Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, we will know and history will tell us that embedded in the annals of the Congressional Record will be H. Res. 398 that talks about that story. Yet we rise above that, not so much to ignore it, but we ask that we condemn the violence in this resolution. We ask for rejection and active opposition to the false ideology of white supremacy. We ask for tolerance and unity. We ask and are calling upon Americans to celebrate ethnic, racial, and religious diversity. We, too, mourn those who were killed in Atlanta for Asian hate. It says, encouraging all persons in the United States to reflect upon all of our history. Yes, we can rise above it, but we must know that the stories that are told say that Tulsa must have some repair, some say reparations. Finally, as I close, we hear a testimony from the great-granddaughter of Howard and Harriet Ector. They were builders and pillars of Black Wall Street. They were featured in the Smithsonian. As a little girl, their great-great-granddaughter was saved by hiding in a chicken coop at age 9 to dodge bullets. It was a race war. We should not ignore our differences, but we should be unified by who we are. I am delighted to support this resolution, and I ask my colleagues to vote for it. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a report by the Oklahoma Commission to Study the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921. 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre Factsheet Source--Tulsa Race Riot: A Report by the Oklahoma Commission to Study the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921, Feb. 28, 2001 Following World War I, Tulsa, Oklahoma was recognized nationally for its affluent African American community known as the Greenwood District. This thriving business district and surrounding residential area was referred to as ``Black Wall Street.'' In June 1921, a series of heinous events nearly destroyed the entire Greenwood area. ``I saw men, women and children driven like cattle, huddled like horses and treated like beasts. Thus, I fully realized the attitude of the Southern white man when he has you bested. I saw hundreds of men marched through the main business section of ``White Town'' with their hats off and their hands up, with dozens of guards marching them with guns, cursing them for everything mentionable. I saw large trucks following up the invaders, as they ran the colored people from their homes and places of business. Everything of value was loaded on these trucks and everything left was burned to ashes. I saw machine guns turned on the colored men to oust them from their stronghold.'' --Anonymous primary source Starting late on the evening on May 31 and continuing into the day of June 1, 1921, a White mob attacked the Greenwood district of Tulsa, Oklahoma, razing it to the ground. The attackers looted and intentionally burned an estimated 1,256 homes in Greenwood--America's ``Black Wall Street''--along with nearly all the district's churches, schools, and businesses. The number of persons killed in the riot may never be known, but a 2001 report by a commission created by the Oklahoma legislature estimated, based on available evidence at that time, that at least 75 to 100 people died in the Massacre, and found that one credible contemporary source estimated the death toll at 300 people. All told, in what the late historian and Tulsa survivor John Hope Franklin described as a ``firestorm of hatred and violence that is perhaps unequaled in the peace time history of the United States,'' the White mob destroyed almost forty-square-blocks and left almost 9,000 Greenwood district residents homeless. As the White invaders moved through the district, a violent pattern of murder, looting, and arson emerged. Armed Whites would force Black residents from their homes or businesses where they were held at ``a growing number of internment centers,'' loot what valuables or furnishings they could carry, and then torch the structure. They summarily shot any Black men found in a home with a firearm as well as anyone else who resisted. This pattern was repeated, ``[h]ouse by house, block after block'' until all of the city's Black neighborhoods were engulfed in flames. Whites engaged in the attack also committed numerous other atrocities. According to one Black eyewitness, White looters murdered a Black elderly disabled man who, despite having expressed a willingness to do so, could not comply with their order to leave his home. According to one White eyewitness, prominent Black surgeon Dr. A.C. Jackson was gunned down on his front lawn with his hands up after attempting to comply with the White rioters. Another Black eyewitness recounted how he and 30 or 40 other men who had surrendered to the rioters were lined up and forced to run with hands over their heads to an interment center located at Convention Hall, all while some of their White captors shot at their heels with guns. A group of White men even ran a car into the group, knocking over two or three of their number. In another horrifying display of brutality, a Black disabled homeless man was tied by his leg to a car and dragged by ``white thugs'' through the streets of the downtown business district where he panhandled. While some might attribute these atrocities to the actions of a few ``rogue'' officers, the ``official'' police response to the violence also appears to have been, at best, mired in confusion and, at worst, to have reflected unfounded racial fears of a so-called ``Negro uprising.'' Responding to the baseless rumors that Blacks were coming from outside of town, the police chief ordered roughly one-fifth of the officers on duty to setup checkpoints on various roads leading into the city, and at the railroad station, wasting precious manpower that could have been used elsewhere to prevent the violence and destruction. Following the Massacre, local authorities did less than nothing to provide justice for the many Black victims. Thousands of Black residents remained in internment camps in the days immediately following the Massacre. Local officials actively sought to hinder the Black community's rebuilding efforts. Within a week of the Massacre, the Tulsa City Commission passed a fire ordinance aimed at preventing Black Tulsans from rebuilding the Greenwood commercial district where it originally stood, and the so-called Reconstruction Commission established by White business and political leaders batted away offers of outside aid. Black Tulsans successfully challenged the ordinance, which was later struck down as unconstitutional by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, and managed to rebuild at least parts of the community where it once stood. Many other Black residents left homeless or rightfully feeling fearful and unwelcome left Tulsa. Thousands of survivors were likely traumatized by the violence they witnessed or experienced in the Massacre. The Massacre also destroyed millions of dollars in Black- owned property. The 2001 commission also estimated the property damage at 17 million in 1999 dollars, which would be more than 25 million today. Another source estimates the total value of the property destroyed at between 50 and 100 million in today's dollars.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in my congressional district due to COVID responsibilities, and I was not present for rollcall vote 144. I ask the Record to reflect that had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall 144, the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 2911, VA Transparency and Trust Act of 2021.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I was unavoidably detained in my congressional district and was not present for Roll Call Vote 144. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: On Roll Call 144, I would have voted aye.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York from illustrating, elaborating on, detailing, and bringing to the 21st century the horrors of the Tulsa race riots, calling it what it is and not being fearful of acknowledging the riotist and violent impact of the Tulsa race riots. Madam Speaker, it is my honor to now continue the discussion on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus and my cochair of the Special Order hour, the Honorable Congressman Torres of New York. Let me, first of all, thank our chair, Chairwoman Beatty, for matching her members with this process of ensuring that the history, the unbiased history of a people in all of our variations is told truthfully. We, too, are Americans. The Tulsan residents of that time were Americans as well. I am reminded of the early stages of my education. When Congressman Torres' history was the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria, I could almost repeat that in my sleep, the three ships that came with Christopher Columbus. He was the founder of America--over and over again. I'm not sure during the period of our early childhood and those of recent vintage learned anything of Native American history, Korean- American history, Japanese-American, Chinese-American, African- American, slavery. I don't know if our children in periods of the 20th century and now in the 21st century knew there was more history. I do know that the past President wanted the Smithsonian, the African-American culture, to stop teaching about African history. I know that there was a challenge to the U.S. Department of Education by Minority Leader McConnell, to stop teaching the 1619 Project. It baffles me because I believe that, if a country or a people know its history, we will not be doomed to repeat the past. When I say ``a people,'' America is represented by many people. If we knew each other's history, if we understood each other's history, could we not--even if not those who are already past understanding, but could our children grow up with empathy and understanding? That is why we are here on the floor of the House. We are not here to castigate and to throw untruthful hits. We are here to tell the truth. Madam Speaker, tears come to my eyes as a series--and I only get to look at television late in the night, after all the day's work is done, and there is a series called ``The Underground Railroad.'' You cannot look at that without shaking in your boots, shaking in the chair you are sitting in, tears coming to your eyes. That is the empathy that America can understand for all the journeys that so many of us have taken. We have taken it, and we are here in this place. The greatest experiment that the world watches. Can they make it? They were watching it from Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, 1863, and then General Granger in 1865. They watched us through the 1800s. We failed. Reconstruction did not work. Even with all the Governors and Congress people that had been elected are freed slaves. That ugly head of racism, white supremacy, lynching, the tearing asunder of Black communities, the still tearing apart of families, the lynching of men and women who went off to the grocery store--when I say that, the local store, whatever it was down the road--and never came back. In 1921--boy, I am just so proud of this picture--this is bustling Tulsa, Oklahoma. This is the example of the excitement. I am reading where it says the McGowan Variety Store. There are some McGowans in Houston. They might be related. These are the prancing people with their cowboy hats on. It looks as if students, just like we would see in our neighborhoods today or in our high schools today, dancers, they had a full holistic community. There is some cars on the street. Can you imagine 1921? Oh, I wish I could just take a trip back, just stand on the sidewalk, and just look with pride of history I did not know. I never imagined there were cities like Tulsa, Oklahoma, as I was growing up as a child. I never imagined we had anything, we were worth anything, except for what my mother and father and grandparents poured into me. My big mother, which was my great-grandmother, owned property obviously destroyed by the highways and freeways that came in and took it away in St. Petersburg, Florida. I just thought that was our way of life. Just like I thought riding in the back of a train going south to visit her, sitting by my lonely with a bag of fried chicken--that is right, I am not embarrassed--to carry me through to visit my grandmother in St. Petersburg, Florida. Thank God, I got there safely. I was just about 8 or 9 or 10, and I was sitting in the colored car, and I wasn't supposed to move except for necessary purposes. I didn't know--I didn't know I could come here and see this. And our children don't know it. That is why we are on the floor today. We are on the floor today because we have to begin to embrace each other's story. So I am very delighted that I am leading on H. Res. 398, embraced by the Congressional Black Caucus. This will be on the floor of the House this coming Wednesday. And my counterpart in the United States Senate is a very dear friend, Senator Elizabeth Warren, who believes in this resolution, that is the recognizing of the forthcoming centennial, the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre. And it doesn't say ``riot.'' It says ``massacre.'' It was a massacre. I Thank the House leadership. I thank them for their understanding the value and importance of this as we lead into June and begin to move on H.R. 40, the Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals. It is nothing harmful. There is nothing that will undermine anyone. It is to accept what happened. So I am so grateful we have almost 100 cosponsors, and maybe more to come into the next 24 hours, for a story that was never told. Oh, yes, as a little Black girl, I could tell you about Columbus, tell you about Abraham Lincoln, tell you about George Washington. And most of them today in the 21st century, they are not hearing about the wide diversity of our history, Madam Speaker--yours and mine and the many people that are on this side of the aisle or that side of the aisle. So let me just recount very briefly again. A century ago, White rioters, local law enforcement, and self-appointed vigilantes claim to be acting reasonably and in self-defense against what they feared was an upcoming Black uprising. Same as January 6, where there are people who had the audacity to say it looked like tourists on any normal day, when we were laying flat on the floor in this building while banging and screams and guns drawn on this side of that door. We didn't know whether we would live. And a lifesaving shot for that person who did not know what was happening, attempting to save lives. Sadly, someone lost their life. Members in near panic--rightly so--leaving these Chambers and walking down and seeing AK-47s in the hands of individuals laying flat on the ground, that our brave officers had under their watch. Yes, rioters. But in Greenwood, I want this picture to be embedded in your DNA, because you will see economic prosperity, self-sufficiency. Yes, it was known as the Black Wall Street. They viewed, however, black males as fearsome, physical threats to their personal safety, and the rivals of White women. I don't know what happened in an elevator, allegedly. The story, you know, it is always a mystery, but some claim of some insult that occurred. And all of a sudden the word went out enraging leaders of the White community, fine citizens, probably in some church over the weekend. When I say in their church in that time, because they were always using the Bible wrongly and incorrectly. And I will say that because I believe in a merciful redemptive Jesus, as a Christian. There are many other faiths, Torah and Koran and others. But I know in the redemptive faith of Christianity, we believe in redemption. We don't go out because we know that we have had one to sacrifice for us on the cross so that we might be redeemed. We sing that song in our community, ``Let the Redeemed Say So.'' But apparently they didn't have that memory. 