected by blackouts and burst pipes could now face the hardest journey to recovery, experts said. Hurricane Harvey hit a thousand square mile of Texas, just as in the past when Ike struck, but the telling sign of Blue Tarp Roofs are only in low-income, black, and brown communities' years after the storms have passed. In the past the tools and resources available to FEMA to support disaster reponse and recovery have been limited to meals, water, trap. Local, tribal, territorial, and state governments had to make request for aid to be provided. For more substantial assistance, government contracting, and awards must be put into place, which can take months and in some cases years to get resources to victims. This is too much time for survivors to have to wait for help. The historic winter weather exacerbated pre-existing disparities like poor infrastructure and lack of resources in marginalized communities. Black and Latino communities who were disproportionately hit by COVID- 19 now must struggle to recover from one of the worst weather events to ever hit Texas. The nine-county Houston metro area impacted by Hurricane Harvey covers 9,444 square miles, an area larger than five states. Including New Hampshire, New Jersy, and Connecticut. Hurricane Harvey dropped 21 trillion gallons of rainfall on Texas and Louisiana, most of it on the Houston Metroplex. At its peak on September 1, 2017, one-third of Houston was underwater. Hurricane Harvey is the largest housing disaster to strike the U.S. in our nation's history. Hurricane Harvey damaged 203,000 homes, of which 12,700 were destroyed. These are not simply numbers, these are families. Son and daughters, mothers and fathers, friends, mentors, and caretakers, all who are deserving of ample disaster response and recover efforts. There was no way to pre-prepare for Hurricanes Harvey, Katrina, Ian, or any of the other major disaster event. What we can do is learn as much as possible and apply those lessons to future disaster response and recovery efforts. When there is a catastrophic event, like Hurricane Harvey, there are important and valuable lessons that can help us to meet future challenges. My constituents in Houston understand that our capacity to deal with hurricanes directly reflects our ability to respond to a terrorist attack in Texas or New York, an earthquake in California, or a nationwide pandemic. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared that COVID- 19 was a pandemic, which had by that date reached at least 114 countries, sickening over 100,000 people, and killing more than 4,000. It is the duty of Congress to make sure that FEMA is prepared to meet any challenge while bringing equity to the response made during disasters. The work of the FEMA Office of Disaster Recovery and the Office of Disaster Recovery are critical when disaster strikes and for this reason, they should be a permanent part of the agency. This is one of the reasons, I introduced the FEMA Modernization Act (H.R. 3060) in the 116th Congress.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, all of this is silenced. The threat of legal retaliation is daunting to these women, enough to keep workers from coming forward with their stories of abuse. The Harvard Business Review has indicated over one-third of the U.S. workforce is bound by NDAs. Madam Speaker, I close my remarks by saying, I walk away from here and saying that when we cast this vote, we will cast a vote for creating a more perfect Union, and that women will not be second class, second rate without the same equal protection of the law as anyone else. I applaud the secretaries, the busdrivers, the factory workers, the cafeteria workers who happen to be women, as well as I applaud the corporate women who are rising up the corporate ladder. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 4524, The Speak Out Act, that would limit the judicial enforceability of predispute nondisclosure and nondisparagement contract clauses relating to disputes involving sexual assault and sexual harassment. This bill is critical to ending the culture of silence that quiets the voices of survivors of sexual harassment and abuse. We must protect women from harassment, abuse, and violence of all types, at every opportunity, and in every facet of life. As chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, I've led the fight against domestic violence for many years, and sponsored the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act, which led to VAWA's reauthorization in March. Just as VAWA is vital to protect women in their personal lives, the Speak Out Act is vital to protect women in their work lives, empowering women against workplace harassment and abuse that can impair their careers and life paths. Ending the cycle of abuse starts with eliminating the power that perpetrators have over their victims. Currently, companies can sue workers for breaking a Non-Disclosure Agreement. The threat of legal retaliation is daunting enough to keep workers from coming forward with stories of abuse. These NDAs have become commonplace in many