Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, had my vote for Call of the House been cast, it would have been recorded as present. Had I been present, I would have voted pres Roll Call No. 1.

Madam Speaker, today, the Supreme Court is hearing one of the most important abortion rights cases in generations. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, marks the first time in 50 years the Court agreed to hear a case on the constitutionality of a previability abortion ban. In other words, the State of Mississippi has asked the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Let me be clear. Reproductive health access is a fundamental right. This is about supporting body autonomy and well-being. It is also about economic justice and social freedom. The people hurt most by abortion restrictions and bans are those who already face barriers to getting access to healthcare: women, people of color, those working to make ends meet, members of the LGBTQI community, immigrants, young people, those in rural communities, people with disabilities, and others.

We can look to the State of Texas as a real-life example. Texas has banned almost all abortions in the State, forcing people to travel across State lines to receive care.

Now is the time for the Supreme Court to show that it decides cases based on precedent and the rule of law, not politics, not ideology. Every person should be free to make their best healthcare decisions regardless of where they live.

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, there are several contributing factors to why nursing mothers may choose not to breastfeed and pump milk when returning to work. They include inflexible work schedules that make nursing and pumping breast milk regularly difficult; the lack of accommodations to pump and store milk; and concerns regarding support from supervisors and colleagues to pump milk.

In addition to these factors, women of color and low-income women often experience the need to return to work shortly after giving birth, in many cases earlier than 12 weeks, and they face additional barriers such as racial discrimination and bias whether intentional or not.

This is why I am proud to offer my amendment to H.R. 3110, the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act, the underlying bill that protects vulnerable workers by expanding access to breastfeeding accommodations in the workplace.

This important piece of legislation advances our goals of equity in the workplace, and my amendment seeks to strengthen this bill by directing the GAO to conduct a study on the racial disparities that exist in access to pumping breast milk in the workplace.

This amendment will also require that GAO submit a report to Congress on the results of this study with recommendations to address any disparities.

Employers can begin to address these barriers by offering private lactation rooms, or nursing rooms, for both breastfeeding and pumping with proper cleaning and storage facilities such as a table, sink, and small refrigerator, providing employees with adequate pump breaks, allowing flexible work schedules, and guaranteeing paid family leave.

In fact, we can look to my home State of Washington as a prime example of how to lead on this issue. In 2019, the State legislature passed and signed into law House Bill 1930, which goes one step further than the current Federal law by expanding pump break rights to include both salaried and hourly employees, requiring employers to provide a private space for pumping that isn't a bathroom, and allowing mothers to get pump breaks for up to 2 years after birth. Washington is also one of the very few States that provides people with up to 12 weeks paid parental leave after the birth or adoption of a child.

Yet, despite current Federal law, strong State-level protections such as the ones in Washington, and the gains that have been made in this area by employers in different sectors across our Nation, racial disparities in the workplace still exist for women wishing to pump. My amendment aims to close this gap and equip Congress with the data it needs to create meaningful solutions.

We must ensure that women and mothers everywhere and from all backgrounds have the support they deserve in the workplace.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying bill, the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from A Better Balance.

September 23, 2021.

Re The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act (H.R. 3110).

Dear Representative: On behalf of A Better Balance, I write

to express our strong support for the PUMP for Nursing

Mothers Act (``The PUMP Act''; H.R. 3110) because no one in

this country should have to choose between feeding their baby

and earning an income for their family. The PUMP Act will

mean millions of workers, excluded under current law, will

have adequate break time and space to express milk at work.

The PUMP Act will further the health of our nation's parents,

babies, and economy. Affording protections to workers so they

can pump milk to feed this country's children should be a

priority for every member of Congress. We urge every member

to support this bipartisan legislation and vote yes on the

PUMP Act.

A Better Balance is a national legal advocacy organization,

using the power of the law to advance justice for workers, so

they can care for themselves and their loved ones without

risking their economic security. We founded A Better Balance

fifteen years ago because we recognized that a lack of fair

and supportive work-family laws and policies, or more

broadly, a ``care crisis'' was harming a majority of workers,

particularly women, especially Black and Latina women, in

low-

wage jobs. In the case of nursing parents, too often, parents

return to work without the supports they need to continue

expressing milk at work and are forced to choose between

giving up breastfeeding and maintaining their employment.