100,000 Black people lived in that area, sold luxury items. Twenty- one restaurants, 30 grocery stores, a hospital, savings and loan, a post office, three hotels, jewelry and clothing, two movie theaters, a library, pool halls, bus and cab service, a nationally recognized school system. A nationally recognized school system, when all of us are fighting for our children to be educated. Today, I left Houston. And guess what? We have a new resident of Texas: Curtis Jackson, known as 50 Cent. We were standing together because he was producing with Mayor Turner and Al Kashani and the School Superintendent Grenita Lathan, and all elected officials to announce an entrepreneurial program. Can you imagine, to be able to build up our children? They had two Black newspapers, six private planes. And I want to say it again, a recognized school system. On May 31 of that year, 35 city blocks went up in flames and 300 persons were murdered and, to my knowledge, buried in an unmarked grave; 800 were injured and 9,000 were left homeless. Yes, one cannot ignore this history, but it has been ignored, it has been snuffed out, it has been put under. I never knew about it until people like Dr. Crutcher, from this great city, and various leaders that have brought to our attention even more. But over the years, obviously, in my study of reparations, I have seen the insults that have happened when no one bothered to respond. Brutality that we are now trying to correct by acknowledging in H. Res. 398, and I hope my colleagues will come to the floor of the House to be able to address it. Let me show you what that massacre generated, and you will understand. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, you saw the bustling town. You saw the bustling town. This is a charred Negro who suffered in the Tulsa riots. Yes, I am like Emmett Till's mother, Let the world see it. This is what happened to an innocent Black person. By the way, the dead included children. Tulsa Historical Society. This is America. And this is a story that we failed to tell. This is what happened. We have more stories to tell. We believe that a picture is worth a thousands words. We can never, never overcome that burned, charred body. I showed you what Tulsa looked like, the Black Wall Street, and the burned-out ruins of Greenwood. Tulsa, Oklahoma library--they even got it in the library. I don't know how many people have seen it. It is a wasteland, a literal wasteland. Smoke is coming up. People's homes are gone. Wealth is gone. People were never to be presented with any relief. None. I don't even think they got a thank-you--not even a thank-you. So our resolution condemns violence and destruction perpetrated against the African-American community of Greenwood. Our resolution has a rejection and active opposition to the false ideology of white supremacy and condemnation of all groups. Our resolution believes in promoting tolerance and unity, and taking action to ensure governmental policies and action to promote tolerance and unity. Our resolution is calling for all Americans to celebrate the ethnic, racial, and religious diversity that has made the United States great. Our resolution encourages all persons of the United States to reflect upon the history of the United States as an imperfect but committed journey to establish a more perfect union. Our resolution is recognized as a commitment of Congress to acknowledge and learn from the history of racism and racial violence in the United States. Our resolution lays the groundwork for moving to H.R. 40, the Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals, because we can see it in real life. So this is part of the Tulsa that never got acknowledged. Madam Speaker, let me show you additional fires so you can see the buildings going up in smoke. We are not making it up. All of these buildings--brick buildings--were burned to the ground. Can you imagine someone who survived the post-traumatic stress, the horrors of their life, the willingness not to live anymore, and the giving up of hope? People wonder, oh, those lazy Negroes and colored people who worked for over 250 years in bondage. Finally, I am going to put the picture of the slaves, the individuals. So this is the story we tell tonight. We don't even tell it with a sense of vengeance. We tell it with a sense of dignity, respect, and honor. The courage of those people, and the genius of those people--they weren't even freed slaves for 100 years and look what they created. There is a story on CNN: ``My great-grandmother survived the 1921 Tulsa massacre. We are not heeding her history.'' For what was once the wealthiest Black neighborhood in America became charred ash in a matter of hours. But we have not come to a conclusion to end this kind of White supremacy and racism. Madam Speaker, I include this in the Record. [From CNN, May 14, 2021] Opinion: My Great-Grandmother Survived the 1921 Tulsa Massacre. We're Not Heeding Her History A century ago, my Black brothers and sisters were decimated by one of the worst occurrences of racial violence in our nation's history. On May 31 and June 1, 1921, White gangs flooded into the thriving Greenwood neighborhood and murdered up to 300 Black men, women and children. According to the Tulsa Historical Society, 1,500 Black homes were burned, along with over 600 businesses, and places of worship, healing, learning and gathering. My great-grandmother, Rebecca Brown Crutcher--a woman who was the picture of Black excellence--lived and worked in the Greenwood community. But in 1921, she fled in fear of her life as White Tulsans burned her neighborhood to the ground. What was once the wealthiest Black neighborhood in America became charred ash in a matter of hours. 10,000 Black residents were left homeless--and an entire generation of Black Tulsans were robbed of their wealth and prosperity they had built. To this day, not one person has ever been held accountable and not a single cent of reparations has been paid to the survivors or the victims' descendants. Without this necessary reckoning with the past, we're already repeating it. As Oklahoma and many around the world are preparing to mark the centennial of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre, last month, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt signed a law criminalizing peaceful protesters and giving immunity to drivers who ``unintentionally'' kill or injure protesters. This law is, according to the count kept by the International Center for Not-For-Profit Law, just one of 81 anti-protest bills introduced in 34 states during the 2021 legislative session alone--most of them framed as a response to last summer's Black Lives Matter protests. But instead of tackling the root causes of these nationwide protests against police brutality, racism and anti-Blackness, many lawmakers are attempting to intimidate, malign and criminalize peaceful protesters. Laws like this one will undoubtedly have painful and long- lasting consequences in Oklahoma and the rest of the nation. Black, brown and Indigenous people will surely be locked up, ripped apart from their families, and may lose their jobs for exercising their First Amendment right to peacefully assemble in a protest. They will surely receive harsher punishments for protesting police brutality and racial injustice than, for instance, White protesters demonstrating for gun rights or for their desire to control a woman's body. This isn't the only bill introduced in Oklahoma this session that's followed the Tulsa Race Massacre's sinister legacy of suppression and erasure of Black Oklahomans. Half a dozen bills have already been introduced to restrict absentee voting and require identification to vote, echoing the growing trend of voting restrictions around the country. Historically in our state as elsewhere, these tactics have been used to disenfranchise Black and brown, poor and older communities and people with disabilities, with the precedent being set in one state and spreading like wildfire to the rest of the country. On May 7, Governor Stitt signed HB 1775 into law, which will prohibit Oklahoma schools from teaching critical race theory--or in other words important lessons about systemic racism and diversity. The measure is meant to essentially stifle important discussions about, among other things, the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre, the Trail of Tears and the Osage murders in classrooms and beyond. Erasing our history, yet again, will have devastating consequences. And Oklahoma isn't alone--bills banning or restricting the teaching of critical race theory have been drafted in Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and West Virginia and already passed in Utah, Arkansas, Idaho and Tennessee. Bills like HB 1775 attempt to obscure the fact that heinous instances of racial violence, from slavery to Jim Crow laws to the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre, are not blemishes on our history but consequences of discriminatory systems that continue to harm Black people today. Such laws are designed to prevent a full and honest accounting of how systemic racism works. The bill says it will prohibit the teaching that ``an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex,'' thereby upholding White supremacy and helping absolve the city of Tulsa and the state of the moral obligation of paying reparations to the survivors and descendants of the Tulsa Race Massacre. HB 1775 also flies in the face of reality--as if the wealth and security stripped from Black Tulsans a century ago doesn't have a direct relationship to the widening gaps in home ownership, education, life expectancy and arrest rates today. Each of us should learn the hard lessons of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre and the continued harm shouldered by the survivors, the descendants and the neighborhood of Greenwood. We should learn that race, racism and discrimination have very real, concrete effects on our history, our culture, our politics and our current lives. But we can't learn the truth or grow from it if it's hidden from us--and that's precisely what HB 1775 attempts to do. In so doing, this measure continues the harm of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre, because a century later, Stitt and our elected officials are still trying to bury the lessons that our ancestors would want us to carry forward. As a descendant of a Tulsa Race Massacre survivor, it's painful to see Oklahoma's governor refuse to learn from our history and acknowledge its continuing impact today. Instead, he's chosen to saddle our teachers and educators with even more baggage, and potentially penalize them for doing what's right. My hope is that our teachers will look this evil in the eye and refuse to give in or back down. I hope they will continue teaching the truth about topics like the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre--including that it was borne from White supremacy, a mortal threat to our democracy that remains with us today. Our students deserve the unbridled truth, not a polished facade that makes us feel good about ourselves.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I include the KJRH article in the Record. [From KJRH] Gov. Stitt Responds to Letter From Tulsa Race Massacre Commission Tulsa, OK, May 14, 2021.