Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for bringing outstanding leadership to this issue. And I thank my good friend, Congresswoman McBath, for her outstanding leadership on helping to reauthorize this very important legislation that really saves lives. In my own district, we lost a heroic Sergeant Preston of the Houston Police Department for one of the most dangerous calls that police get, domestic violence. He was killed. The 11-year-old son was shot, but, thank God, he survived. What terrible, senseless violence. We know that in this program, more than 76,000 people a day are helped. It is important to take note of the fact that intimate partnership violence is a crucial element of this legislation. To be able to reauthorize the Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act is to save lives. In addition, it is important to take note of my amendment that has been accepted. I look forward to debating it on the floor and the $2 million extra that the State of Texas will give. But the most important part of it is the recognition that we will save lives and help to bring families together and to unify the Nation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. As indicated, 76,000 victims of domestic violence are helped, but 11,000 are unable to get help because of the lack of funding. It is important, as well, to note that, on average, more than one in three women and one in four men in the United States will experience rape, physical violence and/or stalking by an intimate partner. It is also important to relieve the regulations, the strangulations that were on this bill before. It now opens it to up provide more to individuals who are suffering. What we want to do is to end family domestic violence, and what we want to do is to end that intimate partner violence and bring families together, protect children. I am supporting this legislation, and I believe it is long overdue. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Jackson Lee Amendment to H.R. 2119, the Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act, which makes a good bill even better. I thank my colleague, Congresswoman McBath of Georgia, for introducing this important legislation which will improve the protection and prevention for Americans affected by family violence, domestic violence, and dating violence. The Jackson Lee Amendment improves the bill by requiring the Comptroller of the United states to produce a report on the success of outreach efforts to minority communities. Through the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA), survivors receive services such as emergency shelter, crisis counseling, safety planning, and assistance recovering from financial abuse and housing insecurity. FVPSA is the only federal funding source dedicated to providing support to domestic violence shelters and programs. Madam Speaker, this bill marks an historic effort to acknowledge and address the unique suffering of family violence survivors from marginalized communities. I thank the Rules Committee for including my amendment, because this amendment is straightforward and makes this important bill even more effective than it already is. We must recognize that not all survivors are a monolith. Different communities and cultures have different perceptions of domestic violence and reactions to it--therefore different communities and cultures need different treatments and prevention measures to address domestic violence. That is why I am proud to support this bill, which includes provisions that are tailored to these specific populations. Such provisions include: 1. Providing new grants to local programs serving culturally specific or traditionally underserved communities; 2. Increasing access for survivors from racial and ethnic communities to services by creating a national grant program to build the capacity to address domestic violence; and 3. Increasing funding for Native American tribes by allocating tribal grants as a set-aside to acknowledge their sovereign authority. These are laudable initiatives, and my amendment goes a step ' further to sustain this commitment by adding a requirement that the Comptroller of the United States must produce a report on the success of outreach efforts to minorities. Specifically, my amendment requires the Comptroller General to include in the study and report described in Section 19 the results of outreach efforts conducted pursuant to section 308 to certain groups-- including racial and ethnic minorities, individuals with disabilities, tribal populations, and individuals who are geographically isolated-- regarding increasing the availability and ease of access to services. Simply put, receiving accurate feedback about our efforts will inform our decision-making, allowing us to adapt and improve upon our programs to reach more minority survivors. It is these communities specifically that are in the most need of our help. In my home state of Texas, 29 percent of domestic violence victims are Black despite making up only 12 percent of the population. The share of domestic violence victims in Texas who are Native American is twice as much as the proportion of Natives in the general population. Madam Speaker, no member should be complacent with these egregious statistics. With this bill's increased commitment to prevention and treatment of family violence, we are sending a message to survivors that you are not forgotten. For these reasons, I encourage all Members to support H.R. 2119, the ``Family Violence and Prevention Services Improvement Act.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentleman very much for his work, and again let me thank my colleague, Congresswoman McBath, a member of the Education and Labor Committee and a member of the Judiciary Committee. Madam Speaker, I rise to support my amendment, and all of the other amendments, which in particular my amendment provides an outreach that I think is extremely crucial to providing an outreach to populations that have been unnecessarily victims of domestic violence. I do want to, again, emphasize the issue of Sergeant Preston, who died in the course of a police encounter with a domestic abuser with a gun, and to emphasize that an average of 24 people per minute are victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in the United States; more than 12 million women and men over the course of a year. Nearly 3 in 10 women, or 29 percent, and 1 in 10 men, in the U.S. have experienced physical violence and/or stalking. This reauthorization is long overdue. Just under 15 percent of women, 14.8 percent, and 12 percent of men in the U.S. have been injured as a result of intimate partner violence that included rape, physical violence, and stalking by an intimate partner. More importantly, how many of them have been killed? In my own district, we had a circumstance of a domestic violence incident where the woman was killed in the bed, and laying next to her was her newborn infant. The stories are without comparison. When you talk to women's shelters, the great need that they have and the funding that is going to come from this particular effort is $2 million to the State of Texas alone. The effort that is most important is vulnerable women, women of color, and Native Americans. The Tribal dollars that are in here are crucial as well. The Violence Against Women Act, I hope that we will see its passage in the Senate, along with the reauthorizing of the Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act as well, because we, too, address the question of Tribal women.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, Tribal circumstances are an enormously difficult circumstance to be engaged in. The abuse in the Tribal areas, and the utilization of vicious acts then coming out and not being prosecuted is really unseemly. But this is going to be intervention. This is going to be saving lives. I would just offer, as I close, a comment on who we should expand this to: the LGBTQ community, the transgender, individuals who have to deal with the remnants of a rape. That is, of course, a pregnancy that my State, the State of Texas, has now violated all human dignity with their abortion bill that not only stops women from engaging with their faith leader, their family members, and their doctor, but it also stalks women and sends people out for a bounty to get $10,000. So this is the kind of uplifting legislation, reauthorization after 10 years, that is going to address the question of women who are desperately in need and also protect law enforcement officers as well.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, this is also going to protect law enforcement officers as well. In tribute and memory to Sergeant Preston, a veteran of the HPD, the idea of being able to go and help and come back with your own life and protect those who are being victimized. The less we have of that and the more intervention that we have, the more we can save lives. So I want to claim that this particular legislation is lifesaving. I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, which is, in essence, attempting to get more resources, more information, and support the Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2119, the ``Family Violence and Prevention Services Improvement Act,'' which will improve the protection and prevention for Americans affected by family violence, domestic violence, and dating violence. I would like to thank my good friend, Congresswoman McBath, for championing this important legislation and shepherding it to the floor. Through the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA), survivors receive services such as emergency shelter, crisis counseling, safety planning, and assistance recovering from financial abuse and housing insecurity. The FVPSA supports life-saving services throughout the country via grants to states, tribal governments, and territories through three primary sets of activities, all of which are administered by HHS. First, the FCPSA funds a national domestic violence hotline that receives calls for assistance related to this violence. The hotline provides crisis intervention and counseling, maintains a database of service providers, and provides referrals for victims and others affected by domestic violence. Second, FVPSA funds efforts to prevent domestic violence through a program known as Domestic Violence Prevention Enhancement and Leadership Through Allies (DELTA). Third, FVPSA supports direct services for victims and their families. Most of this funding is awarded via grants to states, territories, and tribes. FVPSA is the only federal funding source dedicated to providing support to domestic violence shelters and programs. FVPSA provides base core funding to support more than 1,600 local public, private, nonprofit, and faith-based organizations and programs in their response to the urgent needs of over 1.3 million domestic violence victims and their children. In 2020, the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) found that in just one day, FVPSA-funded programs helped 76,525 victims of domestic violence. However, over 11,000 people were unable to be served due to a lack of funding. This shortage of funding is especially severe with shelters serving rural and marginalized populations, and increased funding and culturally-specific programs are essential to addressing the needs of these communities. FVPSA was first passed in 1984 and was most recently reauthorized in 2010. Its authorization expired in 2015. Madam Speaker, this bill marks an historic effort to acknowledge and address the unique suffering of family violence survivors from marginalized communities. Different communities and cultures have different perceptions of domestic violence and reactions to it--therefore different communities and cultures need different treatments and prevention measures to address domestic violence. That is why I am proud to support this bill, which includes provisions that are tailored to these specific populations. Such provisions include: 1. Providing new grants to local programs serving culturally specific or traditionally underserved communities; 2. Increasing access for survivors from racial and ethnic communities to services by creating a national grant program to build the capacity to address domestic violence; and 3. Increasing funding for Native American tribes by allocating tribal grants as a set-aside to acknowledge their sovereign authority. Simply put, receiving accurate feedback about our efforts will inform our decision-making, allowing us to adapt and improve upon our programs to reach more minority survivors. It is these communities specifically that are in the most need of our help. In my home state of Texas, 29 percent of domestic violence victims are Black despite making up only 12 percent of the population. The share of domestic violence victims in Texas who are Native American is twice as much as the proportion of Natives in the general population. In addition to addressing the special needs of minority communities, there is a litany of other exciting provisions in this bill that build upon the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, such as: 1. Increasing the funding authorization level to $253 million to address chronic underfunding that resulted in 11,000 people not receiving services in a single day. 2. Technologically updating the National Domestic Violence Hotline and improving hotline services for underrepresented populations. 