As I shared with the House Education and Labor Committee in

my March 2021 testimony:

We hear over and over again on A Better Balance's free

legal helpline, new mothers returning to the workplace face

unfair treatment because their employers refuse to provide

them with the time and space needed to express breast milk,

forcing them to choose between a paycheck and providing

breast milk for their child. Some workers reduce their

schedules, are terminated, or are forced out of the

workplace, foregoing vital income and familial economic

security because their workplaces are so hostile to their

need to express milk. Others simply stop breastfeeding

altogether, sometimes even before entering the workplace,

perceiving (typically correctly) the challenges as

insurmountable. Too many who continue in their jobs struggle

with harassment, health repercussions, and dwindling milk

supply to feed their babies. These challenges face many new

working parents, but disproportionately low-wage working

mothers of color. These harsh workplace conditions for

breastfeeding parents represent a fundamental unfairness and

inequity in our legal system--and reinforce the stereotype

that motherhood and employment are irreconcilable.

One worker who recently called A Better Balance's helpline,

Sarah, is a certified medication assistant at a large long-

term care facility in Kansas. Despite having thousands of

employees, her employer disparaged her and put up roadblock

after roadblock when she needed to pump at work, telling her

once ``I gave my baby the bottle--I couldn't imagine having a

baby attached to me.'' After her supervisor berated her for

needing to pump, and she attempted to find a space in the

office to pump to no avail because a co-worker walked in,

told her to ``hurry up'', and refused to leave the room,

Sarah resorted to pumping in her car just once a day. Even

then, her supervisor came to the parking lot to try and stop

her from pumping. Because she was only allowed to pump once a

day, she frequently became engorged and suffered painful

clogged milk ducts. Meanwhile, at least of six Sarah's co-

workers took smoke breaks multiple times a day without

comment or issue. The contrast is startling and deeply

upsetting.

Sarah is not alone in her struggle. I also shared Izabel's

story with the committee:

Izabel, a dental assistant in North Carolina, was fired

shortly after submitting a doctor's note requesting three 15-

minute pumping breaks during her shift. Prior to submitting

the note, she had requested pumping breaks and her employer

told her she could only pump once per day during her lunch

break--which did not medically meet her breastfeeding needs--

even though there were roughly three other dental assistants

working in the office who could have helped her with her job

duties while she took breaks. Although likely covered by the

2010 Break Time for Nursing Mothers Act, because of the law's

limited enforcement, Izabel's ability to get her job back or

be made whole were extremely limited.

Beastfeeding Has Myriad Benefits for Parents & Babies But, As We Know

Firsthand, Too Many Workplaces Lack Adequate Protections for Workers

Breastfeeding is increasingly common among American

parents. According to a recent study by the United States

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey, more than

84 percent of infants born in 2017 were breastfed for at

least some amount of time. The U.S. Dietary Guidelines for

Americans and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend

exclusive breastfeeding for about 6 months, and continuing

breastfeeding while introducing complementary foods until a

baby is 12 months old or older. At the same time, more than

half of working parents return to their jobs before their

babies are three months old; twenty-five percent of workers

return within just two weeks of giving birth. This means that

working parents who wish to continue breastfeeding will need

to pump milk on a regular basis upon returning to work in

order to continue feeding their children and to avoid serious

health consequences. However, many parents returning to work

find it incredibly challenging to pump because they are not

provided with adequate break time or space to do so. This may

explain why, although 84 percent of infants born in 2017

breastfed for some period of time, only slightly more than 58

percent were still breastfeeding at six months.

The health benefits of breastfeeding are numerous. As I

outlined in my testimony:

Research shows that breastfeeding has substantial health

benefits for both mothers and babies. Breastfeeding protects

babies from acute illnesses, such as infections and diarrhea,

which can be serious especially in very young and vulnerable

babies like those born preterm, as well as from longer-term

conditions like childhood obesity and asthma. Likewise, as

Nikia Sankofa, the Executive Director of the U.S.

Breastfeeding Committee, made clear in testimony before the

House Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions

and the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections in January

2020, the health benefits for mothers who breastfeed are

significant, and include lower risk of breast cancer and

heart disease. Medical consensus urges breastfeeding infants

for at least their first year of life in order to achieve

these health benefits.