industries. Harvard Business Review has estimated that over one third of the U.S. workforce is bound by NDAs. These NDAs not only appear in settlements after a victim of sexual harassment has raised their voice, but also have become routinely included in standard employment contracts that are used at the time of hiring. NDAs are being signed at the start of employment, prior to any abuse that occurs. NDAs are intended to provide confidentiality and protection, especially with regard to corporate trade secrets. But they have increasingly been misused to protect power dynamics that enable abusers to continue their dangerous and disgusting behavior. One in 3 women has faced sexual harassment in the workplace during her career. An estimated 87 to 94 percent of women who experience sexual harassment never file a formal complaint. The reality is that many of these women have no voice because the system rewards male manipulators and penalizes women who challenge the status quo. This amounts to institutionalized abuse. The Speak Out Act can change this reality. The Speak Out Act would prevent employers from enforcing nondisclosure or non-disparagement agreements (NDAs) in instances when employees and workers report sexual misconduct. In the wake of the #MeToo and #TimesUp movements, our country has become acutely aware that men in power frequently leverage that power abusively to exploit women. Sexual abuse and harassment can destroy a victim's financial security, mental health, and career path. By standing up for their rights, the women who have been subjected to abuse often become mired in a lengthy and costly lawsuit that drains their finances, imposes a heavy psychic toll, and impairs their future job prospects by creating a misimpression that they are disruptive workers. Women face a disturbing choice when sexually assaulted in the workplace: report the abuse publicly and face litigation, leave the company and abandon their income, or the choice that many are forced to make, put their heads down and pretend it did not happen. Passing The Speak Out Act would provide victims with a third option to pursue justice. It is time to amend the NDA system to strip the power from abusive employers and give it back to the employee.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank Lois Frankel, Cheri Bustos, the chairman, and chairmen of our subcommittees, from David Cicilline to Chairman Cohen, for the work that they have done. Let me agree with the gentleman from Kentucky in saying that it doesn't cost much. In fact, it doesn't cost much of anything as compared to the abuse that women have suffered for decades. Let me also agree with the gentleman that there are and is something called States' rights under the Tenth Amendment, but let me be very clear that women don't have to suffer life-or-death circumstances under the Constitution. I hold this book up for everybody to understand that this book does not require silence. This is not the Constitution of silence. This is not the Constitution of the 14th Amendment with equal protection of the law, yet as a woman you are silenced. It does not require due process, but you are silenced. Let me give you a fact. More than half of all employed women report experiencing sexual harassment or sexual assault while at work. As a result, there is a significant concern that NDAs are, in fact, abusive, to the extent that it breaks a woman to not be able to tell of her harassment, abuse, or her rape. Today, widespread sexual misconduct can be covered up by NDAs that are hiding the fine print that says, take it or leave it. When you have that, what you have is a circumstance where you are, in fact, promoting abuse and eliminating the power that women have and promoting the power that perpetrators have. I would like to be able to stand on the Constitution that says to create a more perfect Union. This legislation does not allow the fine print, doesn't allow or make you sign an NDA before there is even an issue or a case that has arisen, and more importantly, I think it saves lives and future women from sexual assault and rape. We know that Harvey Weinstein had this tool that was used over and over again. Employment contracts at his company included strict NDAs, which prevented survivors from coming forward with their stories. I know that that is not the workplace that you want your daughters to go into, as our young women leave and begin to work from colleges, but also the women who work as factory workers, secretaries, and waitresses. Those used to be the jobs that people would look down on and say: Oh, we know why they are in those jobs. No, they were in those jobs so they could support their family, being a single parent, raising up their children. I know those women every day. Busdrivers, schoolbus drivers getting minimum wage, but they encountered those conditions just as you would encounter them in the major corporations. I am rising to support S. 4524, the Speak Out Act, and ask whether or not if you are a believer of the Constitution, where in it it says that you must be silenced, your due process is silenced, the 14th Amendment equal protection of the law is silenced.