3. Authorizing funding for tribal coalitions, which provide support to tribal domestic violence programs but are not currently authorized by statute to receive FVPSA funding. 4. Authorizing new grants of up to $150,000 to each state, territorial and tribal coalition to prevent domestic violence. A bill of this nature is incredibly important for my home state of Texas, where it is estimated that 1 in 3 Texans will be a victim of domestic violence during their lifetime. Madam Speaker, no member should be complacent with these egregious statistics. With this bill's increased commitment to prevention and treatment of family violence, we are sending a message to survivors that you are not forgotten. For these reasons, I encourage all Members to support H.R. 2119, the ``Family Violence and Prevention Services Improvement Act.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I want everybody to know there is breaking news, and you are going to see something exciting on the floor of the House tomorrow. First of all, Go Astros. The big orange is rolling into Atlanta. And I know the red, white, and blue is in Atlanta, called the Braves. But we are coming in because there is nothing more meteoric than the Astros. And breaking news, we will be on the floor tomorrow with some exciting challenges. Go Astros, all the way to the World Series. But I don't mind accepting a challenge, and tomorrow I think we will have some folks from Atlanta and Georgia and some folks from Texas and Houston on the floor tomorrow with some breaking news. Go Astros.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support H.R. 3110, the ``Pump for Nursing Mothers Act,'' which will close an unintentional loophole in the 2010 Break Time for Nursing Mothers Act. The 2010 law requires employers to provide break time and a place for hourly wage-earning and some salaried employees to express breast milk at work for one year after the birth of the employee's child. Unfortunately, this law unintentionally excluded a quarter of all working women--nearly nine million employees--from protection. H.R. 3110 closes this coverage gap by extending the law's protections to cover salaried employees as well as other categories of employees currently exempted from protections, such as teachers, nurses, and farmworkers. H.R. 3110 would also provide employers clarity on paid and unpaid pumping time. The bill leaves in place existing law protecting many salaried workers from having their pay docked and clarifies that employers must pay an hourly employee for any time spent pumping if the employee is also working. Lastly, the bill would ensure that nursing mothers have access to remedies that are available for other violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, women with children are the fastest-growing segment of the workforce, and balancing work and family is an important priority for all employees. More than 80 percent of new mothers in the United States begin breastfeeding, 1 and 6 in every 10 new mothers are in the workforce. New parents face an incredible amount of increased difficulties while juggling work, family and mental and emotional tolls that are exacerbated as a new parent. According to a study published in Reviews in Obstetrics and Gynecology, breastfeeding provides health benefits for not only infants, but also for mothers. For mothers, abstaining from breastfeeding has been associated with an increase in developing various types of cancers, type 2 diabetes, heart attacks, retained gestational weight gain and metabolic syndrome in adult women. For infants, not being breastfed is associated with infectious illnesses such as pneumonia, ear infections, gastroenteritis, and can increase the risk of developing childhood-onset obesity, type 1 and 2 diabetes, leukemia and SIDS. This bill will ensure that mothers will no longer be forced to choose between their own health, their infant's health, and their income. This includes individuals like Melissa Hodgkins, who has had to bring suit against her employer simply to provide workers with a clean, private place and breaks to breast pump at work. Her coworkers were often of losing their paychecks to ask the airline to accommodate them; in fact, when some of her coworkers did ask for breaks and a place to pump, her employer actually prohibited them from pumping at work, and even forced them off the job without a paycheck. The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act will stop such bad actions by employers and alleviate the disparities that currently exist between breastfeeding employees and their coworkers, sending a clear message that the workforce will protect and support women who opt to balance a career and motherhood. For these reasons, I encourage all Members to support H.R. 3110, the ``Pump for Nursing Mothers Act.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary, on Homeland Security, and on the Budget, I rise in support of the rule governing debate for H. Res. 730, ``Resolution Recommending that the House of Representatives Find Stephen K. Bannon in Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply with a Subpoena Duly Issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.'' On January 6th the domestic terrorists who beat law enforcement officers and breached the Citadel of democracy of the United States wore insignias of White supremacist groups, waved Confederate flags, hung a noose on the lawn, and they were shouting racial epithets. According to published reports and his own public statements, Mr. Bannon had specific knowledge about the events planned for January 6th before they occurred: just before the day of the attack, Mr. Bannon told his listeners: All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. . . . It's not going to happen like you think it's going to happen. OK, it's going to be quite extraordinarily different. All I can say is, strap in . . . You made this happen and tomorrow it's game day. So strap in. Let's get ready. So many people said, `Man, if I was in a revolution, I would be in Washington.' Well this is your time in history. At 12:15 p.m. on January 6th he said to the assembled multitude on the Ellipse: ``You will never take back our country with weakness.'' Less than an hour later, at 1:10 p.m., he admonished the crowd: ``We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell you will not have a country anymore.'' At 2:11 p.m. the Trump-incited mob breached police lines on the west side of the Capitol. Madam Speaker, the assault on the U.S. Capitol by domestic terrorists and insurrectionists rightly takes its place as one of the darkest moments in our Nation's history since the Civil War. Madam Speaker, the January 6th insurrection caused tragic loss of life and many injuries, while leaving behind widespread physical damage to the Capitol Complex and emotional trauma for Members, Congressional employees, and the Capitol Police. It bears repeating often that the Congress and the Nation owe undying gratitude to the men and women who answered the call of constitutional duty and heroically won the day on that bloody and deadly afternoon. Madam Speaker, the domestic terrorists and seditionists who attacked the Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 were not, as some of their ardent defenders and apologists across the aisle have stated falsely, on a ``normal tour visit''; nor was their effort to lay siege to the Capitol and disrupt the processes of government an act of persons who love their country. And it is absurd to suggest that it was a celebration of the United States and what it stands for when the leading edge of terrorists desecrated the Capitol by offensively parading the treasonous Confederate flag through the building and when, because of their insurrection, several members of law enforcement made the supreme sacrifice and scores more were seriously injured. Madam Speaker, we owe it not just to those who lost their lives during that day, but to all Americans to figure out exactly what happened and how that day came to be. We must understand that day in order to prevent the intended purpose of the January 6th insurrection--to disrupt the Joint Meeting of Congress to tally the votes of presidential electors and announce the results to the Nation and the world--from ever occurring again, because it was the greatest threat to the American Experiment since the Civil War when the pro-slavery forces decided to make war rather than let the Nation survive and the pro-freedom forces would accept war rather than let the Nation perish. The Select Committee has diligently continued in their duty to determine the causes and events that transpired during the insurrectionist attack. Specifically, the Select Committee's purposes include: To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes ``relating to the January 6, 2021 domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol Complex;'' To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes ``relating to the interference with the peaceful transfer of power;'' and To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to ``the influencing factors that fomented such an attack on American representative democracy while engaged in a constitutional process.'' In line with these purposes, the Select Committee requested information from Mr. Bannon central to its legislative purpose: On September 23, 2021, Chairman Thompson signed and transmitted a subpoena to Mr. Bannon, ordering the production of both documents and testimony relevant to the January 6th attack on the Capitol. The subpoena required Mr. Bannon to produce the documents on October 7 and required his presence for deposition testimony on October 14. Mr. Bannon simply defied the subpoena--failing to produce the documents on October 7 and failing to show up for the deposition on October 14. In a letter to Mr. Bannon's counsel on October 15, Chairman Thompson noted that Mr. Bannon had not even attempted to provide the Select Committee any explanation for refusing to comply with the Select Committee's demand for documents and testimony on a range of subjects that do not involve communications with the former President. An individual who fails or refuses to comply with a House subpoena may be cited for contempt of Congress, and in his October 8th letter to Mr. Bannon's counsel, Chairman Thompson warned Mr. Bannon that his continued non-compliance would put him in jeopardy of a vote to refer him to the House to consider a criminal contempt referral. Mr. Bannon's failure to appear for deposition or produce responsive documents in the face of this clear advisement and warning by the Chairman constitutes willful failure to comply with the subpoena. The purpose behind seeking this information is because Mr. Bannon played a central role in organizing the January 6th attack on the Capitol, and understanding this role is essential to understanding the context in which the January 6th attack occurred. Mr. Bannon constructed and participated in the ``stop the steal'' public relations effort that motivated the January 6th attack. Mr. Bannon planned political and other activities in advance of January 6th. Mr. Bannon participated in a ``war room'' of promoters and prominent supporters of the ``stop the steal'' movement that met on January 5th. Mr. Bannon communicated with President Trump several times in advance of the January 6th attack, urging him to take measures to interfere with the count of electoral votes and to make January 6th a day of reckoning. In fact, according to published reports and his own public statements, Mr. Bannon had specific knowledge about the events planned for January 6th before they occurred: just before the day of the attack, Mr. Bannon urged his listeners: All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. . . . It's not going to happen like you think it's going to happen. OK, it's going to be quite extraordinarily different. All I can say is, strap in . . . You made this happen and tomorrow it's game day. So strap in. Let's get ready. So many people said, `Man, if I was in a revolution, I would be in Washington.' Well this is your time in history. In sum, Mr. Bannon appears to have played a multi-faceted role in the events of the January 6th attack and the American people are entitled to hear his first-hand testimony regarding his actions. As recognized by the Supreme Court, ``The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process,'' and that the subpoena power is a ``public duty, which every person within the jurisdiction of the Government is bound to perform when properly summoned.'' The contempt of Congress statute makes clear that a witness summoned before Congress must appear or be ``deemed guilty of a misdemeanor'' punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 and imprisonment for up to one year. Further, the Supreme Court has emphasized that the subpoena power is a ``public duty, which every person within the jurisdiction of the Government is bound to perform when properly summoned.'' The Supreme Court also recently reinforced this clear obligation by stating that ``when Congress seeks information needed for intelligent legislative action, it unquestionably remains the duty of all citizens to cooperate.'' Mr. Bannon has relied on no legal authority to support his refusal to comply in any fashion with the subpoena. Mr. Bannon's refusal to comply with the subpoena is ostensibly based on his decision to ``honor [former President Trump's] invocation of executive privilege.'' However, not only has former President Trump had no direct communication with the Select Committee, but also the Select Committee has not received any formal invocation of executive privilege from former President Trump as to Mr. Bannon. The Select Committee is seeking information from Mr. Bannon on a wide range of subjects that clearly cannot be covered by an assertion of executive privilege. Mr. Bannon was a private citizen during the relevant period and the testimony and documents the Select Committee is demanding do not concern discussion of official government matters with the President and his immediate advisors. In sum, there is no reasonable argument that Mr. Bannon's communications with the President regarding January 6th are the type of matters on which executive privilege can be asserted. Finally, there is no conceivable assertion that executive privilege could apply to other information sought that does not constitute communications with Mr. Trump during his presidency. Beyond communications between Mr. Bannon and Mr. Trump, the Select Committee seeks documents and testimony from Mr. Bannon regarding his own actions and interactions with other private citizens relating to the events of January 6th. In light of this, rather than comply with Congress' inherent powers, and help heal the trauma this Nation witnessed on January 6th, Mr. Bannon has simply refused to comply with the Select Committee's subpoena. Madam Speaker, this should not be a partisan issue; it is the very power of Congress to investigate matters of issue that is at stake. For this reason, I rise in support of the rule governing debate for H. Res. 730, ``Resolution Recommending that the House of Representatives Find Stephen K. Bannon in Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply with a Subpoena Duly Issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol,'' and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support H.R. 3110, the ``Pump for Nursing Mothers Act,'' which will close an unintentional loophole in the 2010 Break Time for Nursing Mothers Act. The 2010 law requires employers to provide break time and a place for hourly wage-earning and some salaried employees to express breast milk at work for one year after the birth of the employee's child. Unfortunately, this law unintentionally excluded a quarter of all working women--nearly nine million employees--from protection. H.R. 3110 closes this coverage gap by extending the law's protections to cover salaried employees as well as other categories of employees currently exempted from protections, such as teachers, nurses, and farmworkers. H.R. 3110 would also provide employers clarity on paid and unpaid pumping time. The bill leaves in place existing law protecting many salaried workers from having their pay docked and clarifies that employers must pay an hourly employee for any time spent pumping if the employee is also working. Lastly, the bill would ensure that nursing mothers have access to remedies that are available for other violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, women with children are the fastest-growing segment of the workforce, and balancing work and family is an important priority for all employees. More than 80% of new mothers in the United States begin breastfeeding, 1 and 6 in every 10 new mothers are in the workforce. New parents face an incredible amount of increased difficulties while juggling work, family and mental and emotional tolls that are exacerbated as a new parent. According to a study published in Reviews in Obstetrics and Gynecology, breastfeeding provides health benefits for not only infants, but also for mothers. For mothers, abstaining from breastfeeding has been associated with an increase in developing various types of cancers, type 2 diabetes, heart attacks, retained gestational weight gain and metabolic syndrome in adult women. For infants, not being breastfed is associated with infectious illnesses such as pneumonia, ear infections, gastroenteritis, and can increase the risk of developing childhood-onset obesity, type 1 and 2 diabetes, leukemia and SIDS. This bill will ensure that mothers will no longer be forced to choose between their own health, their infant's health, and their income. This includes individuals like Melissa Hodgkins, who has had to bring suit against her employer simply to provide workers with a clean, private place and breaks to breast pump at work. Her coworkers were often of losing their paychecks to ask the airline to accommodate them; in fact, when some of her coworkers did ask for breaks and a place to pump, her employer actually prohibited them from pumping at work, and even forced them off the job without a paycheck. The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act will stop such bad actions by employers and alleviate the disparities that currently exist between breastfeeding employees and their coworkers, sending a clear message that the workforce will protect and support women who opt to balance a career and motherhood. For these reasons, I encourage all Members to support H.R. 3110, the ``Pump for Nursing Mothers Act.'' [From ACLU, Sept. 30, 2021] The PUMP Act Would Protect Nursing Workers Like Me (By Melissa Hodgkins) I took Frontier Airlines to court for making it impossible for me to pump breast milk at work. Other workers shouldn't have to fight for their rights like I did. When started my career as a flight attendant, I never imagined that I wouldn't be able to continue breastfeeding after I went back to work. I thought that, like most workplaces, my airline would be required by federal law to provide workers a clean, private place and breaks to pump at work. (That's thanks to a provision known as the Break Time for Nursing Mothers law.) But it turns out my employer isn't. That's because flight attendants are among the approximately 9 million women who are excluded from the law's protection--along with other transportation workers, teachers, agricultural workers, nurses, and many others. A bill before Congress right now-- the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act--would fix that. Congress should act now to pass it. I first realized the pickle I was in when I became pregnant with my first child and found out that my employer, Frontier Airlines, didn't provide any accommodations for nursing moms. I'd watched other flight attendant moms trying to make it work pumping on the job--and I saw how stressful it was for them. They were too fearful of losing their paychecks to ask the airline to accommodate them. When some of my coworkers did ask for breaks and a place to pump, Frontier actually prohibited them from pumping at work, and even forced them off the job without a paycheck. That was when I started to feel like Frontier was making me choose between my career and breastfeeding my baby. I believe breast milk is optimal for babies, and I wanted to give him those health benefits. At the same time, I didn't feel great about pumping in an unsanitary airplane lavatory, and having to scramble to find time to pump between flights, especially given my unpredictable schedule. I was worried I'd lose my job if I had to pump on duty and got reported. Even though I desperately wanted to keep nursing my baby, I just couldn't see how I could make it work. It was a wrenching decision, but I decided I had no choice but to give up breastfeeding in order to go back to work and support my family. No woman should have to make that kind of decision. But because of the gap in coverage under the current law, too many of us still do. The ACLU is representing me in a lawsuit arguing that Frontier's treatment of pregnant and breastfeeding pilots and flight attendants is discriminatory. But if the airline had not been exempt from the duty under the existing federal Break Time Law to provide breaks and a clean place to pump, we probably would have never had to take Frontier to court over that in the first place. The PUMP Act would give workers like me the protection we need: a clear requirement that all employers must provide workers who are nursing with the basic accommodations they need. Solutions exist in all industries--including airlines-- that would allow employees to pump safely. And the bill would strengthen the law in other ways, extending protections from one year to two years, clarifying that it covers situations like adoption or stillbirth, and ensuring that when employers are not in compliance, there is a meaningful way to enforce it. The bill has bipartisan support in Congress. Let's make sure it becomes law so that all workers--no matter what industry they work in--have the choice to continue breastfeeding and the ability to get back to work.