Current Federal Law Leaves Behind Millions of Lactating Workers

In 2010, Congress passed the Break Time for Nursing Mothers

Act as part of the Affordable Care Act. The law amended

section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C.

207) and affords workers ``reasonable break time for an

employee to express breast milk for her nursing child for 1

year after the child's birth each time such employee has need

to express the milk'' and ``a place, other than a bathroom,

that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from

coworkers and the public, which may be used by an employee to

express breast milk.''

While groundbreaking, the 2010 law has three critical

problems: 1) it excludes millions of workers; 2) it has

inadequate remedies for employees whose rights have been

violated; and 3) it lacks clarity around breaks and

compensation.

1. Current law excludes millions of nursing parents. The

2010 law is housed in the overtime provisions of the Fair

Labor Standard Act (``FLSA'') which means that those workers

exempted from overtime--nearly nine million women of

childbearing age--are also excluded from the law's

protections. These millions of workers, including

transportation workers, executive, administrative and

professional workers, and many others, have no federal right

requiring their employer to provide them break time and space

to express breast milk. As I emphasized in my testimony,

``There is no principled reason why these employees should be

denied the law's protections: each industry is fully capable

of standard or innovative solutions to ensure their employees

do not have to choose between breastfeeding and their jobs. .

. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office on

Women's Health maintains an extensive and detailed website

describing how various industries, such as restaurant and

retail, can provide lactation break time and space, including

video testimonials, employer best practices examples, and

other resources. In 2021, there is simply no excuse not to

meet the needs of breastfeeding workers.''

2. Current law has inadequate remedies for workers who

experienced violations. Given the current law's placement in

the overtime provisions of the FLSA, the remedy for

violations of the Nursing Mothers law is misaligned.

Currently, the available remedy is to pay a worker any

overtime owed to them. As I explained to the Education and

Labor Committee in March,

``Such a remedy makes sense in the context of overtime: an

employee who works forty-five hours in a week without

overtime pay should be compensated with the missing payment

to be made whole. For a breastfeeding worker who has been

denied time and space to pump, however, this remedy is

nonsensical. A breastfeeding worker who is told she cannot

clock out to pump has been denied an unpaid break. Therefore,

she has no entitlement to payment and the law's contemplated

remedy--compensation for wages--is meaningless to her . . .

These weak enforcement mechanisms are antithetical to the

goal of ensuring that breastfeeding workers can get the

timely accommodations they need to continue breastfeeding and

keep their jobs''

3. Current law lacks clarity regarding pumping breaks and

compensation. Under current law, pumping breaks that are not

taken during a paid break do not need to be paid. However,

often, workers who are pumping may clock out but will still

take phone calls, emails, or other work requests while

pumping, and are then denied compensation for their time

worked while pumping. Because the language in the law says

that breaks may be uncompensated, confusion persists and

violations can occur when employers continue to require

employees to work while taking an unpaid pumping break.

The PUMP Act Would Close Gaps in the Law, Provide Appropriate Remedies

for Employees, and Give Clarity Around Compensation. Alternative

Proposals Fall Well Short of This Goal

The PUMP Act will close the gaps in current law and extend

the 2010 law's protections to nearly nine million employees

who are currently uncovered, including nurses, teachers, and

software engineers. Corporate leadership, coupled with

employees, advocates, and government agencies, have already

devised innovative, affordable, and flexible solutions for

nearly every workplace environment. In addition, the

Committee on Education & Labor also added language at the

bill markup requiring the U.S. Department of Labor to work

with the Department of Health and Human Services to build out

guidance for employers.

The legislation will also provide employers additional

clarity as to when break time can be unpaid, and will provide

remedies that are already available for other FLSA violations

if a worker's rights are violated. At the Education & Labor

Committee mark-up of the bill, the Committee also added

language ensuring fairness for employers by requiring

employees to inform their employers about inadequate space to

express breast milk 10 days before they file suit for

violating the requirement. The PUMP Act will benefit workers

and business alike, as there are well-recognized bottom-line

benefits for employers

in providing break time and space for lactating employees,

such as reduced absenteeism, lower healthcare costs, and

greater recruitment and retention. This is why the U.S.

Chamber of Commerce supports this legislation.