--Gov. Kevin Stitt has officially been removed from the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre Centennial Commission. This comes after Stitt signed a bill limiting race and gender curriculums in Oklahoma schools earlier in May. House Bill 1775 prohibits state public schools, colleges, and universities from incorporating certain messages about sex and race into any course instruction. This also comes on the 100th anniversary of the 1921 Tulsa race massacre, where a white mob attacked Black residents and businesses in the Greenwood District of Tulsa, also known as Black Wall Street. The governor's office released the following statement Friday afternoon: ``Governor Stitt's role as a member of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre Centennial Commission has been purely ceremonial and he had not been invited to attend a meeting until this week. It is disappointing to see an organization of such importance spend so much effort to sow division based on falsehoods and political rhetoric two weeks before the centennial and a month before the commission is scheduled to sunset. The governor and first lady will continue to support the revitalization of the Greenwood District, honest conversations about racial reconciliation and pathways of hope in Oklahoma.'' The commission sent 2 News the following statement: ``The 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre Centennial Commissioners met Tuesday and agreed through consensus to part ways with Governor Stitt. No elected officials, nor representatives of elected officials, were involved in this decision. While the Commission is disheartened to part ways with Governor Stitt, we are thankful for the things accomplished together. The Commission remains focused on lifting up the story of Black Wall Street and commemorating the Centennial. With just weeks before the Centennial of one of the worst Race massacres in the history of the U.S., Commissioners stand united in focusing time, energy and efforts on descendants, survivors, education, economic development and progress this year and beyond. We hope to see many of you in person or virtually at some of our events that we hope will drive change for years to come.'' The commission previously issued Stitt a letter after he did not join a special meeting Monday night to discuss the signing of HB 1775 into law. Phil Armstrong, the project director of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre Centennial Commission, said HB 1775 ``chills the ability of educators to teach students, of any age, and will only serve to intimidate educators who seek to reveal and process our hidden history. You know that. We delivered this message to you before you signed the measure. We were joined by educators, school boards, universities, faith, and community leaders, all of whom vigorously objected to HB 1775. You seemingly disregarded and dismissed this chorus of voices aligned against HB 1775.'' The governor responded by saying, in part, ``it is disappointing that some commission members feel that a common-sense law preventing students from being taught that one race or sex is superior to another is contrary to the mission of reconciliation and restoration.'' C.J. Webber-Neal, president of the Greenwood Arts & Cultural Society, INC., also called for the governor's resignation as a commission member. In a statement, Webber- Neal said he was satisfied with having Stitt removed from the commission. ``The Greenwood Arts & Cultural Society, INC. is very pleased that the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre Centennial Commission has with one concise voice taken action to remove Kevin Stitt, Governor of Oklahoma, from it body. Based upon the stated mission of this body, we stand in solidarity with their action regarding Governor Stitt's role as a member of this Commission, based upon his signing of HB 1775 into law. The truth of the horrific story of 1921's Race Massacre (as well as other history of the experiences of minorities in America) must be taught honestly and unequivocally, so that future generations will learn of the demons of our past so we as a society will not be doomed to repeat this evil act. At this time, we also encourage this body to add in the Governor's place survivors and descendants of the massacre, so that representation of this painful period in our history can be reflected thru the experiences of those who were directly impacted by this tragic event. Furthermore, we encourage any available monetary relief be given by this organization to the three survivors of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre. This should be done as both a sign of reconciliation and the rising of the eternal spirit of Greenwood. This we believe is long overdue.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I include a detailed account of the Tulsa Race Massacre in the Congressional Record. Detailed Account of Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921 ACCOUNT BASED ON FACTS AND DOCUMENTS REPORTED IN ``FINAL REPORT OF THE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Then I want to salute those who will be honoring 100 years in the next couple of weeks. I want to very quickly say that remember what I said, I knew the history of Christopher Columbus. I didn't know the history of my Native American brothers. I didn't know the history of my own self, slavery. I know Big Mother, which is what we called her. She owned land, and then I knew it disappeared. I knew I rode in the back of a train to visit her as a little girl. Guess what, Madam Speaker? Governor Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma was on the commission on the Tulsa race massacre, but he signed the bill limiting race and gender curriculums in Oklahoma schools earlier in May. Madam Speaker, can you believe it? It was House bill 1775. As well, he goes on to not stand for what this commission is all about: truth. So tonight we come to the floor. Remember what I said: I am not in any way throwing darts or stones at anyone. I am here to raise up the dignity of this man, this person, this body, burned because he was Black, prosperous, and ready to serve America. No one can tell me how many in that 1921 massacre had been in World War I, had worn the uniform and come home and made a new life. How many can tell us out of those who would have lived, would have been ready to go serve in World War II and then on, and their progeny continue to build this wonderful economic engine? Today those who remain are three living descendants of those who were there. They tell me as I will go to Tulsa, there is one door left. It is a crying shame. So I lift this story up, and I let you know, Madam Speaker, that the Congressional Black Caucus, yes, the conscience of this Nation, has a vital purpose to be able to tell the story. Someone I hope is listening. Someone I hope is listening. Someone I hope heard Brother Torres. I hope they heard Hank Johnson and Barbara Lee. I hope they have heard all of us. Because if we do not know our history, we are doomed to repeat it. We must take the reins, lift up the dignity, honor these courageous saints, and we must fight on. Pass this resolution on the centennial. Pass H.R. 40 to establish a commission to study reparations. Pass the American Jobs Plan, pass the American Rescue Plan, and lift all boats. For as we do so, God will be the witness for what we have done and the journey we have made. Madam Speaker, I am honored to have been here today. I am honored to be part of the Congressional Black Caucus. I am honored to be part of this House of Representatives. I am honored to be an American, and I will not have my history denied or my children failing to know that history. That is why we are here today. Let us march on until victory is won. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, I rise to anchor this most important Special Order remembering one of the darkest moments in American history, the Tulsa-Greenwood Race Massacre, that occurred in the African American Greenwood community of Tulsa, Oklahoma, on May 31-June 1, 1921. I am pleased to be joined by Congressman Torres of New York, who will co-anchor this Special Order and my several members of the Congressional Black Caucus, which under the leadership of our Chair, Congresswoman Beatty of Ohio, was unified and determined that the reign of racial terror, carried out under color of law, that was visited on the black citizens of Greenwood not be forgotten and that the injuries they suffered be redressed. Madam Speaker, earlier this year, I introduced a resolution (H. Res. 215 later modified as H. Res. 398), joined by 84 cosponsors, recognizing the centennial of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre. As the great southern writer William Faulkner reminded us: ``The past is never dead. It's not even past.'' Madam Speaker, as I and other Members will elucidate this evening, the hatreds, prejudices, resentments, and white supremacy that Black Americans witnessed and suffered in Greenwood a century ago are not dead; they are not even past. A century ago, White rioters, local law enforcement, and self- appointed vigilantes claimed to be acting reasonably and in self- defense against what they feared was an upcoming Black uprising. They resented the economic prosperity and self-sufficiency of the Greenwood community, which was known nationally as ``Black Wall Street.'' They viewed Black males as fearsome physical threats to their personal safety and as rivals to white women. These baseless, irrational concerns are not a relic of the past, they are with us today and are what resulted in the deaths of George Floyd, Tamir Rice, Deonte Wright, Stephon Clark, Amidou Diallo, and hundreds of others too numerous to list. In 1921, Tulsa, Oklahoma's Greenwood District, known as ``Black Wall Street,'' was one of the most documented prosperous African American communities in the United States. The Greenwood community with a population of over 100,000 Black people had stores that sold luxury items, 21 restaurants, 30 grocery stores, a hospital, a savings and loan bank, a post office, three hotels, jewelry and clothing stores, two movie theaters, a library, pool halls, a bus and cab service, a nationally recognized school system, six private airplanes, and two black newspapers. On May 31st of that year, the 35 city blocks of Greenwood went up in flames, at least 300 Black persons were murdered and more than 800 were injured; it is estimated that not less than 9,000 were left homeless and destitute. These rioters reenacted the brutality of the mob from a hundred years ago in the hallowed halls of the Citadel of Democracy. It should not be overlooked that the source of their irrational anger, hatred, and violent reaction was that Black Americans voted in overwhelming numbers in Atlanta, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, and Detroit to oust the most negative, divisive, racially hostile, and incompetent president's history, the 45th President, who presided over the deaths of more than 500,000 Americans, disproportionately Black and Brown. The legacy of white mob violence inflicted upon the Black community of Greenwood has scarred the descendants of the victims of this American pogrom. Madam Speaker, the events of January 6th have given us insight into what the people of Greenwood, Oklahoma, faced when they were attacked by a similar murderous mob. H.R. 398 is a reminder to the nation of the ultimate cruelty inflicted upon a people for dare believing that the promise of America was attainable by them and their achievements would be respected and protected by law. But it does more than that, it puts the House of Representatives on record that the United States can achieve a more perfect union: 1. by condemning the violence and destruction perpetrated against the African-American community of Greenwood, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, the scene of the then-largest single instance of domestic terror against American citizens; 2. through the rejection and active opposition to the false ideology of White supremacy and condemnation of all groups and organizations that ascribe to this false system of belief and seek to perpetuate their views through violence and unlawful conduct; 3. by promoting tolerance and unity and taking actions to ensure that governmental policies and actions do not foster division, disharmony, or intolerance; 4. by calling upon all Americans to celebrate the ethnic, racial, and religious diversity that has made the United States the leader of the community of nations and the beacon of hope and inspiration to oppressed persons everywhere; 5. encouraging all persons in the United States to reflect upon the history of the United States as an imperfect but committed journey to establish a more perfect union and to cherish and exercise the rights, privileges, and responsibilities guaranteed by the Constitution; and 6. recognizing the commitment of Congress to acknowledge and learn from the history of racism and racial violence in the United States, including the Tulsa Race Massacre, to reverse the legacy of White supremacy and fight for racial justice. Madam Speaker, I will now briefly recount the horrific events cited in H. Res. 398 that were experienced by the law-abiding Black community of Greenwood on those terrible days. In 1921, White supremacy and racist violence were common throughout the United States and went largely unchecked by the justice system. In Tulsa, Oklahoma, reports of an alleged and disputed incident on the morning of May 30, 1921, between two teenagers, a Black man and a White woman, caused the White community of Tulsa, including the Tulsa Tribune, to call for a lynching amidst a climate of White racial hostility and White resentment over Black economic success. On May 31, 1921, a mob of armed White men descended upon Tulsa's Greenwood District and launched what is now known as the ``Tulsa Race Massacre.'' Tulsa municipal and county authorities failed to take actions to calm or contain the violence, and civil and law enforcement officials deputized many White men who were participants in the violence as their agents, directly contributing to the violence through overt and often illegal acts. Over a period of 24 hours, the White mob's violence led to the death of an estimated 300 Black residents, as well as over 800 reports of injuries. The White mob looted, damaged, burned, or otherwise destroyed approximately 40 square blocks of the Greenwood district, including an estimated 1,256 homes of Black residents, as well as virtually every other structure, including churches, schools, businesses, a hospital, and a library, leaving nearly 9,000 Black residents of the Greenwood community homeless and effectively wiping out tens of millions of dollars in Black prosperity and wealth. In the wake of the Tulsa Race Massacre, the Governor of Oklahoma declared martial law, and units of the Oklahoma National Guard participated in the