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1464, the rule providing for consideration of S. 4524, The Speak Out Act. I commend you and Rules Committee Chairman McGovern for providing this rule to allow The Speak Out Act to be brought before us for debate and a vote, as it reflects our priorities for the American people. Our Democratic Party Caucus deeply believes in women's rights, from reproductive rights to workplace rights, including the right to engage in one's career without being subjected to sexual harassment or abuse that impairs lives and livelihoods. By bringing this rule to the House, and allowing consideration of The Speak Out Act, our leadership emphatically asserts that women's rights are American rights; that the right to be treated with dignity and respect in the workplace is a priority of Democrats, and that those rights must not be deterred. The Speak Out Act would limit the judicial enforceability of predispute nondisclosure and nondisparagement contract clauses relating to disputes involving sexual assault and sexual harassment. This bill is critical to ending the culture of silence that quiets the voices of survivors of sexual harassment. Ending the cycle of abuse starts with eliminating the power that perpetrators have over their victims. Currently, companies can sue workers for breaking an NDA. The threat of legal retaliation is daunting enough to keep workers from coming forward with stories of abuse. These NDAs have become commonplace in many industries. Harvard Business Review has estimated that over one third of the U.S. workforce is bound by NDAs. These NDAs not only appear in settlements after a victim of sexual harassment has raised their voice, but also have become routinely included in standard employment contracts that are used at the time of hiring. Typically, NDAs work to provide confidentiality and protection, but they have increasingly been used to protect power dynamics that enable abusers to continue their dangerous and disgusting behavior. One in 3 women has faced sexual harassment in the workplace during her career, and an estimated 87 to 94 percent of those who experience sexual harassment never file a formal complaint. The reality is that many of these women have no voice because the system rewards male manipulators and penalizes women who challenge the status quo. This is institutionalized abuse. The Speak Out Act can change this reality by preventing employers from enforcing nondisclosure or non-disparagement agreements (NDAs) in instance's when employees and workers report sexual misconduct. In the wake of the #MeToo and #TimesUp movements, our country has become acutely aware that men in power frequently leverage that power abusively to exploit women. Sexual abuse and harassment can destroy a victim's financial security, mental health, and career path. By standing up for their rights, the women who have been subjected to abuse often become mired in a lengthy and costly lawsuit that drains their finances, imposes a heavy psychic toll, and impairs their future job prospects by creating a misimpression that they are disruptive workers. Women face a disturbing choice when sexually assaulted in the workplace: report the abuse publicly and face litigation, leave the company and abandon their income, or the choice that many are forced to make, put their heads down and pretend it did not happen. Passing this rule to allow consideration of The Speak Out Act aims to provide victims with a third option to pursue justice. It is time to amend the NDA system to strip the power from abusive employers and give it back to the employee.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise for a series of issues that I think are important. First of all, two simple words, thank you, to all of the election officials in all 50 States, the bulk of whom worked unceasingly to ensure that the votes of the American people would be answered, counted, and respected. Let me also say how important it is in this moment that we recognize the responsibilities of the Federal Government to raise the debt ceiling, not for itself, but to ensure the stability and security and protection of the American people. Medicare, Social Security, defense, all of these issues fall under the debt ceiling. Not recklessly, but rightly, we should do that. I say to the Federal Reserve, stop raising the interest rates. You are negatively impacting the consumer who is trying to stand up on their feet. That is important. Finally, I say, we should pass H.R. 40, the Commission to Study and Develop Reparations Proposals for African Americans Act. What is it about? Reconciliation, restoration, recognizing the history of enslaved Africans, and recognizes the unequal distribution of wealth to ensure that there is a recognition of dealing with the disparities in education, disparities in housing, disparities in social issues. I believe we can work together. Let us come together on these issues that I have mentioned. That is what America is all about.