At the Committee markup, the minority introduced an

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute, and subsequently, a

bill which mirrored that substitute amendment. Now, there is

an attempt to include this language again as a substitute

amendment to this bill. Although encouraging to see members

voice support for break time and space, this substitute

amendment does not afford the protections that breastfeeding

parents need because it does not address the two main

problems that the PUMP Act is addressing. The alternative

bill continues to exclude millions of workers from break time

and space protections and continues to leave workers with no

meaningful remedies. Supporting the alternative bill and not

the PUMP Act is hollow at best and offensive to working

parents who need real protections.

The PUMP Act will finally close the gaps in the law that

have left too many working parents without the ability to

pump at work and thrust into the painful position of choosing

between breastfeeding and their job. Congress has the

opportunity to right a fundamental wrong and pass the PUMP

Act. We urge you to support nursing parents in a meaningful

way and pass the PUMP Act.

Sincerely,

Dina Bakst,

Co-Founder & Co-President,

A Better Balance.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

In closing, Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment that benefits all of us regardless of our political affiliation. This is a bipartisan bill, it deserves our support as well as the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, all Americans, regardless of age, ZIP Code, or income, deserve to live in a safe, clean, and stable home they can afford. This is exactly what a healthy, just, and secure community relies on. It ensures that people are able to meet their basic needs. When over 145,000 Social Security beneficiaries in my district, the 10th Congressional District of Washington State--representing nearly 21 percent of the population--only have 100 to $200 to spare for groceries, utilities, and other basic expenses after paying their rent or mortgage, we know that prosperity is not being shared equally, nor equitably.

When our servicemembers at Joint Base Lewis-McChord simply cannot find homes off post or on post for their families, due to lack of supply or the cost of housing, we must clearly improve our mission to support our Nation's heroes.

These are just a few of the stories that thousands of Washington State residents and families are experiencing, just like millions of Americans across the country. And we know the driving factor behind this housing crisis is lack of supply. We don't have enough housing, and we aren't building it fast enough to meet the demand. And some of the housing that we do have is not fit for human habitation.

According to Up for Growth, an organization that advocates for more housing, their report on housing underproduction from 2010 to 2017 in Washington State identifies some startling data points: For every one household that moved into my district, there were .64 housing units produced in Pierce County, .76 in Thurston County, and .62 housing units in Mason County.

So this means that for every family that moved into our district, that we were producing two-thirds to three-quarters of the housing that we needed to accommodate them. This also means that for over 7 years the population increased and demand far outpaced supply, resulting in this crunch or lack of inventory that so many families are feeling right now.

What's more, there remains a shortage of nearly 160,000 homes for extremely low-income renters, and nearly half a million renters in Washington State are rent-burdened, which means that they spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing alone.

Now housing experts have told us that we need a once-in-a-generation solution to our housing supply shortage. That time is now. Now is our opportunity to build smarter, build better, and to do it inclusively.

We have solutions on the table, and it is well past time to use them. We can build to higher-density inside transit corridors, leveraging existing infrastructure. That is why I was so proud to help introduce the bipartisan Build More Housing Near Transit Act with Representative Scott Peters to make sure that when we are investing $2.3 billion each year for large-scale transit projects, we are ensuring that local land use policies, which are often the biggest barrier to increasing housing supply, will encourage sensible development around these major infrastructure investments. For so long we have built housing infrastructure around automobiles and that is a relic of the past; now we must invest in transit to utilize good and smart land use policies.

For our military servicemembers and their families, we can find solutions in our National Defense Authorization Act provisions, which passed out of the House in a bipartisan manner just weeks ago. I offered one provision, which will direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment to answer one question: How long are wait times for housing located on military installations in competitive housing markets? And we want them to produce a strategy to address this demand for housing.

It is simply unacceptable that servicemembers and their families must wait more than 6 months to be assigned housing on Joint Base Lewis- McChord. I urge all of my colleagues to support this inclusion of several reports that will address the issue, including a report on how and the extent to which commanders of military installations are connecting military families with local nonprofit organizations and government entities that provide services to the military, including assistance with finding housing.

And importantly, we must pass both our bipartisan infrastructure proposal and the Build Back Better Act and specifically deploy the Unlocking Possibilities Program.

This competitive grant program through HUD will be used to support cities and towns to design and implement policies that eliminate exclusionary zoning and artificial barriers to adding more housing. I urge all of my colleagues to work to retain this important program in our build back better proposal.

Being securely housed is a fundamental human right regardless of your political affiliation. The cost of continuing to ignore our lack of supply is far too great, especially when the tools we need are at our disposal. Let's use them, and let's show our constituents that we can and will build back better. To do otherwise is irresponsible.

Madam Speaker, Americans nationwide have felt the impact of this year's extreme weather, from flooding to wildfires to record heat. In Washington State, heat domes in June and August of this year have caused hundreds to die of heat exposure, roads and highways to buckle, and shellfish to broil in their streams.

The iconic Mount Rainier, one of the snowiest places on Earth, was not immune to this. The unprecedented heat, nearly 40 degrees above the previous recorded high, has had a devastating impact on the mountain. This image shows Mount Rainier during most of the summer, its sides bare, compared to its typical snow cover.

For longtime residents of Washington State, it is jarring to see Mount Rainier without snow on its peak. In just 4 days this summer, 4 days in late June, the peak of the heat dome, the mountain lost 30 percent of its total snow cover. This is a visual demonstration that climate change is real.

The lack of snow became more notable as the summer progressed, and this heat is an ecological issue and an economic issue. Washington State's shellfish industry is among the largest in the Nation, contributing $270 million to the State economy and supporting nearly 3,000 jobs.

The heat dome this summer devastated shellfish farms that make up the core of this industry. Shellfish growers reported shellfish baking to death, literally, in shallow water and on the beach. Taylor Shellfish, located in my district, reported losing over 2 million clam seeds.

As our planet warms and climate change takes hold, these extreme weather events are becoming more common, costing lives and critically damaging our environment and our economy.

Against this backdrop, our need to pass transformational climate change legislation becomes even more stark and more urgent. We must invest in electric vehicle infrastructure. We must dramatically expand public transit. We must build an energy grid using renewable sources of power.

We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create tens of thousands of jobs and build a sustainable society for future generations. My district, my State, and our planet depend on it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chair of the Appropriations Committee for her hard work.

This is an opportunity for me to speak on behalf of my amendment concerning the toxic chemical from tires, yes, the tires on cars, trucks, and vehicles, that has a chemical that is killing coho salmon.

I thank also Representatives Kilmer and Schrier for their support of this amendment and to the combined Washington State University and University of Washington research team for their work on this critical issue.

Late last year, this team found that a toxic chemical called 6PPD- quinone runs off roadways and into streams when it rains, entering the bloodstream of coho salmon and killing them.

Salmon are fundamental to the Pacific northwest culture and especially for our Native American Tribes. David Troutt, the Director of National Resources for the Nisqually Indian Tribe has said, ``In 1987, we were fishing 105 days a year. As of 2015, that number has reduced to 8 days a year, and if the coho population continues to decline, I am afraid 8 days will go down to no days, disconnecting our community from the place they have been for 10,000 years.''

It is time for us to robustly fund research into this issue today. By supporting my amendment, we are sending a message, that Congress is committed to funding research at the scale to address it.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1144, the PUGET SOS Act, which I am honored to co-lead with Congressman Kilmer, who I thank for working on this bill over the years. I also thank the Puget Sound Partnership and Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission for all their help. I am proud to work with you to restore Puget Sound.

Madam Speaker, as a western Washington native, I know how critical the health of the Puget Sound is to our region--economically, culturally, and environmentally.

The Sound is an economic engine creating over $30 billion in economic activity and supporting nearly 150,000 jobs. It is a biodiversity hotspot, home to over 7,000 different species, including 200 different types of fish. It is a sacred resource for Tribal nations throughout the region who rely on the flora and fauna the Sound supports for their lives and livelihoods. And it is a cultural treasure, with the salmon, shellfish, orca, and others which live in the ecosystem, that is fundamental to the history and identity of the Pacific Northwest.

For years, this ecosystem has been on the brink of danger, and we are at a tipping point. As the human population continues to grow significantly, the risks and strain on Puget Sound intensify.

This legislation takes much-needed, timely steps to secure the health of the Puget Sound now and into the future by establishing a dedicated program office within the EPA and codifying the Puget Sound Federal Task Force. Together, these groups will develop a Federal action plan to preserve and restore this most critical national maritime treasure.

Washingtonians view and use Puget Sound the way Marylanders view the Chesapeake Bay and how Michiganders view the Great Lakes. It is well past time the Federal Government does as well.