mass arrests of all or nearly all of Greenwood's surviving residents, removing them from Greenwood to other parts of Tulsa and unlawfully detaining them in holding centers. Oklahoma local and state governments dismissed claims arising from the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre for decades, and the event was effectively erased from collective memory and history until, in 1997, the Oklahoma State Legislature finally created a commission to study the event. On February 28, 2001, the commission issued a report that detailed, for the first time, the extent of the Massacre and decades-long efforts to suppress its recollection. None of the law enforcement officials nor any of the hundreds of other White mob members who participated in the violence were ever prosecuted or held accountable for the hundreds of lives lost and tens of millions of dollars of Black wealth destroyed, despite the Tulsa Race Massacre Commission confirming their roles in the Massacre, nor was any compensation ever provided to the Massacre's victims or their descendants. Government and city officials not only abdicated their responsibility to rebuild and repair the Greenwood community in the wake of the violence, but actively blocked efforts to do so, contributing to continued racial disparities in Tulsa akin to those that Black people still face today across the United States. Madam Speaker, the pattern of violence against Black people in the United States, often at the hands of law enforcement, shows that the fight to end State-sanctioned violence against Black people continues. As the American Historical Association stated, ``What happened in Tulsa was extreme, but not unusual. It is part of our nation's heritage. We must acknowledge that heritage, learn from it, and do whatever each of us can do to ensure that it is just that--heritage, rather than a continuing practice.'' Madam Speaker, I will include in the Record a more detailed account of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre that is based on the ``Final Report of the Oklahoma Commission to Study The Tulsa Race Riot of 1921,'' issued February 28, 2001. Madam Speaker, I also ask the House to observe a moment of silence in memory of the victims and survivors of the Tulsa Race Massacre, and their descendants to carry the terrible memories of that horrific day and still grieve over the loss of so many loved ones and of faith in the American system of justice.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Virginia for his kindness. This has to pass today if we have any sense of fairness not only to women, but to our children. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would establish that private-sector employers with more than 15 employees, and public-sector employers must make reasonable accommodations for pregnant employees, job applicants, and individuals with known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Pregnant workers and individuals with known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions cannot be denied employment. The Supreme Court decision, just recently, in 2015, that allowed pregnant workers to bring reasonable accommodation discrimination claims is not enough because pregnant workers are still being denied accommodations, because the Young decision set an unreasonably high standard for proving discrimination. This is not discrimination. I have never seen a religious organization that wants to deny anyone any opportunity. This is a fair assessment. I know it personally because I was denied a job because I was nursing. A job was taken away from me. When I was pregnant and was about to give birth, there was no definition of pregnancy leave for my position. At that time I was a lawyer, practicing law in a large firm, and it was, at best, two weeks and get back. So I understand that this is essential for those workers in working conditions where they do not have the power to be protected, that they are doing heavy lifting, that they have physically demanding jobs, that they are the sole provider of their family. This is important. Black and Latino women particularly suffer, minority women, particularly a burden. Three in ten pregnant workers are employed in four of the occupations that make up the backbone of our communities. We must have this bill. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the disabled community, mental health community, United Spinal Association, and others. May 11, 2021. Re Support for Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, H.R. 1065. Hon. Bobby Scott, Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington DC. Hon. Virginia Foxx, Ranking Member, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington DC. Dear Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Foxx: As co-chairs of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) Rights Task Force, we write in strong support of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, H.R. 1065. CCD is the largest coalition of national organizations working together to advocate for federal public policy that ensures the self-determination, independence, empowerment, integration and inclusion of children and adults with disabilities in all aspects of society. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)'s mandate that covered employers make reasonable accommodations to ensure equal opportunity for applicants and employees with disabilities has been tremendously important in helping people with disabilities secure and maintain employment. While the ADA does not cover pregnancy itself as a disability, in light of the ADA Amendments Act, which lowered the standard for demonstrating a disability from what the courts had previously applied, many pregnant workers who experience pregnancy-related complications should be covered as people with disabilities and entitled to reasonable accommodations under the ADA. Yet many courts have continued to interpret the ADA's coverage narrowly, and in practice, large numbers of pregnant workers are not offered reasonable accommodations. Furthermore, a clear pregnancy accommodation standard will help prevent pregnancy-related complications before they arise. Such accommodations should be provided to pregnant workers so that they can remain in the workforce and not lose their employment simply because they experience pregnancy-related limitations. The accommodation requirement of H.R. 1065 is limited, as is the ADA's accommodation requirement, to those accommodations that are reasonable and would not impose an undue hardship. That standard takes into account the needs of employers while also ensuring that pregnant workers can stay on the job with reasonable accommodations. This protection is critical not only for pregnant workers but for our national economy. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is particularly important to people with disabilities. Many people with disabilities who did not require accommodations before becoming pregnant experience new complications due to how pregnancy impacts their disabilities, and need accommodations once they become pregnant. These workers are sometimes told that they are not entitled to accommodations because the employer views the need for accommodation as related to pregnancy rather than to the worker's underlying disability. We thank the Committee for moving the bill forward and urge all members of the House of Representatives to vote for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and oppose any motion to recommit. Sincerely, Jennifer Mathis, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. Stephen Lieberman, United Spinal Association. Allison Nichol, Epilepsy Foundation. Kelly Buckland, National Council on Independent Living. Samantha Crane, Autistic Self Advocacy Network. Molly Burgdorf, The Arc of the United States. Co-chairs, CCD Rights Task Force.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter representing organizations from Black Mamas Matter Alliance, to March of Dimes, to 1,000 Days to Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. May 11, 2021. Re Support the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. Dear Representative: The undersigned organizations dedicated to assuring quality maternal, infant, and child health and well-being, improving pregnancy and birth outcomes, and closing racial disparities in maternal health enthusiastically support the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (H.R. 1065). Modeled after the Americans with Disabilities Act, the bill would require employers to provide reasonable, temporary workplace accommodations to pregnant workers as long as the accommodation does not impose an undue hardship on the employer. This bill is critically important because no one should have to choose between having a healthy pregnancy and a paycheck. Congress must do all it can to end the prejudice pregnant workers, especially Black pregnant workers and workers of color, continue to face in the workplace. This includes making sure when pregnant workers voice a need for reasonable accommodations that those needs are met rather than penalized and that the workplace is an environment where pregnant workers do not fear asking for the accommodations they need to maintain their health. Three-quarters of women will be pregnant and employed at some point in their lives.) (Most pregnant workers can expect a routine pregnancy and healthy birth. However, health care professionals have consistently recommended that some pregnant individuals make adjustments in their work activities to sustain a healthy pregnancy and prevent adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm birth or miscarriage. These medically necessary workplace accommodations can include allowing additional bathroom breaks, opportunities to stay hydrated, lifting restrictions, or access to a chair or stool to decrease time spent standing. Unfortunately, too many pregnant workers, particularly pregnant people of color, face barriers to incorporating even these small changes to their workdays. For example, Black women experience maternal mortality rates three to four times higher than white women, with Indigenous women similarly experiencing disproportionately high rates. The circumstances surrounding these alarming statistics can often be attributed to a lack of access to care, including due to inflexible workplaces, and deep biases in racial understanding. Various social determinants such as health, education, and economic status drastically influence the outcomes of pregnancy for Black women leading to severe pregnancy-related complications. As the Black Mamas Matter Alliance has pointed out ``Health is determined in part by our access to social and economic opportunities, the resources and supports that are available in the places where we live, and the safety of our workplaces . . . however, disparities in these conditions of daily life give some people better opportunities to be healthy than others.'' Black pregnant workers along with Latinx and immigrant women are disproportionately likely to work in physically demanding jobs that may lead to workers needing modest accommodations to ensure a healthy pregnancy. Too often, however, those requests are refused or ignored, forcing pregnant workers of color to disproportionately contend with unsafe working conditions. Furthermore, Black mothers have among the highest labor force participation rates in the country and 80 percent of Black mothers are their family's primary breadwinner. Yet, historically, Black women have been exploited in the workplace, and that exploitation continues to this day. Though Black women only comprise 14.3 percent of the population, nearly thirty percent of pregnancy discrimination complaints are filed by Black women. This is because of the multiple forms of discrimination Black workers and other workers of color too often face in the workplace. As scholar Nina Banks has noted, ``The legacy of black women's employment in industries that lack worker protections has continued today since black women are concentrated in low- paying, inflexible service occupations . . .'' Black women in low wage jobs working during pregnancy face little support from employers when safeguards do not address pregnancy related accommodations. Faced with the threat of termination, loss of health insurance, or other benefits, Black pregnant people are often forced to keep working which can compromise their health and the health of their pregnancy. Workplace accommodations help safeguard a healthy pregnancy or prevent harm to a higher-risk pregnancy. Across the country, pregnant workers continue to be denied simple, no- cost or lowcost, temporary adjustments in their work settings or activities and instead risk being fired or forced to take unpaid leave to preserve the health of their pregnancy. This impossible choice forces many pregnant workers to continue working without accommodations, putting women and their pregnancies at risk of long-lasting and severe health consequences. When pregnant workers must continue working without accommodations, they risk miscarriage, excessive bleeding, and other devastating health consequences. Black women have the highest incidence of preterm birth and yet we know that workplace accommodations such as reducing heavy lifting, bending, or excessive standing can help prevent preterm birth, the leading cause of infant mortality in this country. Black women also experience higher rates of preeclampsia, which is one of the leading causes of maternal mortality. We are still learning about how to prevent this dangerous medical condition, yet we know that simply allowing workers to take bathroom breaks can prevent urinary tract infections which are ``strongly associated with preeclampsia. Similarly, ensuring pregnant workers can drink a sufficient amount of water can also help pregnant workers maintain their blood pressure which is critically important since hypertensive disorders (high blood pressure) are also a leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality. By putting a national pregnancy accommodation standard in place, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act has the potential to improve some of the most serious health consequences Black pregnant people experience. Furthermore, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will help remove one of the many barriers Black pregnant people face at work by ensuring they are afforded immediate relief under the law, and not thrown into financial dire straits for needing pregnancy accommodations. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a measured approach to a serious problem. As organizations dedicated to maternal health and closing racial disparities in pregnancy and birth outcomes, we understand the importance of reasonable workplace accommodations to ensure that pregnant persons can continue to provide for their families and have safe and healthy pregnancies. We collectively urge swift passage of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. Sincerely, Black Mamas Matter Alliance; March of Dimes; National WIC Association; 1,000 Days; Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics; American Academy of Pediatrics; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; Agricultural Justice Project; Ancient Song Doula Services; Association of Maternal & Child Health Programs; Baobab Birth Collective; Black Women's Health Imperative; Breastfeeding in Combat Boots. California WIC Association; Centering Equity, Race & Cultural Literacy in Family Planning (CERCL-FP); Earth Action, Inc.; Farmworker and Landscaper Advocacy Project; Farmworker Association of Florida; Feminist Women's Health Center; First Focus Campaign for Children; Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies Coalition of Georgia; Healthy Women; Human Rights Watch; Mom2Mom Global; NARAL Pro-Choice America. National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's Health; National Birth Equity Collaborative; National Partnership for Women & Families; National Women's Health Network; Nebraska WIC Association; Nurse-Family Partnership; Physicians for Reproductive Health; Planned Parenthood Federation of America; Public Citizen, SisterReach; SisterSong National Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective; U.S. Breastfeeding Committee; Workplace Fairness; Wisconsin WIC Association; ZERO TO THREE.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the YWCA dealing with 200 local organizations in 45 States.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, women are in the workplace. They are the backbone of this economy. We need to pass this legislation and pass it now. I thank Mr. Scott and Mr. Nadler for their leadership. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary, Homeland Security, and Budget Committees, the Democratic Working Women Task Force, the Founder and Co-Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, and as cosponsor, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1065, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), which would ensure that pregnant workers can continue to do their jobs and support their families by requiring employers to make workplace adjustments for those workers who need them due to pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions, like breastfeeding. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would establish that private sector employers with more than 15 employees and public sector employers must make reasonable accommodations for pregnant employees, job applicants, and individuals with known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Similar to the Americans with Disabilities Act, employers are not required to make an accommodation if it imposes an undue hardship on an employer's business. Pregnant workers and individuals with known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions cannot be denied employment opportunities, retaliated against for requesting a reasonable accommodation, or forced to take paid or unpaid leave if another reasonable accommodation is available. Workers denied a reasonable accommodation under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will have the same rights and remedies as those established under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including recovery of lost pay, compensatory damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees. While the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provide some protections for pregnant workers, there is currently no federal law that explicitly and affirmatively guarantees all pregnant workers the right to a reasonable accommodation so they can continue working without jeopardizing their pregnancy. The Supreme Court's landmark decision in Young v. United Parcel Service, 575 U.S. --, No. 12-1226, 135 S.Ct. 1338; 191 L. Ed. 2d 279 (2015) allowed pregnant workers to bring reasonable accommodation discrimination claims under the PDA. But pregnant workers are still being denied accommodations because the Young decision set an unreasonably high standard for proving discrimination, requiring workers to prove that their employers accommodated non-pregnant workers with similar limitations. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, there are no similar conditions to pregnancy. As a result, in two-thirds of cases after Young, courts ruled against pregnant workers who were seeking accommodations under the PDA. Providing accommodations ensures that women can work safely while pregnant instead of getting pushed out of work at a time when they may need their income the most. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is especially important considering that many pregnant workers hold physically demanding or hazardous jobs, and thus may be especially likely to need reasonable accommodations at some point during their pregnancy. Mr. Speaker, research shows that pregnant workers are likely to hold jobs that involve standing and making continuous movements, which can raise specific challenges during pregnancy. Such physically demanding work--including jobs that require prolonged standing, long work hours, irregular work schedules, heavy lifting, or high physical activity--carries an increased risk of pre-term delivery and low birth weight. Twenty-one (20.9) percent of pregnant workers are employed in low- wage jobs, which are particularly likely to be physically demanding. Pregnant black and Latina women are disproportionately represented in low-wage jobs, which means as a result, these workers are especially likely to stand, walk or run continuously during work, and therefore may be more likely to need an accommodation at some point during pregnancy to continue to work safely. Three in ten pregnant workers are employed in four of the occupations that make up the backbone of our communities: elementary school teachers, nurses, and home health aides. Employers can accommodate pregnant workers because pregnant women make up a small share of the workforce, even in the occupations where they are most likely to work, which means that only a very small share of an employer's workforce is likely to require pregnancy accommodations in any given year since less than two percent of all workers in the United States are pregnant each year. Not all pregnant workers require any form of accommodation at work, so only a fraction of that small fraction will need accommodations. For example, pregnant women are most likely to work as elementary and middle school teachers but only three percent (3.2 percent) of all elementary and middle school teachers are pregnant women. But workers employed in four of the ten most common occupations for pregnant workers--retail salesperson; waiter or waitress; nursing, psychiatric and home health aide; and cashier--who report continuously standing on the job would particularly benefit from this legislation. Mr. Speaker, prolonged standing at work has been shown to more than triple the odds of pregnant women taking leave during pregnancy or becoming unemployed. Another four of the ten most common occupations for pregnant workers--waiter or waitress; nursing, psychiatric and home health aide; cashier; and secretaries and administrative assistants--involve making repetitive motions continuously on the job which have been shown to increase the likelihood of pregnant women taking sick leave. Pregnant workers in low-wage jobs are particularly in need of this legislation granting them the clear legal right to receive accommodations because, in addition to the physically demanding nature of their jobs, they often face inflexible workplace cultures that make it difficult to informally address pregnancy-related needs. For instance, workplace flexibility--such as the ability to alter start and end times or take time off for a doctor's appointment--is extremely limited for workers in low-wage jobs. Over 40 percent of full-time workers in low-wage jobs report that their employers do not permit them to decide when to take breaks; between two-thirds and three-quarters of full-time workers in low-wage jobs report that they are unable to choose their start and quit times; and roughly half report having very little or no control over the scheduling of hours more generally. The second most common occupation for pregnant Latinas--maids and housekeeping cleaners--is especially physically demanding because, according to the data, 80 percent of maids and housekeeping cleaners stood continuously, 38 percent were exposed to disease daily, and 70 percent walked or ran continuously on the job. Occupations that have seen the most growth among pregnant women in the past decade expose many workers to disease or infection daily; depending on the disease, this can pose particular challenges to some pregnant workers at some points during pregnancy. When pregnant workers are exposed to some diseases, they face particular risks; pregnant women with rubella are at risk for miscarriage or stillbirth and their developing fetuses are at risk for severe birth defects. Mr. Speaker, no one should have to choose between a paycheck and a healthy pregnancy, which is why they should have clear rights to reasonable accommodations on the job to ensure they are not forced off the job at the moment they can least afford it. I urge all Members to join me in voting for H.R. 1065, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, it is good to be an American because as I stand here today during National Police Week, I can truly say that across America, we honor the police officer who holds a child's hand. We honor the police officer who comes to an emergency situation. I honor the police officers who, throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, were on the front lines without testing or vaccination, helping many others. I know, Madam Speaker, because they helped me. They helped me with my testing sites. Now, they help me with my vaccination sites. I want to remind them they will be helping me tomorrow, and that is Saturday the 15th, when we are at Key Middle School and Heights High School, vaccinating children 12 to 15 years old with the Pfizer vaccination, from 2 to 5 at Key Middle School and 10 to 1 at Heights High School. We mourn those who have lost their lives in the line of duty. That is because we are Americans, and we stand united in that effort. There can be no divide. We know who we believe in and what we believe in. We thank them so very much, and we also believe in the liberties of all people.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the chairwoman, the gentlewoman from California for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this is a stupendous effort, and I did not want to miss the opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents, for debt blocks you from living your life as a family, as a recent college graduate, as a veteran, and as an enlisted person. All of these people are in my congressional district. Texas has the highest number of military personnel. Have you ever had them come into your house, excuse me, into your office--sometimes it is like my house because I live there, almost--and tell you about the inability to access credit, or the eviction notice, or the repossessing of the car, and therefore, impacting on their credit, but more importantly, being threatened to lose benefits by outside debt collectors. So the legislation here, and might I rise to oppose the amendments that are en bloc at this time, but I thought it was important to be able to discuss the importance of this particular combination of legislation that goes to the very needs and hearts of our district by prohibiting the use of confession of judgment as an unfair credit practice, and providing the opportunity, as I said, to ensure that we are protecting those individuals that are military. According to the CFPB, in the past year, debt collection accounted for 27 percent of all complaints received, 49 percent of which were for attempts to collect a debt not owed. During COVID-19 people suffered economically. For example, in April 2020, Kate Boatswain, Texas resident and grandmother of three, had been laid off from work due to the pandemic. Her savings account had held a $4,900 tax refund. But when she checked her account, it showed a negative balance. Ms. Boatswain drove to her credit union to find out what happened, only to be told that staff members were not allowed to explain. She was given a number to a debt collection law firm. They had taken her money. So this legislation that protects military persons, grandmothers, small business owners, is extremely crucial, and I ask my colleagues to support this legislation, H.R. 2547. Let's stop debt and let's make sure Americans can thrive. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the rule governing debate of H.R. 2547, the ``Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act,'' which is an incredibly important comprehensive bill that clarifies and expands the rights of Americans facing all forms of debt collection, and also extends existing consumer protections to small businesses, prohibits debt collectors from threatening service members with a reduction in rank or loss of security clearance, restricts contact to consumers by email or text messages, and requires discharge of private student loans in the case of permanent disability for the borrower. H.R. 2547 better protects vulnerable consumers by enacting a wide variety of critical reforms, including: Prohibiting the use of confessions of judgment as an unfair credit practice that eliminate notice and the right to be heard; Prohibiting certain abusive collection practices directed at servicemembers, including threats to reduce rank or revoke security clearance; Requiring discharge of private student loans due to total and permanent disability; Prohibiting collection of medical debt for the first two years and credit reporting of debt arising from any medically necessary procedures; Requiring debt collectors to obtain consent before using electronic communications and provide written validation notices; Amending the FDCPA to expand and clarify coverage, including extending coverage for all federal, state, and local debts collected by debt collectors; Adjusting statutory damages in the FDCPA for inflation and indexing them to index for inflation in the future; and Clarifying FDCPA coverage for non-judicial foreclosures. An estimated 77 million Americans have a debt that has been turned over to a private collection agency, and predatory debt collection affects communities and families across the country. The debts owed can be as small as a few dollars, and they can involve every kind of consumer debt, from car payments to utility bills to student loans to medical fees. Debt in collection can wreak havoc on individuals, subjecting them to harassing debt collection calls and potential lawsuits. Annually, hundreds of thousands of individuals face threats, harassment at home and the workplace, and abusive litigation from unscrupulous debt collectors. While all Americans are covered by laws barring debt collectors from overly aggressive or deceptive tactics, these laws are insufficient in many cases, and protections for Americans must be improved. Debt collectors use predatory tactics that undermine citizens' rights with misleading and confusing information. Each year, millions of lawsuits are filed by ``lawsuit mills,'' and in some cases, thousands of affidavits are filed in a single day that have inaccurate information about the debt and the debtors. Consumers are often not even given the chance to defend themselves because collectors hire process servers that falsely certify documents have been delivered. Most consumers are not represented by an attorney and debt collectors overwhelmingly seek default judgments against them in these cases. This past year has seen a rise in aggressive debt collections due to the impact of COVID-19, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (``CFPB''). Despite the enactment of the FDCPA in 1977, debt collection remains a frequent source of complaints to the CFPB. According to the CFPB, in the past year debt collection accounted for 27 percent of all complaints received, 49 percent of which were for attempts to collect a debt not owed. These trends devastate communities across the country as unmanageable debt and household financial crises become ubiquitous across the country during this pandemic, and they impact Black and LatinX communities most harshly due to longstanding racial and ethnic gaps in poverty and wealth. The COVID-19 pandemic has been among the most disruptive long-term events we will see in our lifetimes, and it is not surprising that the shockwaves it sent across the planet were felt deeply in the consumer financial marketplace. Texans have the second-highest rate of debt in collections in the country and are uniquely vulnerable because the state's consumer protections for bank account garnishments are virtually nonexistent. For example, in April 2020 Kate Boatswain, Texas resident and grandmother of three, had been laid off work due to the pandemic. Her savings account had held a $4,900 tax refund, but when she checked her account, it showed a negative balance. Ms. Boatswain drove to her credit union to find out what happened, only to be told that staff members were not allowed to explain why. She was given a number to a debt collection law firm, and a man at the firm tersely explained that she had owed money to Wells Fargo since 2006. The debt was now owned by a client of the law firm who was trying to collect, and the client was not interested in solutions--telling Ms. Boatswain that, ``We already have your money.'' In a time of national crisis and economic hardship, Ms. Boatswain was left without money for her mortgage and for her family. As we work to bolster our national economic recovery, Americans must have better safeguards against predatory debt collection actions like this. This bill offers comprehensive reforms against predatory debt collection efforts in several ways, and I would like to touch on two protections included in these reforms--those reforms offered for our small business owners and members of the military. Since at least 2018, an arcane legal document called a confession of judgment has targeted our hard-working small businesses and forced financial ruin on tens of thousands of contractors and small business owners. Before many small business owners get a loan, they are forced to sign a statement called a confession of judgment which gives up their right to defend themselves if the lender takes them to court. Armed with this confession of judgment, a lender can, without proof, accuse borrowers of not paying and legally seize their assets before they know what has happened--a practice that has not surprisingly been abused by some lenders. Then, without contacting the borrower, lenders can immediately withdraw the value of the loan, including the full interest payments, from their accounts. By requiring the borrower to accept any and all liabilities and damages pertaining to the loan, it undermines and circumvents the entire judicial process. The borrower has no legal right to dispute these claims or prove their compliance with the terms of the loan contract, making them virtually powerless to reclaim--what often ends up being--their life's savings. Although Congress banned the use of confessions of judgment for consumers in 1985, small businesses were left exposed and remain particularly susceptible to this unfair debt collection practice. H.R. 2547 fixes this oversight by extending the ban on confessions of judgment to commercial loans nationally by amending the Truth in Lending Act and closing the loophole that has allowed thousands of American small businesses to be seized and brought down by dishonest lenders. Military members and their families face particular financial challenges requiring extra protections: in service to their country, they relocate frequently, deploy overseas and are a prime target for scammers. Military members are also more vulnerable to debt collectors in some instances, and debt collectors have taken advantage of this vulnerability by targeting members of the Armed Services through calling their superior officers, threatening reduction in rank and even courts-martial. Nearly 40 percent of complaints filed by servicemembers with the CFPB concern debt collection--as compared to only 26 percent by non- servicemembers. Our servicemen and servicewomen make extraordinary sacrifices on our behalf, and they should not be forced to confront aggressive and manipulative debt collectors who capitalize on the strains required of them in the course of their duties. We must address this fact and protect the women and men who have served our country and remove the unethical methods debt collectors use to prey upon our servicemembers. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all members to support this legislation, because it is critical for the United States' Congress to stand with our small business owners, students, the women and men who have served our country, and millions of Americans to address unfair and predatory debt collection efforts.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as we speak about criminal justice reform, sometimes children and juveniles are missing--many in the juvenile criminal justice system. Today, in the Committee on the Judiciary, we had a powerful hearing that spoke about the integrating of juveniles into a new system and to ensure that we move forward on preventing juveniles from serving in the same facilities as adults; to not in any way cede to a sentence of a life without parole; and to realize the best life for juveniles who may have had a detour, who may have been traumatized, who may have, because of the non-maturity of their brain, done something wrong. But there is a life after. And we should look for those systems that integrate that juvenile back into society. Intervention. And after the incarceration, to be able to bring them to a point where they can be contributing to our society. That is what we are going to move on, the House Committee on the Judiciary. I encourage my colleagues to join us, because our juveniles are not our tomorrows; they are our todays.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, who are we if we cannot honor and celebrate those who have given their ultimate in the National Police Week? I want to say to my hometown law enforcement that we mourn Jason Michael Knox, Harold Lloyd Preston, Lemuel Bruce, and Mark C. Brown. We mourn Christopher Brown, and we mourn Johnny Ramos Sanchez. We mourn Juan Menchaca, we mourn Raymond Scholwinski, and we mourn Ernest Leal. We thank them. They are our family members, our brothers and sisters. We honor them and express our appreciation for their laying down their lives to save children and to take families out of burning buildings. We acknowledge Houston law enforcement officers who are now memorialized on the wall of honor, which I intend to introduce into this body's Record. Then I want to acknowledge the legislation that I hope my colleagues will sign, and that is, to honor those who stood tall and fought for us on January 6. This resolution will tell us their story, and that is why I stand today to tell the story of those who have sacrificed for us in this week. They are our family. We honor them, and we mourn them. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Law Enforcement Caucus and the Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, I know well the service and sacrifice of our neighbors in law enforcement, both in my hometown of Houston, Texas and here in the Capitol. I would like to take this minute to honor those fallen heroes in the City of Houston over the last year, and would like to reiterate our support for our polices officers across the nation and here at the capitol for their duty and sacrifice in the defense of ourselves and our communities. It is altogether fitting and proper that we do this. Among those fallen Texans are: Sergeant Harold Lloyd Preston of the Houston Police Department with 41 years on the force whose watch ended on October 20, 2020, when he was fired upon while responding to a call for assistance involving a domestic disturbance. Officer Jason Michael Knox of the Houston Police Department, whose watch ended on May 2, 2020, when his aircraft experienced operation control issues and crashed into an unoccupied building during a search mission. Investigator Lemuel Bruce of the Houston Fire Marshal's Office, whose watch ended on October 16, 2020, due to an ambush while conducting surveillance as part of an ongoing arson investigation. And those officers who risked exposure to the COVID-19 pandemic in their tireless pursuit for justice and against violence, who contracted the virus in the course of their duties, and who eventually succumbed to the deadly virus: Investigator Mark C. Brown of the Harris County Constable's Office, whose watch ended on July 26, 2020; Deputy Sheriff Johnny Tunches of the Harris County Sheriff's Office, whose watch ended November 2, 2020; Deputy Juan Menchaca, Jr. of the Harris County Sheriff's Office, whose watch ended June 13, 2020; Sergeant Raymond Scholwinski of the Harris County Sheriff's Office, whose watch ended May 6, 2020; and Senior Officer Ernest Leal of the Houston Police Department, whose watch ended on November 27, 2020. 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 295 police officers killed in the line of duty in 2020. 2020 was one of the deadliest years for law enforcement officers in history. Mr. Speaker, enshrined on the Memorial Wall of Honor also are the names of 2,052 fallen peace officers from the state of Texas, the most of any state, including 116 members of the Houston Police Department who gave their lives to keep their city safe. Mr. 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 58 hours, a law enforcement officer is killed somewhere in the United States. There are also 58,627 assaults against our law officers each year, resulting in 16,667 injuries. Mr. Speaker, on January 6, 2021, the then-President of the United States encouraged his followers to ``fight like hell'' to disrupt and derail the constitutionally required Joint Meeting of Congress to open, count, and publicly confirm the vote tally of the Presidential electors and announce the persons who had been elected President and Vice President of the United States. What followed was thousands of domestic terrorists, insurrectionists, and rioters charging the Capitol Building, the bastion of American democracy, with metal pipes, chemical irritants, and other weapons. In their way the officers of the United States Capitol Police Department, the Metropolitan Police Department of Washington, DC, and other uniformed law enforcement officers stood their ground in defense of American democracy. There is no finer example of the selfless devotion to duty and love of country, than these officers' valiant, heroic, and courageous response to the assault on the Capitol Building. At least 138 officers, 73 from the United States Capitol Police Department, and 65 from the Metropolitan Police Department of Washington DC, sustained injuries during the attack on the Capitol Building, several of whom required hospitalization. The seven hours between the urgent call for help from the Capitol Police to the Metropolitan Police Department and the resumption of work by both Houses of Congress will be indelibly etched in the memories of every law enforcement officer who was on the scene, as it is in the minds of the Senators, Representatives, congressional and support staff, and members of the media corps who were forced to seek safety behind locked doors. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent the people of the 18th Congressional District of Texas in paying tribute to the 295 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. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a moment of silence in memory of the 295 officers whose names will be added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Mental Health Month and to acknowledge as I presided today on the floor the number of mental health bills that were passed today ready to be approved by the Senate and as well to be signed by the President. Mr. Speaker, I worked closely with my constituents during COVID-19 and really worked with the city of Houston to use CARES money to develop a call center for the stressed people in my community. Mental health is real. Mental health issues are real, and it is imperative that we continue on the Federal level to provide the resources to help our families, to educate our families, to provide counseling for our families, and, yes, to provide an opportunity for them to call locally and nationally in a stressful situation. COVID-19 was stressful, and many, I believe, lives were saved by the lifeline that we opened in the city of Houston that was on 7 days a week. I want to thank all of those providers, including Dr. Janice Dill, and again, the city of Houston who worked with us in Harris County to save lives. We must know that mental health is a medical issue, and we need to save lives, end the stigma, and recognize all of those who are embracing those who are sick and need help with respect to mental health.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the holiday of Cinco de Mayo commemorating the victory of the Mexican Army 1862 over France at the Battle of Puebla during the Franco-Mexican War. The fifth day of May, or Cinco de Mayo, is a special day because it represents the importance of freedom, liberty and determination for the people of Mexico and for Mexican-Americans. It was on that day, May 5, 1862, that untrained, outnumbered, and outgunned Mexican forces--determined to protect their land-- successfully defended the town of Puebla against the French. The quest for an independent Mexico started on September 16, 1810, when the people of Mexico, following the will to become a free nation, refused to submit to Spanish rule. The struggle went on for 10 years. Finally, in 1821, the first independent Mexican government was established. But being an independent nation was not easy. Over the years, Mexico received economic support from several nations, France and England among them. Later on, even Spain supported the new country. Thus, Mexico became heavily indebted to foreign powers. Due to ongoing political unrest caused by many groups struggling for power, Mexico was not able to pay back the loans. On July 17, 1861, President Benito Juarez issued a moratorium in which all-foreign debt payments would be suspended for a period of two years, with the promise that after this period, payments would resume. In 1862, France, Spain, and England dispatched their fleets to Mexican shores pursuing not only money but also land rights as payment for their loans. A government representative greeted them and explained that Mexico acknowledged its debts but had no funds to pay them. They were offered payment warrants in exchange. The Spaniards and the British decided to accept the warrants and withdrew from the scene. But the French government's representative did not accept the offer and ordered his troops to invade the country and head toward Mexico City, the nation's capital. They had to cross through the state of Puebla to get to the capital. Mexican President Benito Juarez reacted immediately and prepared the defense. He commanded Ignacio Zaragoza, a young and brave General, to fortify the City of Puebla and repel the French invaders. The battle was by no means even. France, under Louis Napoleon's rule, had the most world's powerful army, and sent more than six thousand men to invade Mexico. But the courage and the love of freedom impelled the Mexican people to fight back. General Ignacio Zaragoza led 5,000 ill-equipped Mestizo and Zapotec Indians called Zacapoaxtlas. On the 5th of May 1862, the forts of Loreto and Guadalupe, in the city of Puebla, became the scene of the historic defeat of the great army of France. Against overwhelming odds, they managed to drive the enemy back, achieving a total victory over the best trained and equipped soldiers in the world and ending the era of European domination of the Americas. For Mexico, this day has come to represent a symbol of Mexican unity. In the United States, Cinco de Mayo is also a celebration of the rich cultural heritage Mexican Americans have brought to the United States. Hispanics are the fastest-growing minority group in the United States. According to the most recent data available, the estimated Hispanic population in the U.S. is 57.5 million--constituting 17.8 percent of our nation's population. Hispanics now own a record number of small businesses--1.6 million, with annual revenues of more than $221 billion. Small businesses create two-thirds of American jobs, and the fastest- growing small business sector is Latino-owned firms. Today, there are 52 Hispanic Members in the United States Congress, including 6 Senators and 46 House Members, many of whom are Mexican- American, representing constituencies in all regions of the country, from California to New York, from Arizona to Illinois, from Colorado to Florida. These gains and numbers tell us that Hispanics are a driving force in our country--economically, socially and politically. Hispanics share the common goals with all other Americans of freedom, opportunity, and a chance to build a better life. In pursuing these aspirations, Hispanics have made important contributions to life in the United States in the fields of culture, sports, entertainment, business enterprise, science, politics and others. Today, millions of Americans will join our neighbors to the south in celebrating Cinco de Mayo. On this day, we are reminded that all people--regardless of their race, color, or gender--have enriched cultures and are worthy of respect and self-determination. I am happy to be here today to celebrate this momentous day and to recognize the values, traditions, and positive contributions of the Mexican culture.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I am a proud progressive Texas Democrat in the tradition of the late Governor Ann Richards and my predecessors Barbara Jordan and Mickey Leland so it may hurt more than help them to say that Congresswoman Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the third- ranking Republican in the House, Senator Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican standard-bearer, and President George W. Bush, the last Republican president to amass a popular vote majority, exceed 50 percent in approval ratings, and win reelection all have my undying respect for the manner in which they have stood steadfast in defense of the Constitution, the country, and their principles in the face of brutal, withering, and unwarranted attack by their party's leadership and rank and file. All of them have repeatedly rejected and denounced publicly, unequivocally, and fiercely the Republican ``Big Lie'' that the 2020 presidential election was stolen and rife with fraud. They are modern- day profiles in courage. They all embody John F. Kennedy's dictum that ``sometimes party loyalty demands too much.'' Like many Members of Congress, in the course of my service I have found often that vigorous debate and acceptance of different views, if allowed to be heard, can result in socially transformative and life- affirming legislation, such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and the 1994 Violence Against Women Act. Some might think it surprising for a member of an opposing party to go against the convention of non-interference when one's adversary is in the process of inflicting harm upon itself. I have chosen to ignore this convention because I am a firm believer in the promise of a more perfect union. And I believe in America and its future. Our children listen to and absorb what we say and do. We cannot let them see the brutalization of voices that are telling the truth about January 6 and the attack on the Citadel of Democracy without defending those voices. I believe these persons are patriots and I join them in my affection for the written values of this nation evidenced in our Constitution. I am a constitutional patriot who believes Bush, Romney, Cheney have put America first. Congresswoman Cheney, the House Republican Conference Chair, has drawn fire for being unrelenting in her defense of constitutional government and for not backing down one iota from her claim that the domestic insurrection led by terrorists who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, for the avowed purpose of disrupting Congress from performing its constitutionally mandated duty to tally the votes cast by presidential electors and announce the results to the nation and the world was the intentional result of Donald Trump's handiwork: The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the President. The President could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not. There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution. We cannot ignore the fact that these domestic terrorists were intending to kill officers of the Congress, the Vice-President, other Members, and law enforcement officers if need be. Sen. Romney of Utah, a state carried by Trump by more than 20 percentage points and the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, is the only Republican senator who voted to convict and remove Trump from office for high crimes and misdemeanors. Twice. Former President George W. Bush was one of the first Republicans to congratulate President-elect Joe Biden and Vice-President-elect Kamala Harris on their election victory and has stated that the GOP is embarking on a ``suicide path'' with its adherence to the Big Lie and flirtation with the idea of forming a congressional ``Anglo-Saxon Caucus.'' More Republican leaders are needed to join this ``Chorus of the Courageous,'' to put country over party, and to do their part to preserve and keep real the American boast that this is a land of government of, by, and for the people. At several moments in our Nation's past, men and women of principle, courage, and unyielding commitment to the Nation's founding ideals have stood forward at moments of maximum peril and danger in defense of the country's enduring values and principles. Men like Congressman L. Brooks Hayes of Arkansas, who alienated powerful governor Orval E. Faubus during the 1957 integration crisis when he refused to support Faubus' effort to keep the Little Rock public schools racially segregated. Or like U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz., U.S. House Minority Leader John Rhodes, R-Ariz., and U.S. Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott, R-Pa., who went to the White House to tell Richard Nixon, the winner of one of the greatest landslide victories in history, that he must resign, or he would be impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate. Or women like U.S. Sen. Margaret Chase Smith of Maine, the first woman to serve both the House and the Senate and the first Republican senator to denounce the demagogue Sen. Joe McCarthy during the height of the Red Scare. In her famous ``Declaration of Conscience'' speech to the Senate, she said: ``Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism.'' [. . .] ``It is high time we stopped thinking politically as Republicans and Democrats about elections and started thinking patriotically as Americans about national security based on individual freedom.'' In perpetuating Trump's Big Lie, Republican leaders are cravenly choosing narrow partisan interests over the national interest. They are rejecting the wisdom of the founding father of conservatism, the English statesman Sir Edmund Burke, who said: [The national state] is to be looked on with other reverence; because it is not a partnership in things subservient only to the gross animal existence of a temporary and perishable nature. It is a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in every virtue, and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born. Burke understood, as did conservative statesmen, political leaders, and scholars that an elected official's duty was not simply to be an ``instructed delegate,'' parroting and following their constituents' temporary and inchoate passions, but also to be an ``enlightened trustee'' bringing experience and judgment to elevate and inform the public discourse and understanding. What is needed today is a semblance of the will and courage of Abraham Lincoln, the greatest Republican of all. In his famous 1860 Cooper Union Address, Lincoln exhorted and inspired adherents to hold true to their beliefs in equality and that slavery was a moral evil: What will convince that we do not threaten their property? This and this only: cease to call slavery wrong and join them in calling it right. All they ask, we can grant, if we think slavery right. All we ask, they can grant if they think it wrong. Right and wrong is the precise fact upon which depends the whole controversy. Thinking it wrong, as we do, can we yield? Let us not grope for some middle ground between right and wrong. Let us not search in vain for a policy of don't care on a question about which we do care. Nor let us be frightened by threats of destruction to the government. Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty[.] This is the moral and political courage that is so conspicuous by its absence in Republicans leaders today. America's strength lies in the ability of everyone--Democrats, Republicans, and independents--to speak truth loudly and proudly in the face of adversity, and to power.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, in the Judiciary Committee right now, we are holding hearings to fight against the scourge of voter suppression and the unfortunate abolishment of section 5 by the Shelby case. I heard shouts of hallelujah when that case was abolished. The reason is because we are here today denying citizens of the United States the right to be represented fairly in the United States Congress. The 23rd Amendment? Well, I can cite for you the 14th Amendment and the 15th Amendment, not depriving people of their liberty and their justice. What about those soldiers who shed blood from the District of Columbia? What about those who are paying taxes from the District of Columbia? What about the very citizens who work to move the engine of government living in the District of Columbia? My friends know that the Capitol will be separated. My friends understand that there is a basic constitutional unfairness when you deny people the right to vote. I wonder whether or not the problem is that, when I first arrived here many years ago, it was called chocolate city. Let us not make this a racial issue. Let us make this a justice issue, a constitutional issue. It is important, Mr. Speaker. Vote for this legislation, for the 51st State. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary, as an original cosponsor of the legislation, I rise in strong and enthusiastic support of H.R. 51, the Washington, D.C. Admission Act,'' which declares the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth, to be a State of the United States of America, and declares its admission into the Union on an equal footing with the other States in all respects whatsoever. In passing this legislation, we remove a stain that has blighted our nation for more than 200 years. Today, we vote to end two centuries of shame and correct an injustice to the citizens of the District of Columbia. Mr. Speaker, let us not lose sight of one indisputable and shameful fact: nearly 500,000 people living in the District of Columbia lack direct voting representation in the House of Representatives and Senate. Specifically, the citizens of the District of Columbia pay more in federal taxes than 22 states and pay more in federal taxes per capita than any state. The District of Columbia's population (705,000) is larger than the populations of Wyoming and Vermont, and seven states had populations under one million in the last census. The District of Columbia's annual budget ($15.5 billion) is larger than the budgets of 14 states. The District of Columbia has a higher per capita personal income and gross domestic product than any state. District of Columbia residents have fought and died in every American war, including the Revolution itself, and almost 200,000 District residents have served in the military since World War I alone. Approximately 30,000 veterans live in the District of Columbia, and it should be noted that during the Vietnam War, 243 District residents were casualties of war, a casualty figure greater than that observed by 10 different states. So, Mr. Speaker, it is undisputable that residents of the District of Columbia serve in the military, pay billions of dollars in federal taxes each year, and assume other responsibilities of U.S. citizenship. But for over 200 years, the District of Columbia has been denied voting representation in Congress--the entity that has ultimate authority over all aspects of the city's legislative, executive, and judicial functions. Mr. Speaker, if a person can be called upon to pay federal taxes and serve in the armed forces of the United States, then he or she should at least have the opportunity to vote for a representative who could at least cast a symbolic vote in this chamber on critical matters facing our nation. Issues like war and peace, equality, and justice. And tear-gassing peaceful protestors in Lafayette Square exercising their First Amendment rights. Mr. Speaker, taxation without representation is tyranny. H.R. 51 would create a state from essentially the eight hometown wards of the District of Columbia and provides that the new state would be equal to the other 50 states in all respects, and that the residents of the State of Washington, D.C. would have all the rights of statehood, including voting representation in Congress and full local self-government Under the legislation this new state would have no jurisdiction over the reduced federal district, which would consist of the area that Members of Congress and visitors associate with the capital of our country: the U.S. Capitol, the U.S. Supreme Court, the White House, the principal federal monuments, and the federal buildings and grounds adjacent to the National Mall and the U.S. Capitol. It is unconscionable that more than a half million American citizens are being unconscionably denied a vote and a voice in the most important legislative body in the world. As a supporter of freedom, democracy, and equality, I believe that it is long overdue for the citizens of the District of Columbia to have representation in the House and the Senate to advocate for their interests on vital matters coming before the Congress of the United States. Mr. Speaker, it is wrong that we must be reminded daily by license plates in the District of Columbia that ``Taxation without representation is tyranny.'' The people in Boston felt so strongly about this in 1775 that they rebelled in Boston Harbor, launching the ``Boston Tea Party.'' The principle that political authority derives from the consent of the government is no less applicable when it comes to the District of Columbia. Let us be clear, there is no dispute that hundreds of thousands of American citizens reside in the District of Columbia. We all agree that universal suffrage is the hallmark of a democratic regime, of which the United States is the world's leading exemplar. None of us believes it is fair that citizens of the District of Columbia pay federal taxes, risk life and limb fighting wars abroad to protect American democracy and extend the blessings of liberty to people living in foreign lands. In short, there is no moral reason to deny the citizens of the District of Columbia admission as a state in the United States and the right to full representation in Congress. The only question is whether Congress has the will and the constitutional authority to do so. Congress has always had the constitutional authority but for much of the last 200 years, it has not had the will. Let us change that, beginning today with our vote to pass H.R. 51, the Washington, D.C. Admission Act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, we have had a tumultuous, but yet invigorating 2 weeks. Just a week ago, we were able, in the Judiciary Committee, to pass H.R. 40, the Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals. Those who voted for it came from all parts of the country and represented all racial groups. It was a wonderful experience of understanding the cruciality and recognizing the slave history of African Americans and further developing proposals to deal with the dastardly impacts on African Americans. We are delighted to have the support of Japanese Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, and, of course, White Americans because they understand the healing power of H.R. 40. Then we just recently had a judgment--as I have said on this floor, I know the Floyd family. They are America's family. We had a judgment on Tuesday that showed the strength of America and her justice system and the recognition that we are all created equal and each one has to be held accountable for his actions. So this has been a good week. America needs to know that. We look forward to passing H.R. 40 on this floor in celebration of the commemoration of Juneteenth when slaves were finally freed and passing the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for his leadership. I thank the gentlewoman from the State of Washington for her grand and superb and astute leadership in understanding the Bill of Rights. I have watched this debate, and I have seen people go to the microphone and talk about ``on the left.'' I didn't know the Constitution was on the left or the right. I thought the Constitution was a document that our Founding Fathers started with the language ``to form a more perfect Union.'' And in the Bill of Rights, citizens or noncitizens can have access to due process just because of the basic foundation of this Nation. For a moment, I am going to pause, but I rise to support enthusiastically the Access to Counsel Act, H.R. 1573. But let me pause, as a resident and citizen of a border State. Oh, how interesting it is, the interpretation of those one-time visitors. What about those of us who have been at the border over and over again? What about those of us who stood in the dark of night and saw a 2-year-old or a baby come off the wall. No, that was not what we wanted. But people fleeing persecution have always sought to come to the place where the Statue of Liberty stands in the harbor. As far as I know, she is not gone. There is an Office of Refugee Resettlement. We have been a refuge for refugees. Madam Speaker, I can tell you that, in the last 4 years, I saw scenes that I had never seen in my life. Do I need to remind Republicans of the children who died in our custody? No, I don't blame those Border Patrol or others there, my neighbors. But I blame the policies of the previous administration that did not care and simply left them to their own devices, which was a crowded, unsanitized place with metallic blankets and people not able to move because their idea was: Move them out. Make it so horrible, short of losing their lives, they will leave. Then, what about the MPP program? I went to Mexico and saw desperate people in the streets. They had no place to live. They were being taken advantage of. I don't fault Mexico that, in essence, made an agreement. Maybe they were intimidated by the last administration and didn't know what else to do. But the MPP program subjected people to very dangerous conditions. So, besides the Biden administration's policy of a closed border, sending people back who are single adults, but for the ports of entry, obviously; and, as well, those families, still giving them the opportunity to apply for asylum, which was literally cut off--domestic abuse persons couldn't apply for asylum under the last administration-- fleeing bloodshed. I would rather stand with President Biden and Vice President Harris, who are strategically trying to work on behalf of the American people, but they have not left their compassion and humanity at the front door of the White House. This legislation is absolutely in compliance with the Constitution because what it says is that you have access to counsel. We don't pay for it. You have legal entry documents, and it is only when you are in secondary detention that this takes place so that little Ali, who I mentioned earlier on the floor, coming from Egypt with the appropriate documents, would have been able to call his father or his uncle, who was here in Houston, Texas. Is that not simple humanity? Is that simple kindness? Is that recognizing the dignity of all people? What about this New York City design gallery owner detained at an airport because of this ridiculous process? Of course, that was in 2017, the last administration, Juan Garcia Mosqueda, founder of the New York art-and-design gallery called Chamber and a decade-long legal permanent resident. I don't know how he got detained at the John F. Kennedy International Airport. Not only did he get detained, but he was shipped back to his native Argentina with no opportunity to talk to anyone ahead of his gallery art show that very day. In an open letter titled ``The Visible Wall,'' released by Mosqueda, he called the experience dehumanizing and degrading. He had his documents and detailed his 36-hour-long detainment, questioning, and return to Buenos Aires. We already know I was getting ready to speak in the last debate on the No BAN Act. Nigeria was added to the list. I co-chair the Nigerian Caucus. There are doctors, lawyers, teachers, and businesspersons who have served from Nigeria in this Nation. I believe this is a right-thinking bill, the Access to Counsel Act of 2021. I rise to support this legislation, and I oppose all of those who think that the Constitution no longer exists. Support the bill, H.R. 1573.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin for her kind words. Those were memorable times, and the historic nature of his leadership was not only national; it was international. I am privileged again in this very special tribute to be able to yield to the gentlewoman from Georgia. States are quite close to each other, and of course, her passion matches the deep passion of Congressman Alcee Hastings. That is the obvious reason for her kinship to Congressman Hastings, but also the ability to have suffered in loss but stand up to fight for justice, and that is our friend and colleague, Lucy McBath, from Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath).

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for that sense of kinship, with her tribute and a reference to his kindness and his wisdom. I hope everyone knows that we are telling a very special story this evening. To join us in that is a Floridian. I always like to pronounce it in a way that indicates the bonding of Floridians, but, certainly, Floridians of a certain kind, like Alcee Hastings with the distinguished former chief of police, Val Demings, a senior member of the Intelligence Committee, a member of the Judiciary Committee and Homeland Security Committee, and a Floridian with deep roots and a friend of Congressman Hastings. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings).