Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank my good friend. I will take 15 seconds. You can't provide for the doctors if you don't provide an increase in the debt ceiling. You know that. We have to pay our bills, and paying the doctors and making sure that they are protected includes doing the action that we are doing. Join us in doing that.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the Chairwoman and all of the very important people on the Appropriations Committee for their work on this bill. I ask the question, what side do you want to be on? Do you want to be on the side that provides our hardworking military pay raises for the troops, to be able to get money away from a misdirected war? Do you want to be on the side that provides for working families? Do you want to be on the side that stops those who can't pay for daycare to have that? Do you want to be on the side of those who say, ``I am a Federal employee, and I have been shut out of my job''? What side do you want to be on? I want to be on the side of negotiating an omnibus that works for the American people. I want my Republican friends to know that we have tried to negotiate, but we are adults and we are not going to let this government shut down. What we are going to do is recognize these are dangerous times. We know that there is now an omicron variant. We are not going to play the antivaxxer game, we are not going to say that it is about vaccine mandates because we know that most of the Federal Government has been vaccinated; but what we are going to do is extend this resolution to keep the government open because the side that Democrats are on is the side of the American people and our government workers who go out and work every day and the families who go out and work every day.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. A shutdown would induce furloughs that could hit 62 percent of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, right in the middle of COVID-19. In addition, families would be desperate as well. I want you to understand that veterans would suffer. During the Thanksgiving holiday, I went to the veterans hospital. I can tell you, it is not empty. Veterans are there every day, and when they are there, they are getting services. Do you want to be part of a government shutdown where veterans hospitals are closed and veterans are standing outside with their hand asking what is happening? I want to be on the side of those who understand the value of working for the American families and doing what Democrats have done, passing bills, passing laws that serve the American people. Vote for the CR and vote for the omnibus so that we can get the job done. I thank the gentlewoman for her courtesies. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary, on Homeland Security, and on the Budget, I rise in support of H.R. 6119, the ``Further Extending Government Funding Act,'' which provides funding to continue the operations of the federal government through February 18, 2022, and avoids a wasteful and irresponsible shutdown, and also the underlying bill. House Democrats passed government funding bills to create good paying jobs, support the hard-working middle class, and protect our national security; Senate Democrats have also released all their appropriations bills. Without an omnibus, there will be a shortfall that will cause veterans not to receive their benefits in full. For our national security, we need an omnibus to support defense readiness and modernization, sustain good-paying American jobs, secure our cyber infrastructure, and strengthen American leadership abroad. Without an omnibus, a pay raise for troops will not be funded while funds will be misdirected to a war we are no longer fighting. With a new deadline of February 18, we need Republicans to offer constructive proposals to address the critical issues facing the country by funding the federal government's important work for the American people. Madam Speaker, I need not remind my colleagues that we are at a critical point in the fight against this pandemic--less than 24 hours ago, it was reported that the first case of the Omicron variant was confirmed in the United States. Our response in the following days and weeks will be crucial. Yet some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the House and the Senate have indicated that they intend to block the passage of this stopgap spending bill in order to trigger a shutdown of the Federal government unless a bill is passed that undoes President Biden's initiatives to vaccinate and test employees at large companies. Simply put, this is irresponsible and dangerous at a time when we have a new threat on our soil in the form of the Omicron variant. A government shutdown would induce furloughs that could hit 62 percent of employees at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. It would be nothing other than reckless to hamstring the agency at the center of America's fight against the COVID-19 pandemic at this time--we need all hands on deck. In September, Congress voted on a bipartisan basis to extend government funding through December 3 to allow time for bicameral, bipartisan negotiations to complete omnibus government funding legislation. Since then, House and Senate Republicans have refused to negotiate with Democrats on government funding. In fact, while House and Senate Democrats have put forward their proposals, Republicans have not presented an offer of their own. Therefore, the Appropriations Committee introduced H.R. 6119, the Further Extending Government Funding Act, which continues government funding at current levels through February 18. It makes minimal changes to address the most urgent of needs during the period of the Continuing Resolution. Although this bill is necessary, working families, small businesses, veterans, and our military need the certainty that comes with passing an omnibus as opposed to short-term funding patches. Republicans must join us for bipartisan, bicameral negotiations to resolve our differences and keep government working for the people. For our communities, we need an omnibus to create jobs by supporting small businesses, bolster our public health infrastructure to prevent future pandemics and medical research to save lives, strengthen public schools with a focus on those serving students with the highest need, protect our air and water through environmental protection and enforcement efforts, combat the opioid epidemic on the ground in our communities, and support core services such as food safety and consumer product inspections. Without an omnibus, investments in all these areas will be denied. For our veterans, we need an omnibus to provide sufficient funding for veterans' benefits, reduce backlogs for veterans and their families seeking assistance, and meet the needs of the VA's health care system. Throughout the 117th Congress, House Democrats have worked to deliver results for the American people, passing legislation to address each pillar of the ``For The People'' agenda: lower health care costs, higher wages by rebuilding America, and cleaning up corruption and strengthening our Democracy. And under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, the House has passed hundreds of bills, including legislation to crush the COVID-19 pandemic, build our economy back better, lower health care and prescription drug prices, raise wages, advance economic and retirement security, end gun violence, act on the climate crisis, protect Dreamers, and strengthen voting rights. For example, in this Congress the House has passed and sent to the President the following legislation that has been signed into law: H.R. 1799, Paycheck Protection Program Extension Act: This legislation extended the Paycheck Protection Program application deadline for two months through May 31, 2021 to help struggling businesses keep workers employed during COVID-19. H.R. 1276, SAVE LIVES Act: This law ensured that more veterans, their families, and caregivers got access to COVID-19 vaccines in a timely manner. S. 937, COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act: This law addresses the dramatic increase in hate crimes targeting the AAPI community since the start of the pandemic. This law designates a point person at the Department of Justice to review hate crimes related to the COVID-19 pandemic, bolsters state and local governments to improve their reporting of hate crimes and ensures that hate crime information is more accessible to Asian-American communities. S. 475, Juneteenth National Independence Day Act: This law established the first federal holiday in 38 years to formally recognize Juneteenth National Independence Day and commemorate the end of slavery in the United States. House Democrats have also worked to advance critical pieces of legislation, which await action in the Senate: H.R. 1, For The People Act: This comprehensive legislation would promote government transparency, strengthen access to the ballot box and make it easier for Americans to exercise their right to vote, secure election infrastructure, and curb the influence of dark money in politics. H.R. 5, Equality Act: The Equality Act would codify consistent anti-discrimination legal protections for LGBTQ Americans by amending several existing civil rights laws to include explicit non-discrimination protections in key areas of life. H.R. 6, Dream and Promise Act: The Dream and Promise Act would protect Dreamers, Temporary Protected Status (TPS), and Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) status holders from deportation and provide an opportunity to obtain permanent legal status that would enable these groups to work legally within the United States and continue to contribute to their local communities and economy. H.R. 7, Paycheck Fairness Act: This bill would strengthen labor protections around equal pay by prohibiting the use of salary history to set compensation, provide more transparent options for joining class-action lawsuits challenging systemic discrimination, and require employers to show that gender pay gaps are job-related and consistent with business need. H.R. 8, Bipartisan Background Checks Act and H.R. 1446, the Enhanced Background Checks Act: These bills would modernize federal laws around gun sales. The former would close current loopholes that allow buyers to purchase guns without a background check in certain venues, while the latter would prevent gun sales from going through before background checks are completed. H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act: This bill, which House Democrats also passed in the 116th Congress 30 days after the murder of George Floyd, will address racial bias in policing, ensure accountability for police brutality and misconduct, and work to change the culture of law enforcement to promote better relationships with the communities they serve. H.R. 842, Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act: This bill aims to strengthen labor protections for union workers through overriding Republican-led ``right to work'' laws, promoting free and fair union elections, and holding companies that attempt to restrict union activity accountable. H.J. Res. 17, Removing the Deadline for Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment: This resolution would remove the deadline for ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment in order to enshrine women's equality in the Constitution. H.R. 1620, Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act: This long-overdue legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act passed the House with bipartisan support. It would reauthorize funding to vital grant programs that help prevent sexual assault, domestic violence, and improve access to resources for victims and survivors. H.R. 3237, the Emergency Security Supplemental to Respond to 1/6 Appropriations Act: This bill provides $1.9 billion in funding to secure the U.S. Capitol Complex and ensure the brave men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police have the resources they need to do their jobs. The legislation responds to the direct costs incurred by the National Guard and DC police on January 6, provides funding to improve the security of windows and doors in the Capitol complex, and secures funds to improve Capitol Police training and equipment. H.R. 3005, Legislation to #RemoveHate from the Capitol Building: This bill would remove statues of those who perpetuated and supported slavery and segregation in this country, along with statues or busts of those who served voluntarily in the Confederate States of America, from public display in the U.S. Capitol. H.R. 1603, the Farm Workforce Modernization Act: This bipartisan bill would stabilize the agriculture industry's labor supply by reforming the H-2A guest worker program and creating a pathway to citizenship for agricultural workers, many of whom worked through the pandemic. H.R. 51, the Washington, DC Admission Act: This bill would admit Washington, DC as the 51st state in the Union and end the injustice in denying nearly 700,000 citizens the right to be represented fully in Congress. It would also end the unjust practice of treating District of Columbia residents differently when allocating government resources or relief. H.R. 3985, ALLIES Act: This bill would increase the visa cap and expedite the visa process for Afghan allies who worked alongside American military personnel, diplomats, development professionals, and partner forces, to help ensure they make it safely out of harm's way. H.R. 803, Protecting America's Wildness and Public Lands Act: This comprehensive bill would conserve and protect natural landscapes across America, designating over 1.5 million acres of public land as protected wilderness and withdrawing significant amount of public land from drilling and mining activities to promote a healthier environment. H.R. 2467, the PFAS Action Act: This bipartisan bill would improve the safety of Americans' drinking water by requiring the EPA to set a drinking water standard, prevent the future release of PFAS chemicals into our bodies of water, and start the process of cleaning up affected communities. H.R. 256, Repeal of the 2002 AUMF Against Iraq: This bill, which passed with bipartisan support, would repeal the 2002 Authorization of Military Force Against Iraq. H.R. 1230, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act: The bipartisan Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act restores protections for older workers that were weakened in a 2009 Supreme Court ruling that made it harder for older workers to prove age based discrimination in the workplace. H.R. 2662, the Inspectors-General Independence and Empowerment Act: This bill seeks to promote government transparency and accountability by ensuring the independence of federal inspectors-general, allowing government watchdogs to act freely without fear of political pressure or threats. It would also protect whistleblowers from threats of retaliation by making it a violation of House rules for Members to reveal their identities. In addition, three Congressional Review Act resolutions have been signed into law, overturning dangerous rules put in place by the Trump Administration: S.J. Res 13, a CRA overturning an EEOC rule to address discrimination in the workplace; S.J. Res. 14, a CRA addressing dangerous methane emissions; and S.J. Res. 15, a CRA to protect against predatory lenders. These along with many, many others are among the bills awaiting Senate action. Madam Speaker, let me briefly list several of the programs vital to Americans that are protected or extended by H.R. 6119. The bill: Provides waiver language for certain intelligence programs as well as agencies that operate under the State Department Basic Authorities Act and Foreign Relations Authorization Act; Allows the Food and Nutrition Service to spend at a higher rate during the period covered by the legislation to provide supplemental USDA foods to low-income seniors (age 60 and over) and to some low- income women, infants and children up to age six. Allows a higher spending rate for the White House to support continuing COVID-19 operations. Allows the Small Business Administration flexibility to spend at the rate necessary to accommodate potential demand increases for commitments for business loans through the 7(a) and 504 business loans, for the Secondary Market Guarantee Program, and for the Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) program. Allows District of Columbia voucher schools an additional year to be accredited and therefore remain in the program. The accrediting process requires in-school visits, which are not happening during the coronavirus. Allows the District of Columbia to spend FY 2021 funds received from local tax revenues and other non-Federal sources in the amount and for the programs and activities provided in DC's FY 2021 Budget Act. Extends the term of certain bankruptcy judgeships. Allows the Federal Emergency Management Agency to access the entire DRF appropriation for fiscal year 2021 under the continuing resolution as necessary to respond to declared disasters. Continues the authorization for the NFIP. Extends funding for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program and the Child Care Entitlement to States program during the period of the continuing resolution. The extension will allow HHS to make first-quarter payments to States. Extends the availability of funding for multiyear research grants supported by the National Institutes of Health that were interrupted in fiscal year 2020 by COVID-19 and would have expired at the end of the fiscal year. Madam Speaker, our colleagues across the aisle have in both chambers have been obstructive, dilatory, petulantly uncooperative throughout the first session of the 117th Congress. Nowhere was this more apparent than the refusal of the majority of J Republican members in the House voted 175-35 against H.R. 3233, legislation modeled after the 9/11 Commission establishing a National Commission to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol Complex Act. Madam Speaker, American families do not get to choose which bills to pay and which ones to ignore; neither can the United States Congress without putting the nation into default for the first time in its history. Long ago, in 1789, Alexander Hamilton, the nation's first and greatest Treasury Secretary, understood that the path to American prosperity and greatness lay in its creditworthiness which provided the affordable access to capital needed to fund internal improvements and economic growth. The nation's creditworthiness was one of its most important national assets and according to Hamilton: ``the proper funding of the present debt, will render it a national blessing.'' But to maintain this blessing, or to ``render public credit immortal,'' Hamilton understood that it was necessary that: ``the creation of debt should always be accompanied with the means of extinguishment.'' In other words, to retain and enjoy the prosperity that flows from good credit, it is necessary for a nation to pay its bills. To preserve the sanctity of the full faith and credit of the United States, protect American jobs and businesses of all sizes, and ensure the continued growth of the economy, I strongly support the provision in the bill before extending the public debt limit to December 16, 2021. Madam Speaker, I would also like to discuss an important topic that is closely related to this bill and that this House must address very soon--raising the debt ceiling. Preserving the full faith and credit of the United States by raising to the debt limit to ensure that America pays the bills for past expenditures when they come due is not a partisan exercise but an act of patriotism, a recognition and embrace of the solemn obligation to preserve the unrivaled advantages that flow from the ability provided in the Article I, Section 8, clause 2 of the Constitution to ``borrow money on the credit of the United States.'' Long ago, in 1789, Alexander Hamilton, the nation's first and greatest Treasury Secretary, understood that the path to American prosperity and greatness lay in its creditworthiness which provided the affordable access to capital needed to fund internal improvements and economic growth. It is because of the existence and wise use of the Borrowing Power that the nation was able to expand its reaches, resources, and riches by financing the Louisiana Purchase, the purchase of Alaska from Russia, to fund the investments to end the Great Depression, to finance the mobilization of resources needed in World War II to defeat fascism and save freedom in the nation and the world, to revive the economy after the catastrophic Great Recession of 2008, and most recently, to protect the public health and safety and restore the economy during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is why the ability to borrow money on the credit of the United States to finance its growth and protect its people and interests is essential to the national security and led Hamilton to proclaim that ``the proper funding of the present debt, will render it a national blessing.'' But to maintain this blessing, or to ``render public credit immortal,'' Hamilton understood that it was necessary that: ``the creation of debt should always be accompanied with the means of extinguishment.'' In other words, to retain and enjoy the prosperity that flows from good credit, it is necessary for a nation to pay its bills. The United States has never defaulted on the payment of any debt incurred, and because of the size and strength of its economic and unmatched creditworthiness, is able to borrow on the lowest and most favorable terms of any nation or entity in the history of the world. So secure and reliable is a bond issues by the Department of Treasury that the Unites States is the preferred haven for investments of foreign governments, corporations, and sovereign wealth funds. The interest rate charged the federal government of the United States is the base for which every rate, from the prime rate charged the richest corporation to rates charged small business on purchases to the mortgages rates and students loans taken out by consumers. If you raise the cost of borrowing for the government of the United States, you set off a chain reaction of increased interest rates for every other borrower in the United States and around the world. This is why leading public finance experts and agencies, like Moody's Chief Economist Mark Zandi, have said it would be ``cataclysmic'' for the United States to default on its loan obligations. Republicans know the debt ceiling needs to be raised; in 2019 during the Trump Administration, the Republican Senate Majority Leader marshalled Senate Republicans to vote to raise the debt ceiling, saying: ``We raised the debt ceiling because America can't default[,] that would be a disaster.'' Madam Speaker, this debate over extending the debt limit is not about restraining future spending, it is about paying the bills piled up already under both Republican and Democratic administrations. The question of raising the national debt limit does not depend on how one feels about the Build Back Better agenda, as wildly popular as it is among all Americans, Democrats, Independents, and Republicans included. It is instead about preserving the singular asset of the United States, its enviable and unrivaled creditworthiness, to finance future investments beneficial to the national interest, like the provision of free college for two years, or $2 billion investment to reduce violence in communities approved by the Committee on the Judiciary, or investments to preserve and strengthen Medicaid expansion programs, or extend broadband to underserved rural and urban areas, an action that will be as life-changing as the rural electrification program was in the 1930s. Madam Speaker, if our friends across the aisle really want to shrink the deficit, reduce the national debt, practice fiscal responsibility, and bring about sustained economic growth and prosperity, there is a much better, easier, and more certain way to achieve these goals than by tampering with the U.S. Constitution. The easier and better way is for the American people to keep a Democrat in the White House and place Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. In the 1990s under the leadership of President Clinton the budget was balanced for four consecutive years, the national debt was paid down, the national debt, 23 million new jobs were created, and projected surpluses exceeded $5 trillion. Under President Obama the financial crisis and economic meltdown inherited from his Republican predecessor was ended, the annual deficit was reduced by 67 percent, the auto industry was saved from collapse, and 15 million jobs were created. In contrast, under every Republican administration since President Reagan the size of the deficit bequeathed to his successor was substantially larger than the deficit he inherited, a major economic recession occurred, and economic growth was lower than it was at the beginning of his administration. To preserve the sanctity of the full faith and credit of the United States, protect American jobs and businesses of all sizes, and ensure the continued growth of the economy, raised.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I have been here since the Columbine tragedy, which is more than 20 years ago. I have faced a mountain of tragedies in schools with children dying at the hands of guns. I offer my deepest sympathy for the loss of the beautiful, precious people in Michigan. I think a simple addition to this whole idea of the gun safety discussion--I intend to introduce a bill that is in tribute to Kimberly Vaughan who died in Santa Fe at the hands of a young gunman. I want to just simply say, Store your guns. This storage act in honor of her name responds to the tragedy that just happened as well because it requires manufacturers and retailers to sell guns with storage safety devices to ensure that those penalties for not doing so are ahead of the loss of life; providing tax credits for those who do that; and as well, providing grants for more information about safety devices. We have to do whatever we can to save the lives of our children.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for both his leadership and his inspiration. He obviously cares. That is why he is on the floor tonight. I think that is the point that I want to make. It looks as if we are lonely on this floor tonight. It looks as if we are in the eve of the day's work. It looks as if we could be somewhere else. I can tell you, being from a district in Houston that is surrounded by universities, and I know that I will get someone in trouble for trying to call the roll of the universities around the 18th Congressional District, like the historic Texas Southern University, University of Houston, University of St. Thomas, Houston Baptist University, Lone Star College, Houston Community College, and San Jacinto College. I know someone is texting me right now. But I am full of college students, all of them working very hard. I thought I would bring to the floor today the Constitution. I love the words of the Declaration of Independence, the opening words, that we are all created equal with certain inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Does that mean the students that are right now struggling to make ends meet--I think of that famous noodle meal that they eat because they just don't have the money to survive--does that mean that one person, that is still the first person to go to college, in 2021, the single mother that has made it to 20-something hours, has to drop out? America has always said that the American Dream is defined singularly by your presence here in the United States. Yet, we are finding that State and Federal policymakers are ignoring the $1,730,000,000 plus of national student debt and that one-sixth of the American people, 47,900,000, about that number, are indebted to student debt. That is why we are here on the floor today, recognizing that it also is an imbalance. I thank Mr. Bowman, an educator, who has seen little babies grow up with little stars in their eyes. They can play a piano or they can play an instrument or he sees them playing on the field of recreation, and they are little scientists, scholars, but yet the hopes and dreams of the opportunity is somewhat denied. Black families must take on more debt for the same degree as White students and often need to get several degrees in order to be in the middle class. The burden of student debt reaches deep into communities of color. Increasing evidence suggests that it is hampering the ability to build wealth. One of the reasons my good friend and myself are also interested in the idea of the commission to study slavery and develop reparation proposals is to get a roadmap of some of the populations that are impacted negatively by student debt. Default and delinquency rates on student loans remain appallingly high. 3.6 million students are in the State of Texas. The Nation carries $1.7 trillion debt, and we know that 79 percent of Black students had student loan debt by their fourth year. We know it impacts our Latinx families and families that come from rural communities. We are concerned about them. I hold in my hand the Constitution, as I said. I don't know how many students have time to even look in that direction, but I will tell them that the Founding Fathers, although not perfect, said that they came together to create a more perfect Union. And what does that mean? I think it means, give us hope, give us a lifeline, let us breathe, and let us be able to buy the things that will help our families. Let us not, as a Black male borrower, default on loans within 12 years of beginning school. This, of course, covers the gamut of all of America. It is not just the issue of people of color. It impacts older borrowers, 60 and older, whose numbers swelled from 700,000 in 2005 to 2.8 million in 2018. Their debt load was $8.2 billion. Can you imagine being 60 and older and still paying debt? I came here to the floor tonight because I have wanted to join the gentleman for people to see that in spite of the fact that we are here at a moment into the evening, we care about getting this done. It must be the Congress and the administration that takes ahold of this and determines that people who are now struggling to pay mortgages, to survive, to feed children, we hope the Build Back Better bill will be a lifeline, but right now we have got to deal with people who wanted to do right and are suffering. I want to close on this note: To create a more perfect Union, the Constitution guarantees me that. The Declaration of Independence says that this Nation was created to ensure the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And I want to say to those who have gained student debt but never completed their degree, they are not in any way bad people, defaulters, deadbeats; no, they are not. The Constitution applies to all. But they are people who are working in jobs just to survive. They wanted to finish school, but they were so overloaded; maybe they had to leave to take care of a sick mother or a sick father or maybe they had to leave to take care of younger brothers and sisters. I know those stories. But maybe they are now back in school struggling to just try to get that degree. Let's give them hope. Let's give them dignity. Let's help them with that default and turn it into success. Let's join in--Congressman, thank you--to cancel student loan debt. And we are not frivolous, big spenders. We are trying to put people on the right track so that they can contribute to this great economy and be givers, givers for what is good in America. I hope we can get the job done.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3531, the ``Women Who Worked on the Home Front World War II Memorial Act.'' I would first like to thank my colleague, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, for introducing this important legislation to honor these women. This bill authorizes the Women Who Worked on the Home Front Foundation to establish a commemorative work on federal land in the District of Columbia in commemoration of the commitment and service represented by women who worked on the home front during World War II. This important legislation would authorize a memorial in honor of these women and their service to our nation, right here in the Nation's capital. During World War II, over 18 million American women kept the home front running in support of the country's overall war effort. Not only did they give their sons, husbands, fathers, and brothers to the war effort, they gave their time, energy, labor, and some even gave their lives. Beyond providing support for their children at home and men at war, the committed women on the home front stepped forward to assume the work and duties needed to keep the country running, most of these jobs were not available to women before the war. Between 1940 and 1945, the age of ``Rosie the Riveter,'' the percentage of women in the U.S. workforce increased from 27 percent to nearly 37 percent, and by 1945, nearly one out of every four married women worked outside the home. World War II opened the door for women to work in more types of jobs than ever before. These women were not only instrumental to the war effort, but they showed the country and the world what women were capable of, fundamentally changing the path for future generations of women. Eisenhower himself said, ``The contribution of the women of America, whether on the farm or in the factory or in uniform, to D-Day was a sine qua non [or necessary for] . . . the invasion effort.'' These women were fundamental to our defeat of the Axis Powers, and I fully support this legislation's passage to honor their valiant efforts.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in proud support of H.R. 4706, ``The Blackwell School National Historic Site Act.'' I would like to thank Congressman Tony Gonzales for introducing this bill. This bill would establish Blackwell School National Historic Site as a unit of the National Park System when the Secretary of the Interior enters into a written agreement with the Marfa Unified School District for donation or co-management of the site and acquires sufficient lands within the boundaries of the national historic site to constitute a manageable unit. The NPS would be required to develop a management plan for the site no later than 3 years after the date on which funds are first made available for this purpose. The bill also directs the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements with the Blackwell School Alliance (and other partners) for interpretive and educational programming, technical assistance, and rehabilitation for the site. The Blackwell School operated in Marfa, Texas, as a segregated school for children of Mexican descent from 1909 until Marfa schools were integrated in 1965. Yet this is much more than just a local story. The original historic school building, and grounds on which it stands, provide an authentic setting to commemorate and interpret a time when ``separate but equal'' dominated our culture in ways currently unknown, and essential to understanding the American experience. The Blackwell School Alliance has been working 15 years to preserve the stories, legacy, and buildings associated with the Blackwell School. We have partnered with many universities, state agencies, private foundations, individuals, and the City of Marfa to document and promote this important piece of Marfa history. This park would not only have an emotional impact, but it would also help preserve key history for the people of Marfa, Texas.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, the Federal Government is an umbrella on a rainy day. So the context of my remarks today will be about criminal justice issues and the unequal results that have come about through State laws. Let me say that the juries have spoken in two important cases. As a trained lawyer I will say it again: The jury has spoken. But it does not mean that I have to accept in one instance the ultimate decision based upon the context of that trial and all of the trappings: The judge, the prosecutors, the defense, and the law. So let me begin very briefly. What is self-defense? It is a legal justification for the otherwise illegal use of force. You have killed someone in most instances. In the instance of self- defense that results in a death, although an unlawful killing did occur, it is considered a justified killing. Do you know how many lives are lost, particularly people of color, by being defined as a justified killing? To succeed on self-defense grounds, an unprovoked attack, the killer was not the aggressor, the killer reasonably believed that they were in imminent danger, the use of force was reasonable. This duty also requires the individual claiming self-defense to retreat prior to using deadly force. In the wake of Kyle Rittenhouse's behavior, two men are dead, and they have families. Joseph Rosenbaum, 36; Anthony Huber, 26. Their families are hurting. And then one was drastically injured; Gaige Grosskreutz was drastically injured. And yet we find the self-defense law was used for the alleged interpretation of justifiable homicide. Shameful. The law needs to be reviewed. Someone said: Was he not even guilty of a traffic ticket? Could you frame the case, Madam Speaker, in a young person who left their home and secured an AK-47? The representation is that I came to protect. Then why wasn't the question asked to the young man: Did you not land in the midst of protests? Did you not head directly to where the police were? Or did you surround yourself where protesters under the First Amendment had a right in this instance to be angry and agitated but nonviolent? They were unarmed. So if your reasoning was to go to protect, then go to the protectors. That was not the case. This was a false narrative ill-conceived. And although 17 or 18, he had the wherewithal and should have been held accountable for not going to where he said he was going to go. The prosecutor in the Ahmaud Arbery case had it right. You can't come to provoke and then declare self-defense. That is what happened in the Rittenhouse case. Tragedy of the killing--of the shooting of Jacob Blake; those there were agitated, some might say rightly so. Some were there to do other things. But the real issue was: Did they deserve to die? Was this gentleman anywhere near police? No. He came to provoke and then claimed self-defense. I believe there should be a Federal review of self-defense laws across America, and I will share with you why: Because Anthony Huber is dead, because Joseph Rosenbaum is dead, and because Gaige is severely injured. But yet this is supposed to be the picture of someone who only came to help. He didn't get to the party of police that were down the street technically. He didn't make a beeline--as some of our parents would say, make a beeline for home. He didn't make a beeline to get to right where the police were and get instructions from the police. He was in the midst of those who rightfully could be protesting with some dispute as to what they might have been doing, but that was the charge of law enforcement. To my knowledge, that night law enforcement did not kill anyone, and ultimately the protesters left the area. Self-defense laws across America need to be reviewed because too many people are dying under this false premise that everybody can use self- defense. What about the castle doctrine? That is an expansion of self-defense both statutory and common law, in which removes the duty to retreat for self-defense on individuals inside their home. This principle has been codified and expanded by the majority of State legislatures in a variety of ways. However, the boyfriend of Breonna Taylor who was defending her and the home was arrested, an African American. These laws need to be reviewed. They are State laws, but they are unequally applied. Enough is enough. Stand your ground laws. Stand your ground laws are an extension of the castle doctrine to areas outside of an individual's home such that there is no duty to retreat for self-defense. The name is derived from statutory language found in several States. This results in the imbalance, if you will, of justice. Racial disparities are much larger as White on Black homicides have justifiable findings; 33 percentage points more often than Black on White homicides. So as Whites--as the father and son thought that they could kill Ahmaud Arbery, they were hoping for the odds that they would be found not guilty because they killed a Black man and they claimed self-defense. Stand your ground laws appear to exacerbate those differences as cases overall are significantly more likely to be ruled justified in stand your ground States than non-stand your ground States. We will talk about one of the most notorious cases. With respect to race controlling for all other attributes, the odds a White-on-Black homicide is found justified in 281 percent greater than the odds of a White-on-White homicide is found justified. So if you happen to be White and kill a Black person, 281 percent of the time you are innocent. You are innocent. By contrast, a Black-on-White homicide has barely half the odds of being ruled justifiable relative to White on White homicides. Let me be very clear. I want all lives to be saved. I want Black lives to be noticed and known and matter. I want to make sure that the justice system is fair. Justice should have no color. The scales of justice, Lady Justice, that is what the Judiciary Committee has been advocating and working for the decades that I have had the privilege of serving. Statistically Black-on-Black homicides have the same odds of being ruled justifiable as White-on-White. White men are more likely to successfully invoke the use of stand your ground laws for their defense after shooting than Black Americans or women, especially Black women. Nationally the likelihood of a homicide being ruled justified is 281 percent greater than when the defendant is White and the victim is Black. Need for Federal intervention and review. In contrast, the likelihood of a homicide being ruled justified when the defendant is Black and the victim is White is 49 percent lower compared to cases where both the defendant and victim are White. In 68 percent, according to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, of successful stand your ground law claims in Florida, the person was unarmed. Let me quickly move to these cases. As I do so, let me add to my discussion, and that is the citizen's arrest, the citizen's arrest law that was used by the defendants in the Ahmaud Arbery case. And let me offer my sympathy to those killed by Mr. Rittenhouse and to the family of Mr. Arbery. Let me give sympathy to the families of Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber because their loved ones are dead. But in this case of, one has always said, a praying mother, a praying family, the citizen's arrest law cited in Arbery's case dates back to the Civil War. This case that was used, as the prosecutor indicated, was a Civil War-era State law to justify the killing. Since 1863, Georgia has allowed its residents to arrest one another if they witnessed a crime and the police were not around. Similar laws have existed in nearly every State. The citizen's arrest laws in Georgia in 1863 were utilized on the pretense of getting freed slaves. They were free. But by their color, there were those who said: You are not free. I am arresting you. You are violating the law. You escaped. How horrible to have this kind of bounty. I include in the Record an article from The New York Times, ``The Citizen's Arrest Law Cited in Arbery's Killing Dates Back to the Civil War.'' [From New York Times, May 13, 2020] The Citizen's Arrest Law Cited in Arbery's Killing Dates Back to the Civil War After Ahmaud Arbery was shot dead by two white men on a quiet residential road in coastal Georgia, a prosecutor cited a Civil War era state law to justify the killing. The same law was invoked last year in suburban Atlanta after a white woman chased down a black man who left the scene of a car accident and killed him after starting a confrontation. Since 1863, Georgia has allowed its residents to arrest one another--if they have witnessed a crime and the police are not around. Similar laws exist in nearly every state, and have been raised in courtrooms over the decades to account for actions in a range of criminal cases, including assaults and murders. But after Mr. Arbery's death, a growing chorus of critics are calling for the laws to be repealed. They say the laws are outdated, relics of the Wild West, and are ripe for abuse by untrained civilians in an age in which 911 is widely available and police response times are generally within minutes. Like ``stand your ground'' and ``castle doctrine'' laws that allow people to use force to protect themselves or their homes--as in the case of a neighborhood watch volunteer in Florida who shot to death Trayvon Martin in 2012--citizen's arrest statutes have generated considerable controversy and cries of racism. ``Namely, a member of the public doesn't know--and likely cannot understand--the nuances of citizen's arrest, particularly when it comes to the use of deadly force,'' Ira P. Robbins, a law professor at American University who wrote an academic paper on the issue, wrote in an email. ``That's why it is so dangerous for people to take the law into their own hands.'' Citizen's arrest laws date back to medieval times. Absent an organized police force, in the late 1200s, King Edward I needed help fighting crime. The legal concept carried over to the United States, when in the country's modern infancy, it could take days for a law enforcement agent to travel to a crime scene. The use of the law, while not altogether common, is generally less problematic in its more frequent use by shopkeepers detaining shoplifting suspects, for example, or by trained security guards and police officers operating outside their jurisdiction, Mr. Robbins wrote. Supporters of the law point to instances in which people who are committing crimes are thwarted and then held until the police arrive, such as muggers or shoplifters. They are relied upon by crime watch groups like the Guardian Angels to anti-immigrant patrols on the U.S.-Mexico border. Still, Dana Mulhauser, a former civil rights lawyer at the Department of Justice who now runs the conviction integrity unit in St. Louis County, said citizen's arrest laws had outlived themselves. ``These laws were created in a different time,'' she said. ``We are not in a time where we are lacking in police responsiveness in this country. You are asking for situations that cause trouble.'' In the case in suburban Atlanta, Hannah R. Payne, 22, is awaiting trial on murder charges for the shooting death of Kenneth E. Herring, a 62-year-old mechanic who left the scene of a fender bender last May. Ms. Payne, who was not involved in the crash, chased Mr. Herring in her Jeep. Witnesses told police in Clayton County, Ga., that Ms. Payne blocked Mr. Herring's truck, approached the open driver's-side window of his vehicle and punched him with her left hand as she pointed a 9-millimeter firearm with her right. A 911 dispatcher told her to stand down, but the police said the call recorded Ms. Payne's demands: ``Get out of the car,'' she yelled, using a vulgarity. A single shot was fired, and Mr. Herring stepped out of the truck and died. Ms. Payne, described by her lawyer as an ``all-American girl'' who ``thought she was helping out,'' is now facing a long prison term for a killing that shares eerie similarities to the shooting death of Mr. Arbery, who was killed in February after a father and son told the authorities they thought he was the suspect of a rash of recent break-ins in their neighborhood. ``When I saw that Arbery case, I thought, `Here we go again,' '' Mr. Herring's widow, Christine Herring, said in an interview. To Ms. Herring, people like the young woman who killed her husband feel empowered by the law to handle criminal matters on their own. A Georgia prosecutor, George E. Barnhill, cited the state's citizen's arrest law as the reason Gregory McMichael, 64, and his son, Travis McMichael, 34, should not be held responsible for Mr. Arbery's death. In a letter to the Glynn County Police Department, Mr. Barnhill, who eventually recused himself from the case, wrote that the men were in ``hot pursuit'' of Mr. Arbery, and that they had ``solid first hand probable cause'' that he was a ``burglary suspect.'' There is no evidence that Mr. Arbery had committed a burglary, and he was not armed when he was chased down. The McMichaels were arrested last week and charged with aggravated assault and murder, more than two months after the shooting death and after a different prosecutor asked the Georgia Bureau of Investigation for assistance. According to Mr. Robbins' research, some states do not allow citizen's arrest of misdemeanors unless the misdemeanor involves a ``breach of the peace.'' Others only allow citizens to make the arrest if they witnessed the crime themselves. The laws vary across the country regarding the level of probable cause that is required, and how long a person is allowed to detain someone. In Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, an arrest is allowed if a citizen personally witnesses a felony. California allows a citizen's arrest of a misdemeanor even if the person did not directly witness it. Statutes also differ on how certain the citizen has to be that the crime was committed, Mr. Robbins wrote. In Arkansas, the citizen can be ``reasonably sure,'' but in New York, if the felony was not actually committed, someone who wrongly takes a person into custody can wind up liable for false arrest. In Gary, Ind., last fall, a city councilman who apprehended a teenager he believed had stolen his car days earlier was charged with kidnapping. ``It can get messy,'' said Ronald L. Carlson, a law professor at the University of Georgia. ``A citizen who is being arrested is much less inclined to be cooperative if it's not somebody with a blue uniform on.'' In Georgia, the law states that a private person may arrest someone if a crime is committed in his presence or ``within his immediate knowledge.'' But if it is a felony, the citizen can stop someone from escaping if the citizen has ``reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.'' The current Georgia law is about a decade old, but versions of a nearly identical statute have existed in the state since 1863. In the Clayton County case, leaving the scene of an accident with no injuries is a misdemeanor, so Georgia law would not have authorized Ms. Payne to chase down Mr. Herring. Further, Mr. Herring initially stopped at the accident scene, but he apparently was having a diabetic episode and got back in his car and left, his wife said, so it was unclear whether he would have been charged with any crime at all. Ms. Payne and her lawyer, Matt Tucker, did not respond to requests for comment. At her bond hearing last year, Mr. Tucker said his client was ``not a menace to society as people want to portray her.'' ``She's a young individual that got on the phone with 911 and thought she was helping out,'' the Clayton News Daily quoted him saying. ``At her age, she learned a very valuable lesson.'' In the killing of Mr. Arbery, someone called 911 beforehand to say that a man was inside a house under construction. If that man was Mr. Arbery, and he was there without permission but stole nothing, then he could have been charged with trespassing, a misdemeanor, said Lawrence J. Zimmerman, the president of the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. That means, Mr. Zimmerman said, the men who went after him would not have been authorized to give chase. Force can only be used to prevent a violent felony, Mr. Zimmerman said, adding, ``What is not lawful is, you can't detain somebody and then use force.'' But a person making a citizen's arrest who is then attacked could try to claim self-defense, he said, as the McMichaels have claimed--although it would not necessarily be successful. On Tuesday, Georgia lawmakers said they would move forward with proposals to strip that protection from state law. ``The citizen's arrest has to be abolished in this state,'' State Representative James Beverly, a Democrat, said at a news conference in Brunswick on Tuesday. ``We can't have this happen again in this country and certainly not in the state of Georgia.'' Ms. Herring said she would love to see the law abolished. ``The law is protecting them for some reason,'' she said of those who had cited it as a defense. And of the woman accused of killing her husband, she added, ``What gives her the right? Let me tell you, she is not the police.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So the citizen's arrest laws should be very clear. The defendants were wrong. The case resulted in a conviction because the case says that you have to witness the crime, and they did not. I include in the Record an article titled ``Ahmaud Arbery and the case for getting rid of citizen's arrests.'' [From the Vox, Nov. 10, 2021] Ahmaud Arbery and the Case for Getting Rid of Citizen's Arrests Nearly two years after Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old Black man, was shot and killed in a suburban Georgia town while jogging, the three white suspects accused of the slaying-- Greg McMichael, his son Travis McMichael, and their neighbor, William ``Roddie'' Bryan--are now on trial. They face charges on a total of nine counts, including malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and false imprisonment. Arbery's killing in February 2020 ignited national outrage. When a video Bryan recorded from his vehicle while following Arbery went viral online, viewers called it an unequivocal lynching. The graphic footage shows the McMichaels, both carrying guns, pursuing Arbery in a truck after he ran down their street in the mostly white Satilla Shores neighborhood near Brunswick. Following a short chase, the men corner Arbery, and a confrontation between Arbery and Travis McMichael ensues. During the struggle, Arbery is shot three times, twice in the chest, after which he slumps to the ground. It took 74 days after Arbery's death for the men to be arrested and charged. Defense attorneys will likely argue that the men's actions were protected by Georgia's citizen's arrest law, which at the time allowed a person to detain someone whom they believe just committed a crime. The attorneys may claim the men acted in self-defense while attempting to carry out a legitimate citizen's arrest of Arbery, whom they suspected of burglary. Georgia's outdated and dangerous citizen's arrest law--one that was created in an era of slavery and emboldened citizens to act on their worst biases--has since been repealed. The law was replaced with a bill that limits who can detain citizens and when (business owners and workers who witness someone shoplifting or dining and dashing, for example.) But most states still have a version of these laws on the books, and as long as they endure, advocates say they could ultimately have tragic consequences. Citizen's arrest laws are ubiquitous, with old roots Georgia's citizen's arrest statute had its origins in the Civil War era. Passed in 1863, when slavery was still considered legal by Southerners despite the Emancipation Proclamation, the law stated that a private person could ``arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge.'' ``It was a slave-catching law for slaves that attempted to flee,'' Joe Margulies, an attorney and professor of law and government at Cornell Law School, told Vox. ``It gave citizens the power to grab them. [The law] derives from a racist past.'' Every state has some version of a citizen's arrest law, though they vary based on the type of crime and whether the citizen must witness the crime directly or just be aware that it happened. In many states, the laws are unclear about how long a citizen is permitted to detain someone, how much probable cause is necessary, and how much force can be used, said Ira P. Robbins, professor of law and justice at American University and the author of an article on citizen's arrest laws for the Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy. Many of the laws also don't specify what it means to carry out a citizen's arrest or to detain someone while making one. The laws, according to Robbins, date back to medieval England, where citizens helped the king maintain order by enforcing the laws. The common law doctrine of citizen's arrest was further developed in the early 19th century, and such statutes have remained on the books even as states laid out more modern systems of law enforcement. In Alabama, for example, a private person can make a citizen's arrest ``where a felony has committed''--even if they didn't witness it--and when they have ``reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested committed it.'' The law specifies that the arrest can be made ``on any day and at any time,'' outlines the steps that must be taken for a legal arrest, and gives citizens permission to break open doors or windows to capture the alleged offender. California allows citizen's arrests if the citizen witnesses a perpetrator committing a misdemeanor, or when a felony ``has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it,'' according to the state's penal code. In New York, a citizen can arrest another person if they believe the suspect committed a felony such as murder, first- degree manslaughter, or rape. It also lays out the circumstances where deadly physical force may be justified: when the citizen believes it is necessary to defend themselves or a third person against physical force in the course of the crime. (They may not if they know that they ``may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating.'') ``I thought that the uproar over Arbery's murder would lead other states to revisit their statues, but there has not been much [movement],'' Margulies said. ``It certainly has not prompted a wholesale reexamination of citizen's arrest laws.'' Citizen's arrests can go horribly wrong Arbery's killing isn't the first involving Georgia's citizen's arrest law. In 2019, Kenneth Herring, a 62-year-old Black man, was killed by Hannah Payne, a 21-year-old white woman, after he left the scene of a car crash because he was experiencing a diabetic emergency. Payne pursued Herring in her vehicle and ordered him out of his car. It's unclear what happened immediately after that, but Payne shot and killed him. She was indicted on charges of felony murder and malice murder, among others, and is still awaiting trial. Critics say she racially profiled Herring. ``Given what we know about implicit and explicit bias, allowing people to chase after someone and seize them based on what they believe was a felony is a recipe for some predictable number of cases just like this,'' Margulies said. ``With the automatic association between blackness and crime, seeing a Black man run by or drive away will lead to some predictable number of cases of folks concluding he's committing a felony. That's the real problem.'' In 2012, neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, a mixed-race Hispanic man, fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Florida after calling 911 and reporting ``a suspicious person''; the police dispatcher instructed him not to approach Martin. Zimmerman, who was later acquitted of second-degree manslaughter, said he acted in self-defense. ``When you look at these cases, it's about people trying to protect an area--not protecting it from a crime, but protecting it from certain types of people,'' Rashawn Ray, a sociology professor at the University of Maryland and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told Vox. Citizen's arrest laws can also go wrong in other ways--as in 2014, when a man in Virginia burst into a lecture hall at George Mason University Law School carrying handcuffs, pepper spray, and a Taser-like device in order to execute a citizen's arrest of a professor whom he said had controlled his mind and sexually harassed him. In May 2020, a 22-year- old man in Arizona was shot and killed after he witnessed a hit-and-run and chased five people who ran from the scene in an attempt to detain them. But in cases with a racial element, the laws are part of the pernicious way that ``place, space, and race'' intersect, Ray said. Also factoring into the Arbery trial are Georgia's open carry law (which makes it legal to openly carry firearms in the state with the proper permits) and ``stand your ground'' law (which allows for the use of deadly force if a person reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or severe bodily injury). ``We will likely hear from the defense attorneys a series of dog whistles about protecting people in that particular community from people who look like Ahmaud Arbery,'' Ray said. ``With laws like the castle doctrine, people will probably believe that good Samaritans have a right to also defend their neighbors' property and that the McMichaels were coming to the defense of others. The defense will try to indicate to jurors that [a burglary] could have happened to them.'' The trial judge will instruct the jury on the citizen's arrest law as it existed at the time of the killing, though Georgia has since repealed and replaced the law. The protests surrounding Arbery's death--which preceded those for Breanna Taylor and George Floyd, arguably setting the stage for what was to come in the summer of 2020--and the nearly two years that have elapsed since then have not inspired a large movement to rethink citizen's arrest laws. After the video of Arbery's killing went viral, South Carolina state Rep. Justin Bamberg introduced legislation to repeal the state's 1866 citizen's arrest law. Bamberg said on Twitter that the law was no longer necessary in America's police state. In an effort to honor Arbery, New York lawmakers moved to revise the language in the state's citizen's arrest statute, calling the law a ``dangerous and historically abused practice'' that has been ``used by racists to advance their bigoted goals.'' The bill never advanced. No matter the verdict, the Arbery trial could draw more attention to the anachronistic rules of citizen's arrest laws. ``All of these citizen's arrest cases with a racial element are on the same continuum,'' said Ray, of the University of Maryland and Brookings Institution. ``They end up in the exact same way. They end up with someone being killed.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me quickly say that we have the castle law, the stand your ground self-defense, and citizen's arrest. I believe all of these should be put into the mix of review, and there should be Federal law that governs how these State laws are done. Someone is going to argue the 10th Amendment and States' rights, but if you have these numbers of inequity in killing and justifiable homicides, and race is a factor, it needs to stop. I know Trayvon Martin's mother and father. They have worked without ceasing. This is the saddest and most horrific and heinous results of stand your ground self-defense. This young man was just walking with Skittles, walking with an iced tea. I heard the description of a young man being confronted by a grownup and fearing for his life, tumbling to the ground with the grownup and was shot point-blank. The grownup was acquitted because of the stand your ground self-defense. The Federal Government needs to intervene. Ahmaud Arbery, with a praying mother, Georgia law requires the witnessing of a crime. I see a man running for his life, a man of dignity running for his life. But yet, it took three prosecutors to get to the point of acknowledging the human dignity, the humanity of this young man. We have yet to get justice for this mother's child that is Trayvon Martin and many others who have fallen unnoticed under the arm of stand your ground self-defense, citizen's arrest, and the castle law. I think we should be very clear. I am not looking to take away the rights of homeowners legitimately protecting themselves or self-defense when there is no other option. But we have allowed gun violence to take hold of the psyche and the behavior of America. As the Giffords Law Center said, there was a 32 percent increase in rates of firearm homicide, a 24 percent increase in rates of homicide overall, and a 45 percent increase in firearm homicides among adolescents. With the extreme amount of gun violence, we need to determine whether or not every State self-defense law should be defined specifically, and there should be a requirement of retreating where you can. We should determine that if there are States with citizen's arrest, that the onus is on the individual seeing the crime to call official law enforcement. We hope those law enforcement are trained to not take action into their own hands, to not allow your judgment to supersede those who are trained and wear the uniform. The castle law, stand your ground, when you have other options than to shoot point-blank and to kill people, and if you are a 17-year-old with an AR-15 and you can go into court, and there is not one aspect of your behavior that is illegal, then there needs to be a Federal review of the State law. There was nothing to attribute to this individual that they had broken the law coming across State lines, that they provoked the incident. Yet, they were able to use, unfortunately, the stand your ground self-defense law. Gun violence continues to be a disease in this country. I would just like to, for a moment, talk more about the citizen's arrest. For example, the Georgia citizen's arrest law that was at issue in the Arbery trial was codified in section 17-4-60, Grounds for arrest: ``A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape . . . `' None of that occurred with Mr. Arbery. It wasn't in their knowledge. They didn't see it. The offense wasn't a felony. It might have been trespass if it even existed. The defendant was not escaping or attempting to escape. He was on a Sunday jog, which you, as a free person in the United States, should be allowed to do. ``A private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion,'' codified from the Civil War in order for citizens to really illegally detain runaway slaves. Other Southern States enacted similar laws for similar reasons during this period, nothing but a figment or an action of Jim Crow laws. It is time for the Federal Government to step in. I question, with so many guns in America, whether it is safe to continue a relic like citizen's arrest. There are 18,000 police departments in the United States of America with the right kind of training. There is no reason why any individual could not retreat to call law enforcement or to call law enforcement appropriately. Tonight, I came to honor those whose lives were lost and there was no response, none whatsoever. Trayvon Martin becomes singularly that symbol, even Tamir Rice or Breonna Taylor or maybe even Eric Garner. These cases must be addressed, and I look forward to addressing these for the Nation and working to secure hearings and witnesses on how wrong these laws are, how unequal they are, how scattered they are, and how undefined they are. As I close, we must recognize the value of our constitutional principles and that little book that is the Bill of Rights that guarantees us the freedom of access, due process, the right to vote, a constitutional presence in this Nation. These laws under a criminal unjust system have to be changed. America needs to know that the killing of individuals with no adjusting and accountability is unacceptable. I am on the floor this evening to indicate that enough is enough and that we must proceed with the review of laws that can kill without accountability. In the names of those and the loved ones who suffer because they are gone, I commit myself to addressing with my colleagues the injustices that exist today. No more. No more. I am grateful for Ahmaud Arbery, but no more will we stand for this inequity. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the author of several key legislative provisions, of H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice In Policing Act of 2021, I am pleased to anchor this Special Order on the importance and urgent need for reforms in the criminal justice system to several legal or judicial doctrines that that disproportionately, adversely, and unfairly affect black persons, particularly black males aged 18-35. Specifically, the legal and judicial doctrines I will discuss this evening are: (1) self-defense; (2) stand-your-ground laws; and (3) laws empowering private citizens to make arrests. Let me say at the outset, Madam Speaker, any questions that there continues to exist today racial double-standards, disparities, and systemic racism in policing and the administration of justice were conclusively laid to rest by what social scientists would regard as a ``natural experiment'' that took place in Washington, D.C. beginning in the summer and culminating with the January 6, 2021 insurrection and siege of the U.S. Capitol by Trump seditionists incited by the 45th President of the United States. Mass protests and political rallies that took place in Washington D.C. started May 29, 2020, four days after George Floyd died in Minnesota, after a Minneapolis police officer kneeled on his neck for more than'' eight minutes. By the millions, Americans took to the streets in protest to affirm that no longer will the people of this country tolerate or acquiesce in horrible policing practices that include excessive and unnecessary uses of lethal force that has diminished community trust of policing practices across the country and has angered and terrified communities of color who are overwhelmingly and disproportionately its innocent victims. Within days of the demonstrations, U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr announced that multiple law enforcement agencies, including the National Guard, Secret Service and Federal Bureau of Investigation, would ``flood the zone'' in D.C. Thousands of law enforcement officials, armed with tear gas, rubber bullets and firearms were deployed to protect the city. Hundreds of people were arrested, D.C. police records show. More than 300 were arrested on June 1, 2020, the day Attorney General Barr ordered law enforcement to forcefully clear peaceful protesters from a perimeter near the White House, making room for President Trump to pose for cameras while waving a Bible in front of St. John's Episcopal Church. It was the largest number of arrests recorded for any day during the summer of events. Across the nation, law enforcement made an estimated 14,000 arrests in 49 U.S. cities during anti-racism protests in the summer of 2020, according to the Washington Post. Following the November 3, 2020 election of Joe Biden and running mate Kamala Harris, large groups of Trump supporters held rallies in the city, where they clashed with counter-protesters. Police made 20 arrests during the so-called Million MAGA March on November 14, 2020, an event in which Trump-supporters, including white nationalists, far-right extremist groups, and conservative politicians gathered in D.C. to protest the election results. And, incredibly, only 61 arrests were made of rioters, who were overwhelming white and who used violence, that stormed the Capitol on January 6, an attack that claimed the lives of at least six persons, injured hundreds of others, caused horrific damage to property and national treasures, and inflicted emotional scars that will not heal for generations. But most of these arrests are related to charges involving curfew violations--D.C. mayor Muriel Bowser announced a 6 p.m. curfew, though mobs had broken into the Capitol hours earlier, around 1:30 p.m. There were only four non-curfew-related arrests, compared to 40 non- curfew-related arrests during Black Lives Matter protests on June 1, 2020. Madam Speaker, the horrifying killing of George Floyd on May 25, 2020 by a Minneapolis police office shocked and awakened the moral consciousness of the nation. Untold millions saw the terrifying last 8:46 of life drained from a black man, George Floyd, taking his last breaths face down in the street with his neck under the knee of a police officer who, along with his three cohorts, was indifferent to his cries for help and pleas that he ``can't breathe.'' The civil disobedience witnessed nightly in the streets of America in response to the killing of George Floyd were also in memory of countless acts of the inequality and cruelty visited upon young African American men and women no longer with us in body but forever with us in memory. Beloved souls like Breonna Taylor in Louisville, Kentucky; Stephon Clark in Sacramento, California; Eric Garner and Sean Bell in New York City; Sandra Bland in Waller County, Texas; Jordan Baker in Houston, Texas; 12-year old Tamir Rice in Cleveland; and Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. They remember as well the senseless killings of Ahmaud Arbery and Trayvon Martin by self-appointed vigilantes. And the continuing need for their activism was reflected in the outrageous and senseless slaughter of Rayshard Brooks, who was simply sleeping in his car at a local Wendy's restaurant, by a uniformed officer of the Atlanta Police Department. It was reflected again on August 23, 2020, when a Kenosha Police Department officer shot Jacob S. Blake, a 29-year-old black man, in the back seven times-- yes, seven--as he attempted to enter his SUV where three of his young sons were in the back seat. Indeed, the history goes back much further, past Amidon Diallo in New York City, past the Central Park Five, past Emmitt Till, past the racist abuse of law enforcement power during the struggle for civil rights and equal treatment. Madam Speaker, the times we are in demand that action be taken and that is precisely what my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, on the Judiciary Committee, and Congressional Democrats did in introducing and steering to passage in the House of H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. I support this bold legislation not just as a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee who also served on the House Working Group on Police Strategies, but also a mother of a young African American male who knows the anxiety that African American mothers feel until they can hug their sons and daughters who return home safely, and on behalf of all those relatives and friends who grieve over the loss a loved one whose life and future was wrongly and cruelly interrupted or ended by mistreatment at the hands of the police. The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021 is designed to destroy the pillars of systemic racism in policing practices that has victimized communities of color, and especially African Americans for decades, is overdue, too long overdue. This legislation puts the Congress of the United States goes on record against racial profiling in policing and against the excessive, unjustified, and discriminatory use of lethal and force by law enforcement officers against persons of color. The legislation means no longer will employment of practices that encourage systemic mistreatment of persons because of their race be ignored or tolerated. When the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act is finally signed into law, the government of the United States will be declaring firmly, forcefully, and unequivocally that Black Lives Matter. It is true all lives matter, they always have. But that Black lives matter too, and in so many other areas of civic life, this nation has not always lived up to its promise but that the promise is worthy of fulfilling. In general, self-defense is a legal justification for the otherwise illegal use of force. In the instance of self-defense that results in a death, although an unlawful killing did occur, it is considered a justified killing. Typically, to succeed on self-defense grounds requires: (1) an unprovoked attack (i.e. the killer was not the aggressor), (2) the killer reasonably believed that they were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, and (3) the use of force was reasonable to the perceived threat. Additionally, self-defense laws traditionally place a duty to retreat on the killer, requiring retreat prior to using deadly force, but only if retreat is reasonably possible and will not place the individual in continued danger. The ``castle doctrine'' is an expansion of self-defense laws--both statutory and at common law--in which removes the duty to retreat for self-defense on individuals inside their own home. This principle has been codified and expanded by the majority of state legislatures in a variety of ways, including through so-called ``stand-your-ground laws.'' Stand-your-ground laws are an extension of the Castle Doctrine to areas outside of an individual's home such that there is no duty to retreat for self-defense justification. The name is derived from statutory language found in several of state laws that states that an individual may ``stand his or her ground.'' Laws in at least 25 states do not require the retreat from an attacker in any place in which one is lawfully present: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia. Additionally, seven states have expanded castle doctrine to motor vehicles or the workplace: Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Stand-your-ground laws came under national scrutiny during the trial of George Zimmerman, who was acquitted in the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin. In that case, Martin, 17, was walking home after buying Skittles from a nearby convenience store. At the time, Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer who called police after spotting Martin. Despite being told by the 911 operator to remain in his car until officers arrived, Zimmerman instead confronted Martin. It remains unclear whether a fight ensued, who was the aggressor and whether Zimmerman had injuries consistent with his claims of being beaten up by Martin. Zimmerman was the sole survivor; Martin, who was unarmed, died from a gunshot wound. Florida's stand-your-ground law is codified in Florida Code 776.012 (2): A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be. According to the Urban Institute Report, the rate of justifiable homicides is almost six times higher in case with attributes that match the Trayvon Martin case. Racial disparities are much larger, as white-on-black homicides have justifiable findings 33 percentage points more often than black-on- white homicides. Stand Your Ground laws appear to exacerbate those differences, as cases overall are significantly more likely to be ruled justified in SYG states than in non-SYG states. With respect to race, controlling for all other case attributes, the odds a white-on-black homicide is found justified is 281 percent greater than the odds a white-on-white homicide is found justified. By contrast, a black-on-white homicide has barely half the odds of being ruled justifiable relative to white-on-white homicides Statistically, black-on-black homicides have the same odds of ( being ruled justifiable as white-on-white homicides. White men are more likely to successfully invoke the use of stand your ground laws for their defense after a shooting than Black Americans or women, especially Black women. Nationally, the likelihood of a homicide being ruled justified is 281 percent greater when the defendant is white and the victim is Black when compared to cases where both the defendant and victim are white. In contrast, the likelihood of a homicide being ruled justified when the defendant is Black and the victim white is 49 percent lower compared to cases where both the defendant and victim are white States with stand your ground laws specifically are linked to a 65 percent increase in the odds of a homicide being ruled justified, driven primarily by cases where the defendant is white. When a white person shoots a Black person in a stand your ground state, the odds that the homicide will be ruled justified increase by seven percentage points. According to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, in 68 percent of successful stand your ground law claims in Florida, the person killed was unarmed. One study of cases in which stand your ground was used as a defense in Florida from 2005 through 2012 found that in 79 percent of the cases where such claims succeeded, the defendant could have retreated to avoid the confrontation. States have deemed justified killings of victims who were facing away, retreating or even lying on the ground when they were shot. One in three stand your ground defendants in Florida had a documented history of illegally carrying a gun or threatening others with a gun. In nearly a third of Florida's stand your ground self-defense claims, the defendant initiated the conflict. A number of studies examining homicide and violent crime rates consistently show that the passage of stand your ground laws increase homicides and gun injuries. One study analyzed ten years (2000-2010) of FBI data in 21 states that passed stand your ground laws during the study period. The authors found that there was no evidence that these laws reduce burglary, robbery, or aggravated assault. On the contrary, this study found that the passage of stand your ground laws was linked to an 8 percent increase in the number of homicides, translating to an additional 600 homicides annually across states that adopted such laws. A subsequent paper that examined vital statistics reported by the CDC found a similar increase of 7.5 percent in the overall firearm homicide rate as a result of stand your ground laws. This study also found that stand your ground laws increase emergency room visits for nonfatal firearm injuries using data from State Emergency Department Databases. Finally, according to Gifford's Law Center, lead to: A 32 percent increase in rates of firearm homicide and a 24 percent increase in rates of homicide overall; A 45 percent increase in firearm homicides among adolescents. The law of citizen's arrest dates to 13th century England--a time when modern-day cops would be unrecognizable. The practice immigrated to the American colonies and quickly became a convenient legal pretext for the persecution of the enslaved population. Today, killings under citizen arrest speak to a key social psychological concept: subjective uncertainty, which states that when there is minimal information, people rely on stereotypes to discriminate. The nation saw this clearly in the case of Ahmaud Arbery, whose only crime was being Black at the wrong place and wrong time, that discrimination resulted in homicide. Beginning in the mid-1600s, enforcing the subjugation of Black Americans was a public responsibility: volunteer militias gave way to formal slave patrols, which wielded citizen's arrest statutes to brazenly and legally intimidate the Black population. In the British colonies and the new United States, citizen's arrest melded with efforts to prevent slave escapes with the formation of slave patrols and fugitive slave ads that offered bounties for the return of freedom-seekers who, if caught, were frequently brutally punished. Fugitive slave vigilantism was even incorporated into the United States Constitution with the agreement that all states would return captured slaves to bondage. Following the passage of the 13th Amendment and the creation of the Ku Klux Klan, armed white vigilantes, under the cover of citizen's arrest laws, were able to terrorize Black Americans into a new form of subservience. Through the 19th and 20th centuries, some state courts explicitly codified citizen's arrests laws; other states still rely on common law precedents. These pro-vigilante laws are in 49 of America's 50 states in one form or another. Some might argue that the intent of citizen's arrests can be separated from its racist applications, but such a separation is impossible when the letter of the law is actively racist. Georgia's laws were formally codified in 1861 by Thomas Cobb, a lawyer and slaveholder. In the original code, African Americans were assumed to be enslaved unless they could prove free status. Georgia's Citizen's Arrest statues were first entered into the Law Code of Georgia in 1863. In 1863, Georgia law enforcement was in serious disarray-- confederates were deserting, the Union army was preparing to invade the state, and enslaved people were fleeing plantations to join Union forces. With its criminal justice system in a state of collapse, the 1863 code revision empowered white Georgians to replace law enforcement and slave patrols to keep the enslaved Black population under control. After the Civil War, citizen's arrest supported Ku Klux Klan violence against Black Georgians. On January 22, 1912, four African Americans in Hamilton--three men and a woman--were citizen's arrested and lynched, accused of killing a white planter who was sexually abusing Black girls and women. On July 25, 1946, two African American couples were dragged from their car at Moore's Ford in Walton County and shot about sixty times by a mob of white men making a ``citizen's arrest.'' No one was ever charged with their murders. Every African American parent, and every African America child, knows all too well `The Talk' and the importance of abiding by the rules for surviving interactions with the police and vigilantees. As I have stated many times, direct action is vitally important but to be effective it must be accompanied by political, legislative, and governmental action, which is necessary because the strength and foundation of democratic government rests upon the consent and confidence of the governed. Effective enforcement of the law and administration of justice requires the confidence of the community that the law will be enforced impartially and that all persons are treated equally without regard to race or ethnicity or religion or national origin. As the great jurist Judge Learned Hand said: ``If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: thou shalt not ration justice.'' Equal justice is the proud promise America makes to all persons; the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021 will help make that promise a lived reality for African Americans, who have not ever known it to be true in the area of community-police relations. And when Black Lives Matter, then and only then can it truthfully be said that all lives matter. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, let me take this opportunity to do one or two things. First, I acknowledge my colleague, Congresswoman Slotkin and her district, to offer to her and the people of Michigan my deepest concern and sympathy for the loss of those precious children. No parent should ever expect to send their child to school and there would be a loss of life. Murdered. And for too long we have had a roll call of children being murdered. Students at Columbine High School, those college students at Virginia Tech, high school students at Parkland, high school students at Santa Fe, and of course, in Connecticut, little babies. It brought a President to tears. Tonight, my message is sometimes the Federal Government has to step in. For example, as it relates to this tragedy of gun violence, we are long overdue for dealing with the appropriate reaction. Many of us have discussed legislation that I had, some 20-plus years ago in Texas, that sometimes--although I am a champion of parents, I am one--I want to see parents front and center in their children's education, PTO meetings, I know where to go to get action parents. When a little one--and I will say a little one--gets a gun from a parent that bought the gun a few days ago and winds up taking the lives of three precious little ones and others now fighting for their lives in hospitals, I would make the argument that something has to be done. Something has to be done and the Federal Government needs to step in in a tragedy like this. We will all be working with our colleagues to do better. Before I start this theme that I have, as a member of the Judiciary Committee now for two decades, I have seen the success stories of making things better. I remember the joy of the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act in 2007 and 2008 when we went as a bipartisan Congress--98 votes in the United States Senate and 400 plus in the House, and the bill was signed by George W. Bush. The Voting Rights bill, the one that is now being held hostage. That is something that the Federal Government does better--voting rights. That is what I want to talk about tonight, what we need to do better. Just a moment, before I do that, let me deviate just for a moment and let me do it because I am pained. I am hurt. This has not been directed at me, but a sister Congresswoman. This has not been directed at me, but a sister Congresswoman. And when I say sister Congresswoman, I am looking at the landscape of women because it has not been easy for women, Madam Speaker, to get to the United States Congress. We have not been here long in large numbers. We have been one or two. We can go back to the 1800s and beyond to know that women did come into the United States Congress but very few-- certainly women of color, very few. Then might I add something else, Madam Speaker, the wonderfulness of the multiculturalism of faith, the different faiths that are in this place. It is finally a recognition of America as the unusual experiment, different languages and different cultures under one flag that you sit directly in front of, Madam Speaker, the United States of America. And then as I stand here right above your head, Madam Speaker, it says, In God We Trust. So whatever way you craft your faith, our Constitution says that you are recognized and welcome under the First Amendment, freedom of religion and freedom of access. That is one of the reasons that, although imperfect, America has been able to go into faraway places and find connection because they have citizens who are connected to those places. Then why would we have the trash of discourse? Why would we disgrace our positions and the oath we take by suggesting that a person of a different faith, who wears her own faith, a hijab, is a terrorist? Madam Speaker, there were times when I first began to wear braids that I was looked at askance. I, frankly, believe there are opportunities that I did not get because I wore braids. But it does not in any way even equal to being called a terrorist or black heart, to be made light of, to have a faith made light of, to not understand that the words in this hallowed ground, this most powerful lawmaking body in the world, is heard around the world. As we speak today, someone is wondering what Americans are saying. The easy way to do it is to tune in, as we may not think, to the floor of the House; or the aftermath the words of a Member of Congress or a Member of the United States Senate or the President carry great weight, make a lot of noise, and are listened to. And the billions of Muslims around the world should not be denigrated for tomfoolery. But what about, as I have been told, our own Member, Ilhan Omar, receiving deaths because of someone's ugly words? It is time for the Federal Government to step in. Lives can be lost. Or we used to have that old phrase, sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me. And that is the context of yesteryear when the words were, in essence, light. But, Madam Speaker, when you begin to play with the minds of those who came on January 6, we just heard testimony that said: I came because the former President called me to come. Then who is safe when we say words? This is not chatter. It is vile, and it can hurt people. Can it hurt the innocent Muslim woman on a street in America, or Muslim man, or Muslim family, or Muslim child going to school because it has a megaphone? Can it endanger our colleagues no matter who they are? It is appropriate for the action of this House or the time for the Federal Government to step in. I offer my concern, love, and affection for my colleagues and my sister Congresswomen. But I cannot and we should not tolerate dastardly language and non-humorous insults and threats to people's lives. How dare you? As I said, I want to talk about the idea of when the Federal Government should come into action. Madam Speaker, let me ask you how much time do I have remaining?

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in proud support of H.R. 951 ``The Maternal Vaccination Act.'' I would like to thank Congresswoman Sewell for introducing this legislation. This bill establishes a national campaign to raise awareness and increase rates of maternal vaccinations and calls for the CDC to consult with various stakeholders to carry out this campaign. In addition, the CDC must focus on increasing vaccination rates among communities with historically high rates of unvaccinated individuals. The CDC must also make publicly available any materials and resources developed for the campaign. In addition, H.R. 951 would instruct the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to broaden a public awareness campaign on vaccinations to include pregnant and postpartum individuals and require the campaign to disseminate vaccine information to providers and facilities that provide obstetric care. The bill would also authorize an additional $2 million annually from 2021 through 2025 for the vaccination awareness campaign. This bill would put pregnant women at the focus of the fight to combat COVID-19. As the Chair of the Congressional Coronavirus Task Force, I have used every means possible to sound the alarm about the seriousness of the COVID-19 virus. On February 10, 2020, I held the first press conference on the issue of COVID-19 at Houston Intercontinental Airport. I then held a second press conference on February 24th to continue efforts to raise public knowledge of the impending threat. On February 26th, I wrote the Chair and Ranking Member of the Committee on Homeland Security requesting to be briefed by Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf regarding the preparedness of the Department of Homeland Security to address a possible pandemic. On March 19th, I announced an innovative partnership with United Methodist Medical Center (UMMC) to open the first drive-through Coronavirus Test Screening facility in the Greater Houston area, which proved beneficial to everyone in the Greater Houston area, as with UMMC's help we have opened multiple sites that are located within high- risk communities in the Greater Houston area, to reduce the need for travel to get access to COVID-19 testing. Since the start of this pandemic, I have sought to proactively address the critical issues and concerns tied to the COVID-19 virus. As I stated at the beginning of this pandemic, ``We must not panic, but prepare.'' I am pleased to see that this bill is not a panic-induced response, but a well-thought-out proposal to further protect our citizens. When pregnant women get vaccinated, they not only build their immune system to the virus, they also create antibodies for their unborn child. Throughout history the vaccination of pregnant mothers has shown to be beneficial when it comes to viruses like tetanus, influenza, pertussis. With this bill we can help newborn children who have not yet developed their immune systems fight off a deadly virus such as COVID- 19. This also gives mothers piece of mind that they'll be safe as they advance in their pregnancy. Mr. Speaker, I rise in proud support of H.R. 951, the Maternal Vaccination Act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of H.R. 1550, the ``PREVENT HPV Cancers Act of 2021.'' I would like to thank my colleagues Congresswoman Kathy Castor and Congresswoman Kim Schrier for introducing this important legislation. The ``Promoting Resources to Expand Vaccination, Education and New Treatments for HPV Cancers Act'' or the PREVENT HPV Cancers Act has the ultimate goal of preventing HPV-related cancers. Human Papillomavirus (HPV) is a very common virus that causes six types of cancers, leading to nearly 36,000 cases of cancer in the United States every year, according to the CDC. Nearly 42 million people are currently infected with HPV in the United States. The HPV vaccine provides safe, effective, and lasting protection against the HPV infections that most commonly cause cancer. This vaccine is so effective that the World Health Organization established a goal of total eradication of cervical cancer--and this legislation can be part of our nation's commitment to reaching that goal. This vaccine can help prevent these cancers, and it is the goal of the PREVENT HPV Cancers Act to increase vaccination rates. HPV-related cancers disproportionately affect individuals who are living on a lower income, have lower education levels, and are from a racial or ethnic minority group. Increased public awareness and immunization initiatives would help improve vaccination rates in these underserved communities. More comprehensive research on the HPV vaccine, as authorized in the PREVENT HPV Cancers Act, would also help better identify these disparities and ways to address them. There is rampant societal mistrust and vaccine hesitancy, and while immunizations are one of the greatest public health tools we have, they work best when there is widespread use. This legislation will spread awareness so that more people will be vaccinated against HPV, and fund research to help stop the largely preventable deaths caused by HPV linked cancers. When we have the tools to prevent cancer, we should without a doubt utilize them. Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of H.R. 1550, the PREVENT HPV Cancers Act of 2021.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 550, the ``Immunization Infrastructure Modernization Act of 2021,'' which will improve our public health infrastructure and expand information-sharing between state and federal governments, as well as public and private health care providers, to ensure vaccines are being administered effectively and efficiently across all states and territories. Mr. Speaker, public health agencies work every day to prevent disease and viruses, promote health, and prepare for and respond to both emergency situations and ongoing challenges--but they cannot do so without the ability to access the best available data and share information with other experts, and the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted this fact. As the Chair of the Congressional Coronavirus Task Force, I have used every means possible to sound the alarm about the seriousness of the COVID-19 virus. On February 10, 2020, I held the first press conference on the issue of COVID-19 at Houston Intercontinental Airport. I then held a second press conference on February 24th to continue efforts to raise public knowledge of the impending threat. On February 26th, I wrote the Chair and Ranking Member of the Committee on Homeland Security requesting to be briefed by Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf regarding the preparedness of the Department of Homeland Security to address a possible pandemic. On March 19th, I announced an innovative partnership with United Methodist Medical Center (UMMC) to open the first drive-through Coronavirus Test Screening facility in the Greater Houston area, which proved beneficial to everyone in the Greater Houston area, as with UMMC's help we have opened multiple sites that are located within high- risk communities in the Greater Houston area, to reduce the need for travel to get access to COVID-19 testing. Since the start of this pandemic, I have sought to proactively address the critical issues and concerns tied to the COVID-19 virus. As I stated at the beginning of this pandemic, We must not panic, but prepare.'' I am pleased to see that this bill is not a panic-induced response, but a well-thought-out proposal to further protect our citizens. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed a number of challenges for public health information systems, but worst among them is the limited capacity of existing state Immunization Information Systems. The importance of these systems cannot be understated: they allow providers to keep vaccines and supplies in stock, prevent over--or under--vaccination, remind patients when they are due for a recommended vaccine, and identify areas with low vaccination rates to ensure equitable distribution of vaccines. However, states lack modern, comprehensive information systems that can meet the challenges of COVID-19 and future public health threats through the secure exchange of real-time immunization data. Consequently, many state systems struggled to accommodate additional demand, implement new functionalities, onboard immunization providers, support interoperable exchange with health care partners and enable timely reporting of immunization data to federal partners. These issues are exactly what this legislation seeks to address. Through H.R. 550, HHS will develop a strategy and a plan to improve immunization information systems and designate data and technology standards for use in these systems. Additionally, HHS will award grants to health departments and other government agencies to improve their systems contingent upon meeting designated standards. As the vaccine rollout continues and the time for boosters is upon us, immunization data systems will be a critical tool in the success of these efforts, and they are in need of modernization. That is why I rise in ardent support of H.R. 550, and that is why the bill has strong bipartisan backing. Lastly, I want to thank Congresswoman Kuster and Congressman Bucshon for introducing and shepherding this bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 550, the ``Immunization Infrastructure Modernization Act of 2021,'' which will improve our public health infrastructure and expand information-sharing between state and federal governments, as well as public and private health care providers, to ensure vaccines are being administered effectively and efficiently across all states and territories.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2364, the ``Synthetic Opioid Danger Awareness Act'', which will require several federal agencies to provide education and training related to synthetic opioids, including fentanyl and its analogues. The CDC reports that more than 93,000 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2020, an almost 30 percent increase from 2019. Regardless of income, race, gender, education, or other demographics, America's opiate problem has morphed into a full-blown public health crisis. Synthetic opioids contribute greatly to this drug crisis and are a serious threat to fire fighters and emergency medical responders who are susceptible to encountering these deadly substances. Increased rates of opiate usage impact the types and volume of calls the fire service responds to and the dangers they encounter when they arrive on the scene, both of which stretch already limited resources even thinner. A 2021 Statista study found that nearly two-thirds of all fire department responses are for medical aid. When firefighters or EMS personnel come in contact with opioids-- either through direct contact or secondary contamination--this creates a unique, and often unknown, risk for these individuals because many opioids can be ingested either by skin contact (namely fentanyl) or via inhalation, making it challenging to help the victim. Firefighters must be properly trained on how to safely respond to these life-threatening emergencies in a way that both helps the victim and minimizes risk to their health and safety. The Synthetic Opioid Danger Awareness Act would require the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to produce training materials to prevent exposure to synthetic opioids for first responders and others who are at high risk of exposure. In addition, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration will be required to disseminate the mentioned training materials to ambulance transport personnel, local sheriff deputies, and other first responders and individuals in high-risk occupations. H.R. 2364 would also direct the CDC to conduct a public education campaign that raises public awareness of the dangers of synthetic opioids and explains the services available, with respect to opioid treatment. The health of American citizens is one of the most pressing issues facing this country. Continuing education on fentanyl and synthetic opioids is essential for ensuring the health and safety of fire fighters and paramedics. Passing the Synthetic Opioid Danger Awareness Act is a step towards ensuring the health and wellness of American citizens and reducing the impact synthetic opioids impose on American communities. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill and I thank Congressman Andy Kim for introducing such an important piece of legislation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I have been in the House for a very long time, and I have grown to love the dignity, the power, and the respect of this body, not for individuals but for the respect of the United States of America. On November 17, 2021, a Member of the House from Colorado called another Member the jihad squad member from Minnesota. These words have continued on. It is in the Congressional Record. It was when we were leaving for a beautiful reflection of thanksgiving. So the words were not pulled down. Over the past couple of days, it has been one attack after another, such as in an elevator: I thought this person, this Member from Minnesota, was a terrorist. Don't we understand that the world watches this body? Besides those words having needed to be taken down, and they were not at that time, the world wonders: Is America viewing the more than 1 billion-plus Muslims around the world, obviously, every one as terrorists; the mothers and fathers, the doctors and lawyers, the countries that we seek to interact with, to collaborate with, and to be developing into democracies those that are not? It is outrageous when we use this place with such discourse or when we have a medical doctor who says the Omicron is used by Democrats. It is outrageous. Let us act as if God we trust, and let us act as if there is dignity in this place. Let us act as if we are leaders for the world.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, on H.R. 3730, the legislation to amend title 38, United States Code, to establish in the Department of Veterans Affairs an Advisory Committee on United States Outlying Areas and Freely Associated States, and for other purposes, that was voted on, I was unavoidably detained. If I had been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 3730.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, over the last couple of months, hundreds of individuals have come to Washington from all over the country to protest the lack of the passage of the Voting Rights Act, the John Robert Lewis Voting Rights Act, and, as well, the Freedom to Vote Act. Freedom to Vote and John Robert Lewis voting laws are the underpinnings of this great Nation. It exemplifies the beginning of the Constitution, that we were created to create a more perfect Union. It underlies the elimination of slavery, the right to vote for all people, and due process. We must move these important, crucial legislative initiatives that are more than laws; they are the very heart of this Nation. The Senate must move. It must move now. More people are coming. They will be arrested, and they are insisting that we move. I am ready--I know we are, this House under Democratic leadership--to pass both bills. We seek this legislation now. We cannot wait. People want to vote, and they want to vote safely, and they want to end the big lie. Let's vote.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for his great leadership. This bill is about people; people who are working, people who need help. It is about people; the American people. I am very happy that this bill really focuses on the needs of people in Texas. In Texas, people are paying $9,428 for a toddler, but we are now going to provide them with childcare for 3- and 4-year olds, and free childcare. We are going to provide it for 2 million-plus children in the State of Texas. We are, in essence, going to make sure that these children are learning. You want to ask about inflation? That is corporate greed. Everyone knows when corporations raise the price of goods, there is inflation. But economists know that that is not going to exist because we are putting money in the pockets of working men and women, giving them a child tax cut. We are also providing students to be able to go to community college, HBCUs, 4-year colleges with $550 in Pell Grants. That is what this bill is about, helping people; helping people with their childcare, helping people go to school. It is also about making sure that the hungry children in Texas are able to eat. 1,642,000 students will be able to receive food. That is what this is about; putting money where people are having the need. And yes, making sure that uninsured people, 766,000 in Texas without any insurance, suffering through the pandemic, now have insurance. And we know that there has been an increase in violence; $2.5 billion in preventing violence. This is about people; people who will have housing. It is about people. Vote for the Build Back Better Act. I thank President Biden. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary, on Homeland Security, and on the Budget, I rise in strong support of the Build Back Better Act (RCP 117-18, H.R. 5376), and am proud to have this opportunity to explain why this $1.75 billion package, conceived and advanced by President Biden and House Democrats, makes visionary and transformative investments to change for the better the health, well-being, and financial security of America's workers and families. Today we are completing the job we began with the passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework, which I witnessed President Biden sign on the South Lawn of the White House. To put it all in perspective, Madam Speaker, we have before us a once in a century opportunity to make gigantic progress in making ours a more perfect union, and to do it in a single bound with enactment of the Build Back Better Act, the most transformative legislation passed by this Congress since the Great Society and the New Deal. I would urge my Republican colleagues to heed the words of Republican Governor Jim Justice of West Virginia who said colorfully earlier this year: ``At this point in time in this nation, we need to go big. We need to quit counting the egg-sucking legs on the cows and count the cows and just move. And move forward and move right now.'' The same sentiment was expressed more eloquently by Abraham Lincoln in 1862 when he memorably wrote: ``The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.'' Madam Speaker, I am especially excited to support this bill because it directly impacts the members of my community and will improve the lives of Texans everywhere. The Build Back Better Act will bring down costs that have held back families in Texas for decades by cutting taxes and making child care, home care, education, health care, and housing more affordable. These investments will provide new learning opportunities for children, help parents, and especially working parents, make ends meet, and position the economy for stronger growth for years to come. The Build Back Better Act will create good-paying jobs for residents of Texas, combating climate change, giving our kids cleaner air and water, and making America the leader in global innovation and 21st century manufacturing. Specifically, Madam Speaker, the Build Back Better Act delivers the largest investment in child care and early education in history by providing access to affordable child care. Child care is a major strain for families in Texas, where the average annual cost of a child care center for a toddler is $9,428, meaning that a Texas family with two young children would on average spend 21 percent of their income on child care for one year. The lack of affordable options also makes it difficult for parents, and especially mothers, to remain in their jobs, contributing to the 26.1 percent gender gap in workforce participation between mothers and fathers in Texas. The Build Back Better Act will enable Texas to provide access to child care for 2,011,503 young children (ages 0-5) per year from families earning under 2.5 times the Texas median income (about $205,204 for a family of 4), and ensure these families pay no more than 7 percent of their income on high-quality child care. The Build Back Better Act will provide universal, high-quality, free preschool for every 3- and 4-year old in America. In contrast, today, only 24 percent of the 775,102 3- and 4-year-olds in Texas have access to publicly-funded preschool, and it costs about $8,600 per year for those who cannot access a publicly-funded program. The Build Back Better Act will enable Texas to expand access to free, high-quality preschool to more than 588,286 additional 3- and 4-year- olds per year and increase the quality of preschool for children who are already enrolled. Parents will be able to send their children to the preschool setting of their choice--from public schools to child care providers to Head Start--leading to lifelong educational benefits, allowing more parents to go back to work, and building a stronger foundation for Texas's future economic competitiveness. The Build Back Better Act cuts taxes and reduces some of the largest expenses for workers and families, like education, health care, and housing. Madam Speaker, the average cost of a 2-year degree in Texas is $2,885 per year, and $11,096 per year for a 4-year degree, straining many student budgets. To help unlock the opportunities of an education beyond high school, the Build Back Better Act will increase maximum Pell Grant awards by $550 for students at public and private non-profit institutions, supporting the 486,377 students in Texas who rely on Pell grants. The Build Back Better Act will also invest in Texas's 112 minority- serving institutions and the students they serve, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), and Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs). Madam Speaker, of the world's biggest economies, the United States is second to last in investing in workforce development, and funding for federal job training programs has dropped by almost half since 2001. The Build Back Better Act invests in training programs that will prepare Texas's workers for high-quality jobs in fast-growing sectors like public health, child care, manufacturing, IT, and clean energy. Fifty-nine public community colleges in Texas will have the opportunity to benefit from grants to develop and deliver innovative training programs and expand proven ones. Madam Speaker, 18 percent of children in Texas live in food insecure households, harming their long-term health and ability to succeed in school. The Build Back Better Act will ensure that the nutritional needs of Texas's children are met by expanding access to free school meals to an additional 1,642,000 students during the school year and providing 3,631,226 students with resources to purchase food over the summer. When it comes to housing costs, more than 1.7 million renters in Texas are rent burdened, meaning they spend more than 30 percent of their income on rent, while homeownership remains out of reach for many families. The Build Back Better Act expands rental assistance for Texas renters, while also increasing the supply of high-quality housing through the construction and rehabilitation of over 1 million affordable housing units nationwide. The Build Back Better Act addresses the capital needs of the entire public housing stock in America, and it includes one of the largest investments in down payment assistance in history, enabling more first- generation homebuyers to purchase their first home. Madam Speaker, access to affordable quality health care should be a right, not a privilege, and residents of Texas facing illness should never have to worry about how they are going to pay for treatment. The Build Back Better Act will close the Medicaid coverage gap to help millions of Americans gain health insurance, extend through 2025 the American Rescue Plan's health insurance premium reductions for those who buy coverage on their own, and help older Americans access affordable hearing care by expanding Medicare. In Texas, that means 1,554,000 uninsured people will gain coverage, including the 771,000 who fell into the Medicaid coverage gap, and 1,066,400 will on average save hundreds of dollars per year. In addition, the Build Back Better Act will support maternal health and invest in national preparedness for future pandemics. Finally, the Build Back Better Act will expand access to home- and community-based care to more of Texas's senior citizens and disabled citizens and improve the quality and wages of caregiving jobs. Madam Speaker, the federal budget is an expression of the nation's values and the investments made to Build America Back Better are a clear declaration of congressional Democrats' commitment to ensuring that our government, our economy, and our systems work For The People. These long-overdue investments in America's future will be felt in every corner of the country and across every sector of American life, building on the success of the American Rescue Plan, accommodating historic infrastructure investments in the legislative pipeline, and addressing longstanding deficits in our communities by ending an era of chronic underinvestment so we can emerge from our current crises a stronger, more equitable nation. Madam Speaker, the bipartisan action we took in February 2021 when we passed the American Rescue Plan was a giant step in the right direction, but it was a targeted response to the immediate and urgent public health and economic crises; it was not a long-term solution to many of the pressing challenges facing our nation that have built up over decades of disinvestment in our nation and its people in every region and sector of the country. We simply can no longer afford the costs of neglect and inaction; the time to act is now. The Build Back Better Act makes the transformative investments that we need to continue growing our economy, lower costs for working families, and position the United States as a global leader in innovation and the jobs of the future. This $1.75 trillion gross investment will build on the successes of the American Rescue Plan and set our nation on a path of fiscal responsibility and broadly shared prosperity for generations to come. The Build Back Better Act will provide resources to improve our education, health, and child care systems, invest in clean energy and sustainability, address the housing crisis, and more; all while setting America up to compete and win in the decades ahead. The Build Back Better Act is paid for by ensuring that the wealthy and big corporations are paying their fair share and Americans making less than $400,000 a year will not see their taxes increase by a penny. Let me repeat that: No American making less than $400,000 a year will not see their taxes increase by a penny. In sum, Madam Speaker, the investments made by the Build Back Better Act will expand opportunity for all and build an economy powered by shared prosperity and inclusive growth, and I would like to go into a little more detail about the specific ways this bill will help the people of Texas. Contrary to what my friends on the other side of the aisle will say, the Build Back Better Act will cut taxes for Texas families and workers, not increase them. Prior to the pandemic, 15 percent of children under the age of 18 in Texas lived in poverty. The Build Back Better Act will bolster financial security and spur economic growth in Texas by reducing taxes on the middle class and those striving to break into it. Specifically, the Build Back Better Act extends Child Tax Credit (CTC) increases of $300/month per child under 6 or $250/month per child ages 6 to 17, which will continue the largest one-year reduction in child poverty in history. And critically, the agreement includes permanent refundability for the Child Tax Credit, meaning that the neediest families will continue to receive the full Child Tax Credit over the long-run. The Build Back Better Act will also provide a tax cut of up to $1,500 in tax cuts for more than 1.5 million low-wage workers in Texas by extending the American Rescue Plan's Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) expansion. The Build Back Better Act will address the existential threat Texans face due to climate change by making the largest investment into our country's green future in American history. From 2010 to 2020, Texas experienced 67 extreme weather events, costing up to $200 billion in damages. The Build Back Better Act will set the United States on course to meet its climate targets--a 50-52 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels by 2030--in a way that creates good-paying union jobs, grows domestic industries, and advances environmental justice. The Build Back Better Act represents the largest ever single investment in a clean energy economy--across buildings, transportation, industry, electricity, agriculture, and climate smart practices in our lands and waters. And the Build Back Better Act will create a new Civilian Climate Corps that will enlist a diverse generation of Texans in conserving our public lands, bolstering community resilience, and addressing the changing climate, all while putting good-paying union jobs within reach. In clean energy and in other sectors, the Build Back Better Act will also strengthen domestic manufacturing and supply chains for critical goods, benefiting American businesses, workers, consumers, and communities. The Build Back Better Act will deliver meaningful outcomes for Black communities and help build an America in which all can thrive. Black families are feeling the strain of the high costs of child care and are two times more likely than white parents to have to quit, turn down, or make a major change in their job due to child care disruptions. Only 26.8 percent of Black 3- and 4-year old children are enrolled in publicly-funded preschool, while the average cost of preschool for those without access to publicly-funded programs is $8,600. Under the Build Back Better Act, the vast majority of working Black families of four earning less than $300,000 will pay no more than 7 percent of their income on child care for children under 6. This will expand access to the 9 out of 10 families with young children across the country who are working, looking for work, participating in an education or training program, or taking care of a serious health condition, and who are making up to 2.5 times their state's median income. This means most families will cut their child care spending by more than half--for example, for two Black parents earning $100,000 per year, the Build Back Better Act will produce more than $5,000 in annual child care savings. The Build Back Better Act also offers access to free preschool for all 3- and 4-year old children, providing Black parents access to high quality programs in the setting of their choice--from public schools to child care providers to Head Start. The Build Back Better Act will also reduce the cost of home-based care for the hundreds of thousands of older Black adults and Black people with disabilities who need it and are unable to access it. And investment in home care will raise wages for home care workers, 28 percent of whom are Black. Almost 3.9 million Black people were uninsured in 2019 and even with the Affordable Care Act's premium subsidies, coverage under the ACA was too expensive for many families, and over 570,000 Black people fell into the Medicaid ``coverage gap'' and were locked out of coverage because their state refused to expand Medicaid. The Build Back Better Act closes the Medicaid coverage gap while I also lowering health care costs for those buying coverage through the ACA by extending the American Rescue Plan's lower premiums, which could save 360,000 Black people an average of $50 per person per month. With these changes, more than one in three uninsured Black people could gain coverage. The Build Back Better Act also adds hearing coverage, including for the more than 5.8 million Black people on Medicare. And, the Build Back Better Act will make an historic investment in maternal health, including for Black women, who die from complications related to pregnancy at three times the rate of white women. Madam Speaker, about 30 percent of Black renters pay over half their income In rent. The Build Back Better Act enables the construction, rehabilitation, and improvement of more than 1 million affordable homes, boosting housing supply and reducing price pressures for renters and homeowners and will make investments to improve the safety, energy efficiency, and quality of existing public housing, where nearly half of residents are Black. It also expands the availability of housing choice vouchers to hundreds of thousands more families, including the nearly half of current voucher holders who are Black. The Build Back Better Act will remove lead-based paint from housing units, which disproportionately affects Black children and provides grants for resident-led community development projects in neighborhoods that have faced systemic disinvestment. The Build Back Better Act will ensure that the nutritional needs of Black children are met by expanding access to free school meals during the school year and providing students with resources to purchase food over the summer. Madam Speaker, about 22.1 percent of Black people fall below the poverty line, struggling to pay expenses like food, rent, health care, and transportation for their families. The Build Back Better Act extends the Child Tax Credit, providing a major tax cut to nearly 3 million Black people and cutting the Black poverty rate by 34.3 percent, which will help the 85 percent of Black women who are either sole or co-breadwinners for their families. The Build Back Better Act permanently extends the American Rescue Plan's increase to the Earned-Income Tax Credit from $543 to $1,502, which will benefit roughly 2.8 million Black low-wage workers, including cashiers, cooks, delivery drivers, food preparation workers, and child care providers. The Build Back Better Act increases the maximum Pell Grant by $550 per year for students enrolled in public and private, non-profit colleges and make an historic investment in Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), as well as Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), and minority-serving institutions (MSIs). Through high-quality training programs, career and technical education pathways, and Registered Apprenticeships, President Biden's Build Back Better Act will invest in training programs that will prepare millions of Black workers for high-quality jobs in growing sectors. The toll of gun violence overwhelmingly falls on Black Americans and other people of color. For example, Black men make up 6 percent of the population but represent more than 50 percent of gun homicide victims. That's why the Build Back Better Act provides $2.5 billion to support evidence-based community violence intervention programs shown to reduce violence. These programs are effective because they leverage trusted messengers who work directly with individuals most likely to commit gun violence, intervene in conflicts, and connect people to social, health and wellness, and employment services to reduce the likelihood of violence. Madam Speaker, no one is better prepared or more experienced to lead the American renaissance that will be produced by the investments made by the Build Back Better Act than President Biden, the architect of the American Rescue Plan and who as Vice President during the Obama Administration oversaw the implementation of the Recovery Act, which saved millions of jobs and rescued our economy from the Great Recession the nation inherited from a previous Republican administration. And let us not forget that President Obama also placed his confidence in his vice president to oversee the rescue of the automotive industry, which he did so well that the American car industry fully recovered its status as the world leader. Madam Speaker, let me briefly highlight some of the key investments made by the transformative Build Back Better Act that benefit all Americans. The Build Back Better Act will provide two years of free pre-K and two years of free community college to ensure every student has the tools, resources, and opportunity to succeed in life. It will also invest in our teachers and institutions that serve minority students and provide funding to give school buildings long- overdue infrastructure updates. People lead happier, healthier, and more productive lives when they have had access to high-quality education and that is why the Build Back Better Act makes necessary investments to increase quality education by four years for all students at no cost to hard-working families. The Build Back Better Act expands access to affordable, high quality education beyond high school, which is increasingly important for economic growth and competitiveness in the 21st century. Specifically, the Build Back Better Act will increase the maximum Pell Grant by $550 for more the more than 5 million students enrolled in public and private, non-profit colleges and expand access to DREAMers. It will also make historic investments in Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), and minority-serving institutions (MSIs) to build capacity, modernize research infrastructure, and provide financial aid to low-income students. The Build Back Better Act will help more people access quality training that leads to good, union, and middle-class jobs and will enable community colleges to train hundreds of thousands of students, create sector-based training opportunity with in-demand training for at least hundreds of thousands of workers, and invest in proven approaches like Registered Apprenticeships and programs to support underserved communities. The Build Back Better Act will increase the Labor Department's annual spending on workforce development by 50 percent for each of the next 5 years. The Build Back Better Act expands access to quality, affordable health care by strengthening the Medicare, Medicaid, and Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace programs that millions of Americans already rely on. It includes a major new expansion of Medicare benefits, adding a hearing benefit to the program for the very first time. Only 30 percent of seniors over the age of 70 who could benefit from hearing aids have ever used them. The Build Back Better Act strengthens the Affordable Care Act and reduces premiums for 9 million Americans who buy insurance through the Affordable Care Act Marketplace by an average of $600 per person per year. Just for example, a family of four earning $80,000 per year would save nearly $3,000 per year (or $246 per month) on health insurance premiums and experts predict that more than 3 million people who would otherwise be uninsured will gain health. insurance. The Build Back Better Act closes the Medicaid coverage gap, leading 4 million uninsured people to gain coverage. The Build Back Better Act will deliver health care coverage through Affordable Care Act premium tax credits to up to 4 million uninsured people in states that have locked them out of Medicaid. A 40-year old in the coverage gap would have to pay $450 per month for benchmark coverage--more than half of their income in many cases but thanks to the Build Back Better Act individuals would pay $0 premiums, finally making health care affordable and accessible. The Build Back Better Act strengthens the ACA by extending the enhanced Marketplace subsidies that were included in the American Rescue Plan. It also provides an affordable coverage option for the more than two million Americans living in states that have not expanded Medicaid under the ACA and do not earn enough to qualify for Marketplace subsidies. When the Build Back Better Act is fully implemented, soon gone will be the terrible old days when too many Americans are forced to choose between medical care and putting food on the table or affording other necessities. Madam Speaker, approximately 3.9 million Black people were uninsured in 2019 before President Biden took office and even with the Affordable Care Act's premium subsidies, coverage under the ACA was too expensive for many families, and over 570,000 Black people fell into the Medicaid ``coverage gap'' and were locked out of coverage because their state refused to expand Medicaid. Madam Speaker, nearly 1 in 4 Americans struggle to afford prescription drugs but Medicare is currently prohibited from negotiating prescription drug prices to get the best deal for American seniors. That changes with the historic Build Back Better Act, which authorizes Medicare negotiation of drug prices for high-cost prescription drugs, including drugs seniors get at the pharmacy counter (through Medicare Part D), and drugs that are administered in a doctor's office (through Medicare Part B). Under the Build Back Better Act, drugs become eligible for negotiation once they have been on the market for a fixed number of years (9 years for small molecule drugs and 12 years for biologics) and Medicare will negotiate up to 10 drugs per year during 2023, increasing to up to 20 drugs per year. The Build Back Better Act imposes a tax penalty if drug companies increase their prices faster than inflation, which should end the shameful days where drug companies could raise their prices with impunity. Perhaps most important, the Build Back Better Act directly lower out- of-pocket costs for seniors by capping the amount seniors pay for their drugs under Medicare Part D at $2,000, a substantial reduction from the more than $6,000 that seniors pay today on average. The Build Back Better Act will also lower insulin prices so that no American with diabetes pays more than $35 per month for needed insulin. Madam Speaker, the cost of preschool in the United States exceeds $8,600 per year on average, and for as long as we can remember, child care prices in the United States have risen faster than family incomes, yet the United States still invests 28 times less than its competitors on helping families afford high-quality care for toddlers. The Build Back Better Act supports families in need of child care by providing access to safe, reliable, and high-quality care delivered by a well-trained child care workforce. The Build Back Better Act will provide universal and free preschool for all 3- and 4-year-olds. This is the largest expansion of universal and free education since states and communities across the country established public high school 100 years ago. This is important because our nation is strongest when everyone can join the workforce and contribute to the economy. That is why this investment is vital to so many millions of-- especially women--who are often forced to choose between working to support their family or caring for their family. The Build Back Better Act will ensure that the vast majority of working American families of four earning less than $300,000 per year will pay no more than 7 percent of their income on child care for children under 6. Under the Build Back Better Act, parents who are working, looking for work, participating in an education or training program, and who are making under 2.5 times their states median income will receive support to cover the cost of quality care based on a sliding scale, capped at 7 percent of their income. The Build Back Better Act will help states expand access to high quality, affordable child care to about 20 million children per year-- covering 9 out of 10 families across the country with young children. For two parents with one toddler earning $100,000 per year, the Build Back Better Act will produce more than $5,000 in child care savings per year. In addition, the Build Back Better Act promotes nutrition security to support children's health and help children reach their full potential by investing in nutrition security year-round. The legislation will expand free school meals to 8.7 million children during the school year and provide a $65 per child per month benefit to the families of 29 million children to purchase food during the summer. The Build Back Better Act will deliver affordable, high-quality care for older Americans and people with disabilities in their homes, while supporting the workers who provide this care. Right now, there are hundreds of thousands of older Americans and Americans with disabilities on waiting lists for home care services or struggling to afford the care they need, including more than 800,000 who are on state Medicaid waiting lists. A family paying for home care costs out of pocket currently pays around $5,800 per year for just four hours of home care per week. The Build Back Better Act will permanently improve Medicaid coverage for home care services for seniors and people with disabilities, making the most transformative investment in access to home care in 40 years, when these services were first authorized for Medicaid. The Build Back Better Act will improve the quality of caregiving jobs, which will, in turn, help to improve the quality of care provided to beneficiaries. In the area of housing, the Build Back Better Act makes investments to ensure that Americans have access to safe and affordable housing by providing resources to increase housing vouchers and funding for tribal housing. It also supports investments in programs that will help address our nation's housing crisis by increasing the supply of affordable homes for those in need and investing in historically underserved communities and those that have been previously left behind. Specifically, the Build Back Better Act makes the single largest and most comprehensive investment in affordable housing in history and will enable the construction, rehabilitation, and improvement of more than 1 million affordable homes, boosting housing supply and reducing price pressures for renters and homeowners. It will address the capital needs of the public housing stock in big cities and rural communities all across America and ensure it is not only safe and habitable but healthier and more energy efficient as well. It will make a historic investment in rental assistance, expanding vouchers to hundreds of thousands of additional families. And, perhaps even more importantly, the Build Back Better Act includes one of the largest investments in down payment assistance in history, enabling hundreds of thousands of first-generation home buyers to purchase their first home and build wealth. In short, Madam Speaker, this legislation will create more equitable communities, through investing in community-led redevelopments projects in historically under-resourced neighborhoods and removing lead paint from hundreds of thousands of homes, as well as by incentivizing state and local zoning reforms that enable more families to reside in higher opportunity neighborhoods. The Build Back Better Act will spur and empower comprehensive action to build an equitable clean energy economy with historic investments to transform and modernize the electricity sector, lower energy costs for Americans, improve air quality and public health, create good-paying jobs, and strengthen U.S. competitiveness--all while putting our country on the pathway to 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2035. The Build Back Better Act extends and expands clean energy tax credits and supports clean electricity performance payments so utilities can accelerate progress toward a clean electric grid at no added cost to consumers. The Build Back Better Act invests in clean energy, efficiency, electrification, and climate justice through grants, consumer rebates, and federal procurement of clean power and sustainable materials, and by incentivizing private sector development and investment. Another exciting aspect of the Build Back Better Act, Madam Speaker, is that it will drive economic opportunities, environmental conservation, and climate resilience--especially in underserved and disadvantaged communities--including through a new Civilian Climate Corps. Madam Speaker, the Build Back Better Act includes a $100 billion investment to reform our broken immigration system--and does it consistent with the Senate's reconciliation rules--as well as to reduce backlogs, expand legal representation, and make the asylum system and border processing more efficient and humane. Madam Speaker, immigrants eligible for such protection are an integral part of Texas's social fabric. Texas is home to 386,300 immigrants who are eligible for protection, 112,000 of whom reside in Harris County. These individuals live with 845,300 family members and among those family members, 178,700 are U.S.-born citizen children. These persons in Texas who are eligible for protection under the bill arrived in the United States at the average age of 8 and on average have lived in the United States since 1996. They own 43,500 homes in Texas and pay $340,500,000 in annual mortgage payments and contribute $2,234,800,000 in federal taxes and $1,265,200,000 in state and local taxes each year. Annually, these households generate $10,519,000,000 in spending power in Texas and help power the national economy. The expansion of the Child Tax Credit (CTC) enacted in the American Rescue Plan has already benefited nearly 66 million children, put money in the pockets of millions of hard-working parents and guardians, and is expected to help cut child poverty by more than half. The Build Back Better Act not only extends this meaningful tax cut, but it also extends the expanded Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the expanded Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit, which help families make ends meet and put food on the table, reduce child poverty, and lessen the burden on hard-working Americans so they can provide a better future for America's children. Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to join me in voting to pass H.R. 5376, the transformative, life-changing Build Back Better Act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, in this season of giving, as we sit down to our Thanksgiving table, I hope the American people will know that we have handed them a gift over corporate greed that is insistent on raising the price of goods. We presented to them the Build Back Better Act. And for those naysayers who want to talk about inflation, Mark Zandi said, ``The bills do not add to inflation pressures, as the policies help to lift long-term economic growth via stronger productivity and labor force growth,'' that is from one of the renowned economists in this Nation. Madam Speaker, what I am fighting for is to make sure that Perla Rosalez in Texas has health insurance for the first time in decades. I remember that I cried when we were not able to give all of these uninsured persons insurance. We are giving them health insurance and we also--as chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations--are giving community violence dollars to stop the violence. Madam Speaker, this is a bill we should pass. Support the Build Back Better bill for the American people.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, there was such exhilaration across the Nation as Democrats came together last week and moved forward on the bipartisan infrastructure bill with their vote and to catapult forward the build back America bill as well. Let me say how happy my constituents are for the $2.3 billion that will clean the water of old schools, homes, and apartments. This is something that we all fought together for. But I am excited about the future of this week passing BBB because I fought to reinsert the family medical leave and as well to ensure that all of us have an opportunity to have healthcare across America; Texas being the poster child for the uninsured. Madam Speaker, 766,000 will get insurance now because of the Build Back Better Act. There is breaking news, and the breaking news is inflation is not caused by the Build Back Better or the bipartisan bill. It is caused by corporate greed; they put the price on goods. But, Madam Speaker, with the work of the Biden administration and Democrats in Congress, we are going to see the economy drive for all of America, inflation no more.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, this is a very troubling moment in our history. After the rule is passed, you will see other Members come to the floor to continue this debate. I thought I would start out by holding up a most precious document, and that is the Constitution of the United States of America. I often get chills when I read its Preamble, which indicates that the body of people who started this Nation organized to create a more perfect Union. I love to hear those words because what it suggests is that we wanted to be the standard-bearer for what is best and better in the world. We wanted to cease conflict. We wanted to be the defenders of peace. And even with the original sin, we wanted somehow to be better than others. I get chills when I walk through the Halls of this very august place, to see the depictions of the debates in the early years, to realize how fragile democracy is, and how we could not last. I hold this up because, interestingly, we can be so proud that Congress was listed as the first body of government, Article I. As I read the charges in here, it gives us powers as the House of Representatives. Nowhere is there a privilege to kill. Nowhere is there the instruction to kill. Nowhere is there an instruction to be free to murder. Yet, with a great deal of trepidation and sadness, I am here because of a video. This headline speaks to it: ``House to vote on censuring Republican,'' Mr. Gosar, ``who shared violent video targeting'' a Member of Congress. That is the crux of why we are here. It is not speech of people supporting the right to be free in this Nation and supporting the George Floyd bill, where protesters, peaceful and otherwise, did rise up, young people, about 66,000 in Houston, completely peaceful, as it was around the Nation. Don't try to compare the pain of protesters on an issue of justice with the actions of this gentleman. Yes, I call him that. Mr. Gosar is seen delivering a fatal blow to the back of the monster's head, and blood is seen gushing from the wound. The face is that of our colleague, and it is violent. In addition, it is treasonous to be seen to attack the President of the United States of America. In one scene, footage of migrants crossing the Rio Grande is overlaid with what appears to be splattered blood. Who are we as a Nation? In another, the words ``drugs,'' ``crime,'' ``poverty,'' ``money,'' ``murder,'' ``gangs,'' ``violence,'' and ``trafficking'' flash across the screen. Mr. Gosar knew what he was doing. The 1 minute and 32 seconds was posted by him. It shows him battling a towering, naked monstrosity with the face of that Democratic Member. It is against women of color; it is against women; and it is against Members of Congress. Last week, Ted Lieu and I, and 30 other Members, sent a letter to Republican leadership asking if there was one person that would call this out and indicate shame, shame, shame. I include in the Record the letter that was sent to Republican leadership. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, November 12, 2021. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Republican Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Republican Leader McCarthy: We write as members of the United States House of Representatives to express our extreme concern, indignation, and fear regarding the recent actions of Representative Paul Gosar and to ask that you publicly request a House Ethics Committee investigation into Mr. Gosar's actions. On November 7, 2021, Mr. Gosar shared a grotesque video on Twitter in which his face and those of several other Republican Members of the House are edited into the opening credits of the Netflix anime series Attack on Titan, and in which Mr. Gosar is depicted killing a giant monster with the face of a Democratic Member of Congress. The one minute and thirty-two-seconds video depicts Mr. Gosar battling a towering, naked monstrosity with the face of a Democratic Member of the House superimposed over the monster's face. Mr. Gosar is then seen delivering a fatal strike to the back of the monster's neck, and blood is seen gushing from the wound. The video also depicts Mr. Gosar leaping at President Biden while brandishing two swords, and the video is interspersed throughout with real-life footage of Border Patrol officers rounding up migrants at the U.S.- Mexico border. In one scene, footage of migrants crossing the Rio Grande is overlaid with what appears to be splattered blood. In another, the words ``drugs,'' ``crime,'' ``poverty,'' ``money,'' ``murder,'' ``gangs,'' ``violence'' and ``trafficking'' flash across the screen. Sharing the glorification of violence expressed in this video goes far beyond the protections afforded by the Speech and Debate Clause in the Constitution and is beneath the dignity of a person serving in the Congress of the United States. Mr. Gosar's actions display a breakdown of reasoned discourse not seen in the House since the summer of 1856, when South Carolina Congressman Preston Brooks attacked Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner with a cane on the Senate floor. The beating nearly killed Sumner and contributed significantly to the country's polarization over the issue of slavery and to the use of violence that eventually led to the Civil War. In a like manner, Mr. Gosar's actions serve solely to glorify the usage of violence against Members of the House. As we witnessed with Mr. Gosar's actions leading up to January 6, threats of violence and the glorification of violence lead to actual violence. Mr. Gosar has continuously been a strong proponent of the Big Lie that President Biden lost the 2020 Presidential election. As reported by several media outlets, Mr. Gosar was intimately involved with the planning of the January 6 rally and, following the January 6 attack, Mr. Gosar called the insurrectionists ``peaceful patriots.'' Rather than condemn calls for violence against Congress and actual violence against Congress, Mr. Gosar has instead shared an animated video of himself killing a fellow Member of Congress. Less than one year has passed since Congress witnessed the January 6 domestic terrorists break into the Capitol building, vandalize and steal property, threaten our safety and lives, and attack and kill Capitol police officers. Less than one year has passed since we witnessed crowds chanting ``Hang Mike Pence,'' and ``Hang Nancy Pelosi'' outside this bastion of democracy. If ever there was a time for the House to come together to promote civility, discourse, and cooperation, it is now. For these reasons, we are asking that as the Leader of the Republican Conference you publicly request an investigation into Mr. Gosar's actions by the House Ethics Committee to determine whether Mr. Gosar has violated the Rules of the House to a degree sufficient to warrant disciplinary action, including ordering the cessation of conduct that threatens the lives of fellow Members of Congress and the President, removal from his Committee positions, censure, expulsion, or further disciplinary action as determined by the Committee or the House of Representatives. We must act to protect the dignity and integrity of the House. Very truly yours, Sheila Jackson Lee, Alan Lowenthal, Grace F. Napolitano, Rashida Tlaib, Ted Lieu, Nanette Barragan, Sylvia R. Garcia, Grace Meng, Bonnie Watson Coleman, Jimmy Gomez, Dwight Evans, Mike Doyle, David N. Cicilline, John Larson, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Adriano Espaillat, Mike Quigley, Ilhan Omar, J. Luis Correa, Stacey E. Plaskett, David Price, Linda Sanchez, Andre Carson, Earl Blumenauer, Troy A. Carter, Madeleine Dean, Mary Gay Scanlon, Jason Crow, Jim Cooper, Jerry McNerney, Brenden F. Boyle, Steve Cohen, Members of Congress.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. This brings me to tears. There is no celebration on this floor. It is imperative that we pass this resolution and Mr. Gosar is censured and removed from his seat. The reason is you cannot depict the murder of another Member of Congress or the President of the United States. Madam Speaker, I stand here today as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary, on Homeland Security, and on the Budget, to support this Rule governing debate of H. Res. 789 to censure Rep. Gosar and to remove him from his committee assignment. I also stand here, Madam Speaker, to express my concern, indignation, and fear regarding Representative Gosar's actions. On November 7, 2021, Mr. Gosar shared a grotesque video on Twitter in which his face and those of several other Republican Members are edited into an anime segment, and in which Mr. Gosar is depicted killing a giant monster with the face of a Democratic Member of Congress. Mr. Gosar is then seen delivering a fatal strike to the back of the monster's neck, and blood is seen gushing from the wound. The video also depicts Mr. Gosar leaping at President Biden while brandishing two swords, and the video is interspersed throughout with real-life footage of Border Patrol officers rounding up migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border. In one scene, footage of migrants crossing the Rio Grande is overlaid with what appears to be splattered blood. In another the words ``drugs'' ``crime'' ``poverty'' ``money'' ``murder'' ``gangs,'' ``violence'' and ``trafficking'' flash across the screen. The one minute and thirty-two second video depicts Mr. Gosar battling a towering, naked monstrosity with the face of a Democratic Member of the House superimposed over the monster's face. This was a one minute and thirty-two second speech threatening violence against a member of the House. Last week, my colleague Ted Lieu and I, along with thirty other members of the House, sent a letter to Minority Leader McCarthy asking him to request an Ethics investigation into Mr. Gosar's actions. Rather than standing for the dignity of the House, Minority Leader McCarthy has done nothing. I would like to submit into the record the November 12, 2021 letter sent to Minority Leader McCarthy by myself, Ted Lieu, and thirty other members of Congress. Sharing the glorification of violence expressed in this video goes far beyond the protections afforded by the Speech and Debate Clause in the Constitution and is beneath the dignity of a person serving in the Congress of the United States. Mr. Gosar's actions display a breakdown of reasoned discourse not seen in the House since the summer of 1856, when South Carolina Congressman Preston Brooks attacked Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner with a cane on the Senate floor. The beating nearly killed Sumner and contributed significantly to the country's polarization over the issue of slavery and to the use of violence that eventually led to the Civil War. In a like manner, Mr. Gosar's actions serve solely to glorify the usage of violence against Members of the House. As we witnessed with Mr. Gosar's actions leading up to January 6, threats of violence and the glorification of violence lead to actual violence. Mr. Gosar has continuously been a strong proponent of the Big Lie that President Biden lost the 2020 Presidential election. As reported by several media outlets, Mr. Gosar was intimately involved with the planning of the January 6 rally and, following the January 6 attack, Mr. Gosar called the insurrectionists ``peaceful patriots.'' Rather than condemn calls for violence against Congress and actual violence against Congress, Mr. Gosar has instead shared an animated video of himself killing a fellow Member of Congress. Rather than uphold the dignity and sanctity of the House, Republican Leader McCarthy has done nothing Less than one year has passed since Congress witnessed the January 6 domestic terrorists break into the Capitol building, vandalize and steal property, threaten our safety and lives, and attack and kill Capitol police officers. Less than one year has passed since we witnessed crowds chanting ``Hang Mike Pence'' and ``Hang Nancy Pelosi'' outside this bastion of democracy. If ever there was a time for the House to come together to promote civility, discourse, and cooperation, it is now. For these reasons, I urge all members to vote in favor of this Rule governing debate. We must act to protect the dignity and integrity of the House.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, breaking news. Today, the President of the United States signed the bipartisan infrastructure bill, legislation that our chairwoman and the Congressional Black Caucus were instrumental in moving forward. But breaking news: The President, Vice President, and Speaker of the House made it very clear that we will pass the Build Back Better Act, and that they are two bills that go together. And so tonight, I am delighted to join the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus to discuss the pathway and the vitality of the Build Back Better Act. There is one thing that I want to immediately speak to. Pell grants that is part of the Build Back Better will be an instrumental component to increasing the number of students at community colleges, historically Black colleges, and other colleges--minority-serving institutions--more than they have ever had the opportunity. Madam Speaker, in 2021, there are still families that are sending their first generation to college. The Pell grants--unlike which was discussed just a few minutes ago--will give Americans and legal residents the opportunity to go to school, and many others who are DACA and are deserving of going to school to build a better future. Madam Speaker, I will speak very briefly on how important the Build Back Better Act is, and to emphasize that it is often said that the Federal budget is an expression of the Nation's values. Build Back Better is an expression of our values, of our respect, and affection for our families and our children. It is long overdue. And even though we are excited about the infrastructure bill that will bring some $26.9 billion in transportation to Texas, some $3.3 billion in ensuring the improvement of public transportation, making sure there is $100 million for broadband, and making sure that we have clean water--and that is in the $2.9 billion from the infrastructure bill. I can tell you that Texans and Americans are excited about the Build Back Better. African Americans who have suffered with poverty and inequities will stand at the forefront in helping to end poverty as we know it in our communities. Madam Speaker, I am grateful to Chair Beatty for her leadership and was eager to join my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus to stand together to support this $1.75 trillion investment. Very quickly: The bill is paid for. No one making under $400,000 will see any taxes go up at this time. In addition, $130 billion will be provided for healthcare. Breaking news: If you are uninsured in States that never expanded Medicaid, you will have insurance; huge numbers of African Americans. Over 30 percent of seniors over the age of 70 can benefit from hearing aids as well. We know the Build Back Better bill will give us an additional amount of resources for uninsured persons and provide the access to the Affordable Care Act. Childcare, which impacts African Americans, the Build Back Better Act will provide universal and free preschool for three- to four-year-olds and cut down the amount of dollars that many young working families have to pay. I am excited about the fact that we will be able to have working parents, they will be looking for work, but they will have the ability to have their children taken care of, and they won't pay more than 7 percent of their income for childcare; $150 billion. Madam Speaker, this weekend, I was at my public housing, public development. Families, they are going to see a new makeover, more housing built, and more down payments. In fact, I am very grateful to say that we won't see these signs: ``My landlord is calling and I must pay.'' How many were evicted because dollars were not getting to people who worked hard every day but yet, because of the pandemic and other factors, could not pay their rent. We will see that ended with the $150 billion for housing; education, $40 billion; and, of course, the Pell grants, as I said. It is important to take note of the fact that poverty among Africa Americans will decrease seismically, particularly with the child tax credit that will end poverty as we know it among the impoverished children of America. Again, I said, breaking news, the President signed the bipartisan infrastructure bill with the help of the Congressional Black Caucus. Breaking news, we are committed to leading on helping to pass Build Back Better with all of our Democratic colleagues, and Madam Speaker, I don't think that we would be against our bipartisan colleagues joining us. Let me conclude by saying that I am delighted to know this family at the Gingerbread daycare, founded by a husband and wife, for hardworking essential workers. How wonderful it will be that 3- to 4-year-olds can have universal access to school and childcare and can now be supported by the Build Back Better Act and paid family leave. Breaking news, we are changing hearts and changing America, and I am delighted to yield to our chair and thank her for her leadership. Keep on leading. We are going to keep on standing so that we can pass the Build Back Better Act this week. I am going to claim it. We say that sometimes in our community. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).