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, it gives me great joy when I can come to the floor and really speak directly to the moms and dads and families that right now, as we stand on the floor, are probably looking to gather children from schools, looking at what they are going to do over the weekend, maybe doing grocery shopping and looking at the resources that they do have or do not have. It is important that we immediately pass the Build Back Better Act and that those who have a difference of opinion realize that it is always the greater good that America has always been about. When we have gone to war, we have not gone to war to be an offender. We have gone to war to defend principles of democracy. I believe the Build Back Better Act will provide greater pricing of prescription drugs, strengthening the Affordable Care Act, expanding Medicaid for some 12 States. The State of Texas happens to be one of them, where 733,000-plus people are uninsured. These are working people. Expanding Federal Medicaid is going to help those people in States like Kansas and South Dakota. If they won't speak for themselves, I will speak for America. In addition, the care economy really says that we must give childcare and universal kindergarten to people so that we can be advanced and our people can be helped. Finally, let me say that voting is important and crucial. We must pass voting rights. This is Build Back Better America, and build back makes America the best country in the world.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise to mark the 10th anniversary of the dedication of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial on the Tidal Basin, between the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials. The location of this Memorial, the only memorial on the Mall dedicated to a person not an office holder or employed by the United States, is especially fitting, situated as it is between the author of the Declaration of Independence, which contained the audacious boast that ``we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and born with certain inalienable rights,'' and the greatest of all American presidents, the Great Emancipator Abraham Lincoln, who understood that this nation could not survive ``half slave and half free'' and preserved the Union through the great contest, testing whether this nation, or any nation, can long endure.'' Dr. Martin Luther King was a dreamer but he was not just an idle daydreamer; he had an active faith that led him to share his vision of the beloved community where equal justice and institutions were facts of life. When Jefferson wrote he Declaration of Independence in 1776, declaring ``that all Men are Created Equal,'' it was equally true that at that time and for centuries to come, African-Americans were historically, culturally, and legally excluded from inclusion in that declaration. Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King's ``I Have a Dream'' Speech, delivered 50 years ago, on August 28, 1963, was a clarion call to each citizen of this great nation that we still hear today. The request was simply and eloquently conveyed--he asked America to allow of its citizens to live out the words written in its Declaration of Independence and to have a place in this nation's Bill of Rights. The 1960s were a time of great crisis, conflict, and promise. The dreams of the people of this country were filled with troubling images that arose like lava from the nightmares of violence and the crises they had to face, both domestically and internationally. It was the decade of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War, and the assassinations of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Malcolm X, Presidential Candidate Robert Kennedy, and the man in whose honor the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial is dedicated. Dr. Martin Luther King's dream helped us turn the corner on civil rights. It started with a peaceful march for suffrage that started in Selma, Alabama on March 7, 1965--a march that ended with violence at the hands of law enforcement officers as the marchers crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge. But the dream did not die there. Dr. King led the Montgomery Bus Boycott, often with Rosa Parks, a boycott that lasted for 381 days, and ended when the United States Supreme Court outlawed as unconstitutional racial segregation on all public transportation. Dr. King used several nonviolent tactics to protest against Jim Crow Laws in the South and he organized and led demonstrations for desegregation, labor and voting rights. When the life of Dr. Martin Luther King was stolen from us, he was a very young 39 years old. People remember that Dr. King died in Memphis, but few can remember why he was there. On that fateful day in 1968 Dr. King came to Memphis to support a strike by the city's sanitation workers. The garbage men there had recently formed a chapter of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees to demand better wages and working conditions. But the city refused to recognize their union, and when the 1,300 employees walked off their jobs the police broke up the rally with mace and billy clubs. It was then that union leaders invited Dr. King to Memphis. Despite the danger he might face entering such a volatile situation, it was an invitation he could not refuse. Not because he longed for danger, but because the labor movement was intertwined with the civil rights movement for which he had given up so many years of his life. The death of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., will never overshadow his life; that is his legacy as a dreamer and a man of action. It is a legacy of hope, tempered with peace; it is a legacy not quite yet fulfilled. I hope that Dr. King's vision of equality under the law is never lost to us, who in the present, toil in times of unevenness in our equality. For without that vision--without that dream--we can never continue to improve on the human condition. For those who have already forgotten, or whose vision is already clouded with the fog of complacency, I would like to recite the immortal words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: ``I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former shareholders will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the State of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but for the content of their character. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day down in Alabama with its vicious racists, with its Governor having his lips dripping with words of interposition and nullification--one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough place will be made plain and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.'' Dr. King's dream did not stop at racial equality, his ultimate dream was one of human equality and dignity. There is no doubt that Dr. King supported freedom and justice for every individual in America and he was in midst of planning the 1968 Poor People's Campaign for Jobs and Justice when he was struck down by the dark deed of an assassin on April 4, 1968. Therefore, it is for us, the living, to continue that fight today and forever, in the great spirit that inspired the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In his 1837 Lyceum Address titled ``The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions,'' Abraham Lincoln warned that mobs or people who disrespected U.S. laws and courts would always pose the most dangerous threat to the perpetuation of United States: ``All the armies of Europe and Asia . . . could not by force take a drink from the Ohio River or make a track on the Blue Ridge in the trial of a thousand years. No, if destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.'' But Lincoln advised us of the best defense against domestic threats and attacks on our democracy: public reverence for the Constitution and rule of law as ``the political religion of our nation.'' Madam Speaker, democracy in America is not an act, it is an activity; it is never finished or complete but always in the process of making our union more perfect; and the nation will always be confronted with challenge of confirming the proposition that this nation, or any nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all are created equal can long endure. Since the assassination of President Lincoln, who extended malice toward but charity for all, no one understood this better than the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. That is why he is one of the greatest Americans to have graced our Nation. That is why he is so worthy of the national honor of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary, on Homeland Security, and on the Budget, I rise in support of the rule governing debate for H. Res. 730, ``Resolution Recommending that the House of Representatives Find Stephen K. Bannon in Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply with a Subpoena Duly Issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.'' On January 6th the domestic terrorists who beat law enforcement officers and breached the Citadel of democracy of the United States wore insignias of White Supremacist groups, waved confederate flags, hung a noose on the lawn, and they were shouting racial epithets. According to published reports and his own public statements, Mr. Bannon had specific knowledge about the events planned for January 6th before they occurred: just before the day of the attack, Mr. Bannon told his listeners: All hell is going to break loose tomorrow . . . It's not going to happen like you think it's going to happen. OK, it's going to be quite extraordinarily different. All I can say is, strap in . . . You made this happen and tomorrow it's game day. So strap in. Let's get ready. So many people said, `Man, if I was in a revolution, I would be in Washington.' Well this is your time in history. At 12:15 p.m. on January 6th he said to the assembled multitude on the Ellipse: ``You will never take back our country with weakness.'' Less than an hour later, at 1:10 p.m., he admonished the crowd: ``We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell you will not have a country anymore.'' Madam Speaker, the assault on the U.S. Capitol by domestic terrorists and insurrectionists rightly takes its place as one of the darkest moments in our nation's history since the Civil War. Madam Speaker, the January 6 insurrection caused tragic loss of life and many injuries, while leaving behind widespread physical damage to the Capitol Complex and emotional trauma for Members, Congressional employees, and the Capitol Police. It bears repeating often that the Congress and the nation owe undying gratitude to the men and women who answered the call of constitutional duty and heroically won the day on that bloody and deadly afternoon. Madam Speaker, the domestic terrorists and seditionists who attacked the Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 were not, as some of their ardent defenders and apologists across the aisle have stated falsely, on a ``normal tour visit''; nor was their effort to lay siege to the Capitol and disrupt the processes of government an act of persons who love their country. And it is absurd to suggest that it was a celebration of the United States and what it stands for when the leading edge of terrorists desecrated the Capitol by offensively parading the treasonous Confederate flag through the building and when, because of their insurrection, several members of law enforcement made the supreme sacrifice and scores more were seriously injured. Madam Speaker, we owe it not just to those who lost their lives during that day, but to all Americans to figure out exactly what happened and how that day came to be. We must understand that day in order to prevent the intended purpose of the January 6 insurrection--to disrupt the Joint Meeting of Congress to tally the votes of presidential electors and announce the results to the nation and the world--from every occurring again, because it was the greatest threat to the American Experiment since the Civil War when the pro-slavery forces decided to make war rather than let the nation survive. and the pro-freedom forces would accept war rather than let the nation perish. The Select Committee has diligently continued in their duty to determine the causes and events that transpired during the insurrectionist attack. Specifically, the Select Committee's purposes include: To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes ``relating to the January 6, 2021 domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol Complex;'' To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes ``relating to the interference with the peaceful transfer of power;'' and To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to ``the influencing factors that fomented such an attack on American representative democracy while engaged in a constitutional process.'' In line with these purposes, the Select Committee requested information from Mr. Bannon central to its legislative purpose: On September 23, 2021, Chairman Thompson signed and transmitted a subpoena to Mr. Bannon, ordering the production of both documents and testimony relevant to the January 6th attack on the Capitol. The subpoena required Mr. Bannon to produce the documents on October 7 and required his presence for deposition testimony on October 14. Mr. Bannon simply defied the subpoena--failing to produce the documents on October 7 and failing to show up for the deposition on October 14. In a letter to Mr. Bannon's counsel on October 15, Chairman Thompson noted that Mr. Bannon had not even attempted to provide the Select Committee any explanation for refusing to comply with the Select Committee's demand for documents and testimony on a range of subjects that do not involve communications with the former President. An individual who fails or refuses to comply with a House subpoena may be cited for contempt of Congress, and in his October 8th letter to Mr. Bannon's counsel, Chairman Thompson warned Mr. Bannon that his continued non-compliance would put him in jeopardy of a vote to refer him to the House to consider a criminal contempt referral. Mr. Bannon's failure to appear for deposition or produce responsive documents in the face of this clear advisement and warning by the Chairman constitutes willful failure to comply with the subpoena. The purpose behind seeking this information is because Mr. Bannon played a central role in organizing January 6th attack on the Capitol, and understanding this role is essential to understanding the context in which the January 6th attack occurred. Mr. Bannon constructed and participated in the ``stop the steal'' public relations effort that motivated the January 6th attack. Mr. Bannon planned political and other activities in advance of January 6th. Mr. Bannon participated in a ``war room'' of promoters and prominent supporters of the ``stop the steal'' movement that met on January 5th. Mr. Bannon communicated with President Trump several times in advance of the January 6th attack, urging him to take measures to interfere with the count of electoral votes and to make January 6th a day of reckoning. In fact, according to published reports and his own public statements, Mr. Bannon had specific knowledge about the events planned for January 6th before they occurred: just before the day of the attack, Mr. Bannon urged his listeners: All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. . . . It's not going to happen like you think it's going to happen. OK, it's going to be quite extraordinarily different. All I can say is, strap in. You made this happen and tomorrow it's game day. So strap in. Let's get ready. So many people said, `Man, if I was in a revolution, I would be in Washington.' Well this is your time in history. In sum, Mr. Bannon appears to have played a multi-faceted role in the events of the January 6th attack and the American people are entitled to hear his first-hand testimony regarding his actions. As recognized by the Supreme Court, ``The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process,'' and that the subpoena power is a ``public duty, which every person within the jurisdiction of the Government is bound to perform when properly summoned.'' Rather than comply with Congress' inherent powers, and help heal the trauma this nation witnessed on January 6th, Mr. Bannon has simply refused to comply with the Select Committee's subpoena. Madam Speaker, this should not be a partisan issue; it is the very power of Congress to investigate matters of issue that is at stake. For this reason, I rise in support of the rule governing debate for H. Res. 370, ``Resolution Recommending that the House of Representatives Find Stephen K. Bannon in Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply with a Subpoena Duly Issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol,'' and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to be able to further defend and add to my statement regarding H. Res. 730 recommending that the House of Representatives find Stephen K. Bannon in contempt of Congress. It is well known that even from his own words and published reports, these are the words that Mr. Bannon told his listeners: ``All hell is going to break loose tomorrow.'' ``It is not going to happen like you think it is going to happen. Okay. It is going to be quite extraordinarily different. All I can say is, strap in. . . . You have made this happen, and tomorrow, it is game day. So strap in. Let's get ready.'' ``So many people through my life said, man, if I was in the Revolution, I would be with Washington at Trenton. Well, this is your time in history.'' There is no constitutional provision that would deny the January 6th Select Committee the right to receive information from Mr. Bannon after he has been subpoenaed for information regarding the insurrection, the riot, the attack on January 6. The idea of executive privilege is exerted by the existing President, limited on a President of the United States no longer in office. In fact, Mr. Bannon has been gone from the White House since 2017. He has no legitimate basis. Based on three equal branches of government, we cannot allow an individual to undermine democracy. This is a democratic republic, and I expect that the referral to the United States Department of Justice will be handled.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico for her leadership. I am very glad that she has emphasized the unanimity and the unity of Democrats as relates to all of our constituents, all Americans, whether we are in New Mexico, Texas, or whether, we are in New York, whether in Mississippi, Illinois, California, whether we are up in the New England States or down the coast in the Carolinas and down to Florida and all in between, it is important, again, to emphasize to the American people that this is about you. Breaking news. Each of these elements that we are fighting for--and we take no discomfort in you saying at the bus stop, while taking your child to school, what are they talking about? It is our responsibility to let you know what we are talking about and to let you know that the Congressional Progressive Caucus has been talking and working and talking and working. We now are at a point where we will say to you: We will not negotiate against ourselves. But we are the engine to get it done working with the Quad Caucus, the Tri Caucus, and the Democratic Caucus. So, Mr. Speaker, you have heard that there are numbers that may be different from $3.5 trillion of which I still stand on. But we are working to see how we can respond to the American people, and that is you have indicated that there is a framework that will change my life. I want to see it sooner than later. So here is where we are. There is the INVEST Act, though, we are talking tonight about Build Back Better. I want you to know that, Mr. Speaker, as some would say, it is on the table. It is on the table for broadband. It is on the table for high-speed rail. It is on the table for electric cars. It is on the table for the trials and tribulations of your commute where there is a pothole here or a freeway that is out of commission or a bridge or a dam, it is there. So go home and be sure that we will have that framework. But then Build Back Better is what I want to conclude my remarks on today. We will provide you with the kind of quality of life that gives you more time with your children, that gives you better wages, that gives you climate change response, and gives your child a universal pre-K and kindergarten to ensure that they are competitive around the world; and, yes, Medicaid for those who never lived in States where they opted into the public option or expanded Medicaid. So if you are working every day, we want you to have health insurance, and on Medicare we want that hearing, we want those eyes, and we want dental to be part of your life. This is what is the bowl of fruit that is there for you. The next step as we work out for how these plans will be implemented is to get it done. My view is what I heard from a Member--I will give him credit--from Arizona. Put them together and let's move once we organize and analyze the pieces of it. And I will just leave, Madam Manager, my comment on the table. Let us be meticulous and careful about what plans or what items can accept reduction because you don't want something that does not work because you have reduced it in time or dollars. Let's be meticulous, and that is what we are doing. And let's make sure that we are meticulous in ensuring that the final bill is an impactful bill on lives in terms of years of how long the program lasts and in terms of dollars of how much impact it will have. We as the Congressional Progressive Caucus have been in the center and in the mix, and we will do the Nation's bidding. We will do it right because we stand for the people of this Nation, and particularly those who cannot speak for themselves. That gives me pride. I am delighted to be here on the floor with the gentlewoman to ensure that those voices can be heard. I know working with the President we will get it done. Put it together, and let's move.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I am delighted to be with the gentlewoman and as well to be fighting for what is right, and that is what we are doing here today. We are fighting for what is right. I am amazed when I hear people want to try to understand whether or not we are on the floor of the House talking about a safety net or whether we are on the floor of the House trying to create a care economy. Well, let me be very clear. The clearness of my point is that the care economy is alive and well. It may be called by many names, but it is millions of women who have in the decades--some without names, some without categories--have been working to take care of people. They have been layered from those, as we have heard my sisters and my colleagues indicate, that they have been parents who were in the last stages of life, they are working mothers who need childcare, and they are particularly care workers themselves who don't have childcare. So the Build Back Better Act is what you want, America. Many people say: What is in the bill? This is what you want. You already have gotten portions of the child tax cut. It is a credit, but I like to call it a child tax cut. That is in there to be continued. And I have heard the stories from my constituents, making ends meet, getting diapers and formula, and paying rent to be able to keep a roof over the head of toddlers and babies of single parents, mostly women. So we know how important the child tax credit is. But then we talk about childcare and when we talk about kindergarten that will be universal. These are in the early stages of life. So I am excited. Let me just mention one deviation, Madam Speaker. Let me just mention one deviation, and that is that in Texas we have got a compounded problem, people without childcare and people without healthcare because we never opted in--I say we--the State Government never opted into the expanded Medicaid. So we have working parents with 766,000 who are uninsured in the State of Texas. Can you imagine, Madam Speaker, working parents with children who have no childcare; and they are not insured, and they have no healthcare? So can we ease their burden? Can we ease their burden? Quickly let me ease their burden and ensure that--very quickly let me pay tribute to a school in Humble, Texas, where I met a young woman by the name of Aquila Gillespie who runs a subsidized childcare facility who desperately needs this childcare program which is going to allow her working parents--they are working parents in the care industry--who come to her with children at night, who have children who are, in fact, in early education, meaning that they are first and second grade. She works hard to open this school because most of the parents who enroll them in the school cannot afford childcare. These men and women are working people, and they work at night. I stand here to join with my colleagues to say, what does America want? They want to know that this bill is going to help them. You can see how colorful it is, Creative Kids. And that is Aquila. I want her to be known on television because she did this as a young woman, a young woman who was a single parent at the time. She hires and employs mothers and others who are in the working class. Let me say childcare, America, is what you will get with the Build Back Better Act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, today, I rise to pay tribute to Secretary Colin Powell, America's general. Secretary Powell was more than an astute general and outstanding civic leader who served our Nation's President. He was kind-hearted, a genuine American hero. He was a man of conscience and integrity who bravely stood against divisiveness and lived life bringing people together. As the son of two hardworking Jamaican immigrants, he knew the importance of education and hard work. General Powell, as he prefers to be called, was the first African-American National Security Advisor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Secretary of State, and he had 35 years of service in the military for this Nation. He described himself in a New York Times article, and he talked about himself in the third person: ``Powell is a problem-solver. He was taught as a soldier to solve problems. So he has views, but he is not an ideologue. He has passion, but he is not a fanatic. He is, first and foremost, a problem-solver.'' And that he did. In Vietnam, he was a hero when the helicopter that he was in crashed, and he pulled out his commander, Major General Charles M. Gettys. Also, he was a passionate servant of the people. When he retired, he organized America's Promise. America's Promise helped at-risk children. I remember seeing his program, hearing about his program, and supporting his program. To his wonderful wife, Alma, and his children, he remains to us an extremely beloved individual. I am reminding all Americans, let us remember that a general can be soft and strong and remain a hero to all of us in nature, spirit, sacrifice, and deeds. The Nation has lost a great leader, but more importantly, the Nation has lost a symbol of what is best and great about America.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as a member of the Law Enforcement Caucus and a senior member of the Committees on Judiciary and Homeland Security, and the Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, I rise to commemorate National Police Weekend, which runs from today, Friday, October 15, through Sunday, October 17, 2021. The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial is the nation's monument to law enforcement officers who have died in the line of duty. Dedicated on October 15, 1991, the Memorial honors federal, state and local law enforcement officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice for the safety and protection of our nation and its people. Carved on its walls are the names of 22,611 officers who have been killed in the line of duty throughout U.S. history, dating back to the first known death in 1791. Added to the Wall this year will be the names of the 295 police officers who lost their lives in the line of duty in 2020 and an additional 99 officers who died in previous years but whose stories of sacrifice had been lost to history until now. Also to be added are the names of 182 officers who were lost to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Madam Speaker, enshrined on the Memorial Wall of Honor also are the names of 1,831 fallen peace officers from the state of Texas, the most of any state, including 115 members of the Houston Police Department who gave their lives to keep their city safe. To this Roll of Honor will be added the following heroes from Texas: Caleb Daniel Rule, End of Watch: May 29, 2020, Fort Bend County, Texas, C.O., Pct. 4 Mark Christopher Brown, End of Watch: July 26, 2020, Harris County, Texas, C.O., Pct. 5 Johnny Ramos Tunches, End of Watch: November 2, 2020, Harris County, Texas, S.O. Cornelius Bernard Anderson, End of Watch: July 12, 2020, Harris County, Texas, S.O. Juan Menchaca Jr., End of Watch: June 13, 2020, Harris County, Texas, S.O. Raymond John Scholwinski, End of Watch: May 6, 2020, Harris County, Texas, S.O. Dennis Roy Oliver Jr., End of Watch: October 2, 2020, Highland Village, Texas, P.D. Lemuel Delray Bruce Jr., End of Watch: October 16, 2020, Houston, Texas, F.D. Christopher Charles Lewis Brewster, End of Watch: December 7, 2019, Houston, Texas, P.D. Ernest Leal Jr., End of Watch: November 27, 2020, Houston, Texas, P.D. Harold Lloyd Preston, End of Watch: October 20, 2020, Houston, Texas, P.D. Jason Michael Knox, End of Watch: May 2, 2020, Houston, Texas, P.D. Madam Speaker, today there are more than 800,000 law enforcement personnel serving the people of our country, the highest amount ever. About 12 percent of them are female. These brave men and women risk their lives to keep the peace and keep us safe, but they are too often taken by the violence they are working to prevent. Every year, a law enforcement officer is killed somewhere in the United States every 55 hours, and there are also 58,170 assaults against our law officers each year, resulting in 17,560 injuries. Madam Speaker, I am proud to represent the people of the 18th Congressional District of Texas in paying tribute to the 394 fallen heroes who will be joining the 22,611 gallant men and women who gave the last full measure of devotion to the communities they took an oath to protect and serve. Madam Speaker, I ask for a moment of silence in memory of the 295 officers who died in the line of duty in 2020 and the additional 99 officers who died in previous years but whose story had been lost to history, the names of all of whom will be added to the National Peace Officers Memorial Wall of Honor. Houston Law Enforcement Officers Memorialized on the Wall of Honor Timothy Scott Abernethy, End of Watch: December 7, 2008, Houston, Texas, P.D. Charles H Baker, End of Watch: August 16, 1979, Houston, Texas, P.D. Johnny Terrell Bamsch, End of Watch: January 30, 1975, Houston, Texas, P.D. Claude R Beck, End of Watch: December 10, 1971, Houston, Texas, P.D. Jack B Beets, End of Watch: March 30, 1955, Houston, Texas, P.D. Troy A Blando, End of Watch: May 19, 1999, Houston, Texas,

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts and my friends on the other side of the aisle. The good news is that Democrats, and I hope some good friends, some Republicans, will not kick American families down the aisle and down the road. That is why we are here today, to ensure that those human beings will not be kicked down the road. I am stunned by the actions of my friends that would not support the paying of your bills. Let us not discard the reality of what lifting the debt ceiling means. It is the bills that have already accrued. It is the light bill; it is the telephone bill; it is the heat bill; it is the tuition for college. Those are bills that have accrued that we are paying for. That is the example the American people ask. Then we are trying to work together to ensure that lead poisoning that is killing our children in water--that the INVEST Act is ready to go with the Build Back Better, that broadband is ready to go with the Build Back Better. Then, of course, we want to do something innovative. The housing crisis in America is unbelievable. Homelessness is on the rise. Veterans who have pledged their life to us as Americans and who have put on the uniform unselfishly are homeless in droves. They are homeless in big cities, like Houston, Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago, and in rural areas. None of that is attributed to local leaders. When I was home yesterday interacting with the engine of the economy--construction companies and workers and engineers--they begged for having us come together, INVEST Act, Build Back Better. This bill includes a $35 billion investment in the HOME Investment Partnerships. We want to make sure that Medicare is strong, Federal Medicaid. We want housing, climate change, the immigration reform. There are many elements that will stop pushing the American people down the road like a can and just keep saying to them: We will get it one day. We will get it another day. Provide education for all those workers who were stymied during the pandemic. Stop the eviction of individuals who I saw come out into the street. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The New York Times. [From the New York Times, October 8, 2021] What the Debt Ceiling Means for Social Security and More The federal government is about two weeks away from being unable to pay its bills--and that could delay benefit payments to tens of millions of retirees, Medicare and Medicaid providers, and numerous others receiving checks from the U.S. Treasury. Running into the federal borrowing limit could lead to a catastrophic default on the nation's debt. Once the government reaches the ceiling--and exhausts all other measures to keep payments flowing--it will run out of funds for bills it has already promised to pay. To avoid such a calamity, Democrats are weighing a change to filibuster rules in order to hold a vote. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, has suggested allowing a temporary increase until December, although that would merely postpone a default deadline for a matter of weeks. The government has never defaulted on its obligations, so what would happen is unclear. But the effects could be wide- ranging, covering programs as varied as Social Security benefits and school lunches. ``There is no public playbook for what to do when you breach the debt limit,'' said Marc Goldwein, senior policy director at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a fiscal watchdog group. ``We don't know what will happen.'' What Programs Could be Affected? A lot, covering a lot of people. A default could potentially--but not necessarily--delay the payment of Social Security benefits, which reach about 65 million Americans in some form. It could also delay payments to government contractors, including hospitals that accept patients who use Medicare and Medicaid benefits. If the situation dragged on for weeks or months, it could threaten access to health care, Whitney Tucker, the deputy director of research on the State Fiscal Policy team at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said in a recent note. Some state-run programs that use federal money, like those providing free or reduced-cost breakfast and lunch to low- income students, might not be immediately reimbursed. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps, would also be affected. And it would probably halt payments being made to families under the newly expanded child tax credit, which in July began sending eligible families half of the credit in monthly installments. Roughly 35 million families received the benefit in July. When Could this Happen? That's not totally clear. The Treasury secretary, Janet L. Yellen, has said the government will hit the debt ceiling on Oct. 18. But some analysts believe the actual date could be pushed back a few days, or perhaps longer. It's important to note that this situation is different from a government shutdown, which happens when Congress fails to pass bills that permit new spending. White House officials warn that running into the debt ceiling is far more damaging. Won't the Government still have some money? Yes, the Treasury will have some revenue coming in--from estimated quarterly income taxes, excise taxes and other sources--but the department has maintained that it does not have the authority to pick and choose which payments it will make. ``There is only one viable option to deal with the debt limit: Congress needs to increase or suspend it, as it has done approximately 80 times, including three times during the last administration,'' a Treasury spokesman said. But if no agreement is reached, some policy experts say that the Treasury may ultimately have to pick winners and losers--and that's a difficult bind, because there are several conflicting laws at play. The law says the government cannot borrow once it hits the debt limit, but the 14th Amendment to the Constitution says that the United States must honor its obligations. Other laws state that certain benefits and salaries must be paid. Is there anything else the government could do? The Treasury might decide to issue more bonds anyway and leave it to the Supreme Court to figure out the constitutional questions, said Len Burman, an institute fellow at the Urban Institute. ``They could ignore the debt limit,'' he said. ``It is a question that has never been adjudicated because it hasn't come up before.'' But previous administrations have rejected that approach, he said, and legal experts don't agree about whether it would actually work. What about Social Security? Social Security--which reaches tens of millions of Americans through retirement, disability and survivor benefits--is a bit different from other programs because it is largely financed through a dedicated payroll tax. It also has its own trust funds, which may give it more flexibility, some experts said. The taxes coming into the program aren't enough to pay all of the benefits, according to Jason J. Fichtner, chief economist at the Bipartisan Policy Center, who held several positions, including acting principal deputy commissioner, at the Social Security Administration. But since the checks are sent out on a staggered basis, the agency could wait for more cash to come in, which would result in delayed payments. But there's also at least one other possibility. If the Treasury redeemed the special-issue bonds from the program's trust fund to pay benefits--and then quickly replaced them with newly issued bonds--that wouldn't raise the debt ceiling, Mr. Fichtner argues. It's not clear whether the Treasury agrees with his assessment. What else could happen? If the United States were to default on its debts--that is, stop making payments on the Treasurys it has sold--there would almost certainly be major consequences in the global markets. The immediate effect would be that portfolios held by investors as varied as pension funds and holders of 401(k)s would face a market tailspin. Even after any debt-ceiling standoff were resolved, global investors would demand higher interest payments on U.S. Treasury bonds--so the government's borrowing in the future could become more expensive. A default may also make it more difficult for consumers to secure loans, and they would most likely pay more when they did. ``In the case of a debt default, it would quickly spark a credit crunch so the issue for borrowers becomes much more about whether you can get a loan in the first place,'' said Greg McBride, chief financial analyst at Bankrate.com. ``Lenders would likely freeze or cut credit lines on home equity lines of credit and credit cards. Personal loans would be harder to get and could see higher rates.'' What if the problem isn't quickly resolved? An extended impasse would cause significant damage to the U.S. economy, Wendy Edelberg and Louise Sheiner, both senior fellows at the Brookings Institution, a research group, wrote in a recent report. ``Even in a best-case scenario where the impasse is short- lived, the economy is likely to suffer sustained--and completely avoidable--damage, particularly given the challenges that Covid-19 poses to the health of the economy,'' they wrote. If it dragged on through November, the federal government would have little choice but to significantly slash government spending by roughly $200 billion--a ``devastating'' blow to the economy, Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics, said in a recent analysis. And the increased expense of borrowing would only add to the hit in the long run. ``Americans would pay for this default for generations,'' he said.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from Forbes. [From Forbes, Oct. 4, 2021] Defaulting on the National Debt Ceiling Would Be Catastrophic for Small Businesses Here we go again. It seems every time this issue arises, lawmakers seem intent to put the U.S. economy and small businesses at risk. Unfortunately, the U.S. Department of Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has said that the federal government will run out of money on October 18 if the debt ceiling is not raised. The government reached its debt limit at the end of July and Treasury has been taking steps to keep from defaulting. If the debt ceiling is not raised in the coming weeks, the U.S. will default on its debt for the first time in its history and that will be catastrophic for small businesses. There is no question that our national debt needs to be addressed in the coming years with a mixture of revenue raises and spending cuts as the Clinton Administration did in the 1990s. However, defaulting on the debt is not the answer. It will not be some teachable moment on government spending. Instead, it will have unnecessary and irreversible consequences for almost all Americans. A Navigator survey also found that 58 percent of Americans support raising the debt ceiling. Unfortunately, this has become a political issue. Just a few days ago, Senate Minority Leader McConnell blocked Democrats from using a simple majority to get this done. Why? Republicans may want to use this as a campaign issue against Democrats this coming fall trying to claim that they are growing the national debt. But, the real story is, the national debt has risen regardless of which party is in control. There will be a time when Republicans will be in the driver's seat and need to raise the debt limit, and let's hope Democrats move beyond politics because playing ``chicken'' with the debt limit is not good politics, not good for small business, not good for our national security, and not good for the economy. In fact, an analysis by Moody's Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi estimates that defaulting on the national debt would wipe out as many as 6 million jobs and erase $15 trillion in household wealth. ``We can't emphasize enough how disastrous it would be for Congress to consider a government shutdown if consensus cannot be met in advance of the funding deadline. Small businesses are especially vulnerable and many would not survive a government shutdown at this time due to the pandemic, particularly with the rapid spread of the Delta variant, and trying to move from crisis to recovery,'' wrote Candace Waterman, President and CEO of Women Impacting Public Policy, in a letter to U.S. House and Senate leadership. Here are five ways defaulting on the national debt would harm Main Streets across the country. 1. More Expensive Small Business Loans A majority of credit rating agencies rate the U.S. federal government at AAA, the highest level. Defaulting on the debt would lead to an automatic downgrade of the country's credit rating, driving up interest rates for all Americans. Small business loans will become costlier as private lenders are forced to increase their interest rates. Even Small Business Administration (SBA)-guaranteed loans, which are often lower cost and more accessible but still reflective of market conditions, will become more expensive. 2. Higher Credit Card Interest Rates Many small business owners use their personal credit cards to cover business expenses and manage debt. As with loan rates, small business credit card and personal credit card interest rates will also rise, squeezing the amount of capital small business owners have to work with and potentially driving them into more debt. 3. Tightened Credit Markets One can look at the stories of Argentina and Greece to see what happens to a country's credit markets when it defaults' on its debt. The same will be the case for the United States if it follows in these countries' footsteps. Credit markets will tighten up and U.S. banks will prioritize lending to businesses where they have pre-existing relationships, which are more likely to be larger ones than small ones. Small businesses, especially unbanked ones and those in underserved communities, would be at a severe disadvantage when they have the least financial cushion. 4. Plunging Stock Markets Moody's Report estimates that stock prices would likely plunge by one-third, sparking that $15 trillion loss in household wealth. This would be a one-two punch for small business owners who would see their own retirement savings dissipate and then lose business from consumers who are now dealing with their lost nest egg. In turn, larger public companies could lose value, thus making it harder to incorporate small businesses into their vendor supply chain. 5. Delayed Treasury Payments The Treasury Department has been taking steps to meet its obligations, including payments to households such as Social Security. If the U.S. default on its debt, the government would immediately need to stop more than 40 percent of expected payments, including Social Security and other household income. There are a number of downstream effects this would have on small businesses, including a loss of customers and a strain on business owners and employees now taking steps to make ends meet for themselves and their loved ones. The American economy and its Main Streets are working through their greatest crisis since World War II. Both are still standing right now but a default on the national debt would be a knockout blow. Let's stop playing politics and get the debt limit raised. Once that's done, we can return to the important work of getting an infrastructure bill passed that has the ability to pave the way for the next generation of American small businesses and entrepreneurs.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let us do the debt extension that the Senate has given us, but let us not accept this paltry extension. Do it right in December and save the American people. Build Back Better and the INVEST Act, do it together. Do it now. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Rule governing debate of H.R. 2119, the ``Family Violence and Prevention Services Improvement Act,'' H.R. 3992, the ``Protect Older Job Applicants Act,'' H.R. 3110, the ``Pump for Nursing Mothers Act,'' and the Senate Amendment to the House Amendment to S. 1301, ``Temporary Extension of Public Debt Act.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. As a member of the Budget Committee, we sat for many hours on Saturday giving this Congress and the American people a budget. So I know that the discussions of my good friends are purely political, and the reason is this. In 2019, during the Trump administration, Majority Leader McConnell, the very person who stood up with such great profoundness and did not want to vote to raise the debt ceiling in order to adhere to the Constitution, as the leader, he voted to raise the debt ceiling, and he said: ``We will raise the debt ceiling because America can't default. That would be a disaster.'' Is there any poorer recollection? Then for those of us who are historians or love history, 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. That is why we are known as the greatest economy in the world. I would venture to say to my colleagues that the importance of what we do stands on the premise of the Constitution. We the people have formed to create a more perfect Union and for the general welfare of our people. Vote to increase the ability to pay our bills and stand worthy in the world's eye. I want Leader McConnell to remember his words. We need to do this on behalf of the American people. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary, on Homeland Security, and on the Budget, I rise in support of the rule governing debate for RCP 117-16, S. 1301, the ``Temporary Extension of Public Debt Act,'' which provides funding to extend the national debt limit through December 16, 2021 and avoids a wasteful, irresponsible, reckless threatening of one of the nation's singular indispensable assets: the full faith and credit of the United States. 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. 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 one he inherited, a major economic recession occurred, and economic growth was lower than it was at the beginning of his administration. According to Moody's Chief Economist Mark Zandi, it would be ``cataclysmic'' for the United States to default. Republicans know the debt ceiling needs to be raised; in 2019 during the Trump Administration, Majority Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans voted to raise the debt ceiling, ``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. 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. I strongly support this legislation and urge all Members to join me in voting for S. 1301, the ``Temporary Extension of Public Debt Act.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, we have often turned to Lincoln. My good friends on the other side of the aisle have tried to be Lincolnesque, but I don't think they have dug deep into the virtues of Abraham Lincoln. They didn't delve deeply into his sense of courage and integrity. We know that his ultimate goal was to preserve the Union, as it should have been. He was, in fact, the President of the United States of America, not of the Union States, not of the Confederate States. But often as they pretend Lincolnesque, it is abandoned along the trash heap of highways of despair. First of all, the Build Back Better Act is paid for over 10 years, in contrast to the debacle voted on, to a one, by my friends on the other side of the aisle, of the Trump tax cut, 83 percent for those who were already flourishing in dollars, while it left the bus drivers and teachers and paramedics, nurses and emergency room doctors, along the highway with tin cups. Any plan for embellishing, staffing--and that is what it is--for the Internal Revenue Service, of which we should continue to have oversight, is to ensure that those who have paid not a dime--not a dime--not a dime, Mr. Speaker--pay their fair share. Do you think any American is against that? I have seen Republicans, Democrats, and Independents who are crucially asking the question: Am I carrying the entire burden? My friends stand stalwart, the Republicans; they are not going to raise the debt ceiling. First of all, it is the full faith and credit of the United States. Read the Constitution. It is to ensure that America's bills, money already spent, are paid. Just like you use your electricity, you are paying ahead of time; you are paying for the bill already spent. The electricity, the light was on for 20 days. You are paying for that light to be on. I am sad to say that there are so many who can't make ends meet, can't pay the light bill. I have heard it often. Can't pay rent; can't pay the water bill. So I am going to start with two icons from different eras about the word ``courage.'' Abraham Lincoln eloquently spoke in 1862--he was a most visionary writer--``The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present.'' All that we talked about, all the contentiousness of yesteryear, you need to put it aside. ``The occasion is piled high . . .''--this day, this month, this 2021, this in the midst of a national health emergency, is piled high ``. . . with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so must we think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.'' Is anyone here willing to save their country? Are they willing to join as Americans to save the country? I know 2022 is coming. Great campaign ads about what Democrats did. I am glad that my terminology will be what an American did by the name of Sheila Jackson Lee. What did she do? ``Courage is the most important of all the virtues because without courage you can't practice any other virtue consistently,'' said the iconic and late Maya Angelou, who I had the privilege of teaching me. What a great memory I have of her being my professor. So I want to speak this morning on the cruciality of moving forward on the INVEST Act and the Build Back Better Act. Without a doubt, I want to be able to not give short shrift to the 2 years of free pre-K and 2 years of free community college, paid for, giving Americans the front-end and giving the opportunity to be able, for some, to be in college for the first time. They are moving on to historically Black colleges of their choice or other colleges of their choice. What about the Federal Medicaid program, when 12 States failed to opt in during the Affordable Care Act and left a trash heap of desperate people. Not the people desperate, but on the heap of despair, no healthcare, because they were below the threshold. Our friends as well decided not to do anything. Finally, Mr. Speaker, how important it is to have the INVEST Act, with making sure we have broadband and making sure that we have high- speed internet as well as highways that work not against us but for us. Let's do the right thing and have the courage of Americans. Let's stand for America.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee for yielding and with the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island, Judge Gohmert knows, and we know that Texas knows how to lead. So I thank them so very much for bringing that to our attention. Let me take just a moment to turn and say thank you to Chairman Jeffries for leading us on and providing the energy and the engine for doing something that is and will continue to be lifesaving. It is my life's work to use the criminal justice system as a reform mechanism to save lives and to ensure that it is not a system that unequally prides itself on supporting the rights sometimes of the offender without acknowledging the rights of the victim. In many instances in addiction, Mr. Speaker, you will find persons who go awry of the criminal justice system as victims because they then are not given the treatment that they should get, or they are not given the recognition of the question of how you can fairly address these laws. They are, in fact, becoming victims. They are victims of the system. They become incarcerated. They lose their right to vote. Their families are separated from them. They are stigmatized. They may lose their life's dream of being a teacher or a police officer or a lawyer. We don't know what lives we lost in the so-called war on drugs and how many fell by the wayside. So I am proud to support H.R. 1693, the EQUAL Act of 2021, which will finally eliminate the sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses and provide retroactive relief to thousands of people who received harsh and unfair sentences based on this disparity. The crack and powder cocaine sentencing disparity is another byproduct of our country's failed war on drugs. I have long championed for the equalization of crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses. The evidence of the statement of support and comments of our co-manager, Mr. Gohmert from Texas, and as well the letter from Mr. Armstrong showed the bipartisan recognition of where we are today. I want to thank the members of the Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee who collectively have had a vision along with all the members of the Judiciary Committee. What are we doing there? Yes, we are there to uphold laws to promote the legal process under the system called criminal justice, but we are surely there to ensure that criminal justice works.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Beginning in 2007 I introduced legislation that would have ended the disparity, because we had learned that most of the assumptions on which the 100-to-1 ratio was based turned out to be unfounded. Those unfounded assumptions damaged communities of color for generations. A higher percentage of Black Americans are convicted of crack cocaine versus powder cocaine offenses and receive significantly longer sentences for comparable offenses, and the percentage of individuals serving unreasonably long sentences is because that disparity exists. Let me also indicate, I was happy to introduce an amendment to allow the courts to grant sentence reductions absent the defendant's presence as required today. This will eliminate the court's logjam, and some of these individuals are, in fact, incarcerated still. Individuals like William Underwood, Matthew Charles, and Cynthia Shank all testified before the House and Senate Judiciary Committees about the devastating impact that sentencing disparity and mandatory minimum laws have had on them, their families, and countless others. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is long overdue. I am excited that the introduction of my legislation now today will become reality, and I am excited to be a partner and working with Chairman Jeffries on this important legislation. Finally, to conclude, I want just to say that race has been a factor, and we are glad that we are moving beyond that. We must pass the EQUAL Act.