If we really want to make an impact, and support hundreds of thousands of jobs while trying to save orcas and salmon, we must act now.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Dr. Paull H. Shin, who passed away on April 12, 2021, at the age of 85. Dr. Shin was an extraordinary public servant and community leader in Washington State.

Born in Korea in 1935, Dr. Shin became an orphan at a young age. As a teenager, he began his long career in service by working for U.S. Army officers stationed on the Peninsula during the Korean War. After his adoption by Dr. Ray Paull, he came to the United States and quickly obtained his G.E.D., B.A. in Political Science from Brigham Young University, an M.P.I.A. from the University of Pittsburgh, and both an M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Washington. Dr. Shin went on to teach for over three decades at Shoreline Community College in Washington.

In 1992, Dr. Shin became the first Korean-American elected to the Washington State Legislature, where he served for nearly two decades representing the people of Washington's 21st Legislative District. As a lawmaker, Dr. Shin always sought to give back to others, serving as a dedicated and respected voice for not only the Korean-American community, but all marginalized and underserved community members. Dr. Shin was especially passionate about advocating for people with disabilities, immigrants, military veterans, education, trade, and economic development.

Madam Speaker, Dr. Shin's lasting legacy truly exemplifies strength, perseverance, and selfless service to others. I offer my heartfelt condolences to his wife Donna, two children, five grandsons, three greatgrandchildren, his adopted American family, his four brothers and one sister, and all of his loved ones. Dr. Paull Shin was a highly respected member of our community, and will be dearly missed by all who knew him.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor ECOS' dedicated essential workers from the sustainable manufacturing facility located in Lacey, Washington, in the 10th Congressional District.

Family-owned, women-owned, and operated since 1967, ECOS is known for being a pioneer of environmentally friendly and sustainable cleaning products. In addition to its facility in the South Sound, ECOS operates manufacturing plants across our nation, employing hundreds of Americans. Just this month, ECOS officially became a climate positive brand, stepping up as an environmental leader in Washington, and across the country, by regenerating more natural resources than it consumes.

Not only does ECOS play a leading role in the cleaning products industry as a climate positive manufacturer and embody a bold vision for a sustainable future, ECOS has also been an essential business in the fight against COVID-19. Since the start of the pandemic, ECOS' essential workers have been working around the clock to manufacture sustainable cleaning supplies.

Madam Speaker, I am proud that ECOS essential workers represent my district and my community in the South Sound. I want to personally thank and recognize them for their dedication and patriotism in making safe and eco-friendly cleaning products throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. They are the frontline heroes that are powering our region and our nation as we recover, rebuild, and emerge from this pandemic on stronger, more sustainable footing. For all of these reasons, it is my privilege to recognize the tremendous contributions of ECOS' essential workers.

Madam Speaker, the tragic shootings in Atlanta yesterday killed eight people--six of whom were Asian women.

To the families of the victims, you have my deepest condolences.

This crime has elements that we are trying to address here in Congress; gun violence, violence against women, and the meteoric rise of violence we are witnessing against the AAPI community.

Racially motivated violence must be called out for exactly what it is, and we must stop making excuses or rebranding it as economic anxiety or sexual addiction.

Madam Speaker, as a woman who is Black and Korean, I am acutely aware of how it feels to be erased and ignored, and how the default position when violence is committed against people of color or women is to defer from confronting the hate that is often the motivation.

Madam Speaker, words matter and leadership matters. We must all loudly condemn actions and language rooted in fear and bigotry that harms all of us.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of my amendment, which requires the Office of Apprenticeship to use best practices to recruit and retain nontraditional candidates.

In 2019, only 9 percent of the 280,000 apprentices surveyed by the Department of Labor were women. Merely 16 percent were non-White. In a country where nearly half the labor market is made up of women and one- quarter are people of color, our training programs--often debt-free pathways into good-paying jobs--must include the full diversity of our Nation.

My amendment addresses this problem by ensuring that apprenticeship programs have ample resources to effectively recruit and retain nontraditional candidates. But we can't sop there. We must continue to uplift all communities in the South Sound, my home, and across the Nation by equitably supporting women and people of color pursuing the American Dream. Everyone deserves access to economic opportunity and stability.

Madam Speaker, I urge the adoption of this amendment and the underlying bill.