Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 185, to terminate the requirement imposed by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for proof of Covid-19 vaccination for foreign travelers.

H.R. 185 is hasty attempt to reverse the order issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention without any proper planning or preparation.

The Amended Order Implementing Presidential Proclamation on Advancing the Safe Resumption of Global Travel During the COVID-19 Pandemic was first published on April 7, 2022, and was implemented to save lives.

The CDC order imposes necessary restrictions on the entry of noncitizens into the United States by air travel unless they are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or otherwise attest that they will take public health measures to prevent the spread of the disease.

Similar restrictions have been implemented and enforced worldwide, and countries like Thailand have had to reimplement such restrictions after lifting them.

Now is not the time to roll back protections, only to be in a place where we will need to reimpose more onerous and unwanted lockdowns and shutdowns across the country.

Yet, H.R. 185 would nullify any successor or subsequent orders that require foreign persons traveling by air to show proof of a COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of entry, as well as prohibit the use of federal funds to administer or enforce such a requirement.

Mr. Chair, the wellbeing of the American People should hold the utmost importance and any act against their health and wellbeing should be strongly condemned.

Since March 2020, life in Houston--like most of the world--has been upended.

Houston, Texas is the 4th largest city in the country and is one of the most racially and ethnically diverse cities in the United States.

In addition to Houston being a culturally diverse city and home to international students, residents, and families from all over the world, Houston also serves as an international hub for millions of people all over the world who travel to my city every year for both leisure and business.

According to the Houston First Corporation, a record 22.3 million people from around the world visited Houston in 2018.

Notably, the 2023 Houston Rodeo season, scheduled for Feb. 28-March 19, is the largest rodeo in the world and contributes significantly to our city's economy. In 2022, this event attracted over 2.4 million international travelers from around the world.

Despite the senseless and disingenuous politicization of the COVID-19 vaccine, it has and continues to save countless lives--particularly in my home state and internationally rich travel hub of Houston, Texas.

In Houston, specifically Harris County, there have been 1,058,476 confirmed COVID-19 cases, 7,839 active cases, 1,041,939 recovered, and 8,589 deaths. Furthermore, Texas as a state has recorded 8.24 million cases and 93,366 deaths.

In the United States, there have been 102 million confirmed case and 1.11 million deaths.

And across the globe, there have been 671 million confirmed cases and 6.83 million deaths.

These statistics serve as a harrowing reminder of the gravity of this epidemic and the caution we should be taking in ensuring preventative responses and remaining vigilant against the spread of COVID-19.

Rolling back critical vaccination policies put in place to protect Americans through hasty measures such as H.R. 185, undermines the national mission and unified efforts nationwide to prevent future cases infiltrating our communities.

While progress has certainly been made in protecting Americans from this deadly virus, we cannot stand for the erosion of such progress through ill-conceived and politicized measures.

As we continue to make strides to prevent and eradicate current and future variants plaguing our cities, states, nation, and world, let it be known that H.R. 185 would only serve to disregard the health and well-being of all Americans, foolishly jeopardizing our lives and the ongoing fight to keep everyone healthy and safe.

Instead of halting vital funding and vaccine policies for international travelers, without a plan or forethought of the disastrous impact that will inevitably result, it is imperative that we stand together in planning and preparing for smart policy shifts that will allow our country to effectively and safely ease back into some sense of normalcy.

Anything less is an abdication of our governmental duties and an insult and danger to the welfare of all those we are sworn to serve.

With strong opposition to this bill, I urge my Republican colleagues to step back and actually work with us to lay forward common sense implementations of care and safety for our fellow Americans.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment, although I may not necessarily be opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, any effort to keep the existing protocols for China are appropriate, but I rise today with great concern about the underlying bill, H.R. 185, which is to terminate the requirement imposed by the director of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for proof of COVID-19 vaccination for foreign travelers.

It is not the CDC, based on science, that is attempting to do this, or the administration, based on the multiple levels of science, Health and Human Services, CDC, and NIH that may contribute to this decision. It is Congress, that certainly has its role of authority, but it is not authority based on science and based on knowledge.

I believe this is a hasty attempt to reverse the order issued by the Centers for Disease Control. As well, I believe it imposes important restrictions by the CDC on the entry of noncitizens into the United States by air travel unless they are fully vaccinated.

We know that there are discussions going on about ending certain protocols with COVID-19. But as the President said last night, we lost a million Americans. People are still mourning their loved ones. We understand, with that in mind, we are still seeing people die of COVID- 19 and many of its, in essence, other aspects of infectious diseases, and we are seeing COVID-19 still actively exist.

People with underlying conditions suffer greatly. Restrictions have been implemented and enforced worldwide, and countries like Thailand have had to re-implement such restrictions after lifting them.

Now is not the time to go back on protections, only to be in a place where we will need to reimpose more onerous and unwanted lockdowns and shutdowns. Yet, H.R. 185 would nullify any successor or subsequent orders that require foreign persons traveling by air to show proof of COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of entry, as well as prohibit the use of Federal funds to administer and enforce such a requirement.

Mr. Chair, this is not logical or sensible. This is a country of over 300 million persons. Again, this is a Nation that lost a million persons. I will say it again: People are still dying of COVID-19.

The well-being of the American people should be our first priority. Since March of 2020, I proceeded to provide

any number of testing sites and vaccination sites. We saw our hospitals teeming. We, of course, reached out to the chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, as we were desperate to get tests and vaccines.

I spoke to New York hospitals and doctors who were telling me that their hallways were teeming, their operating rooms were nonexistent, because there were COVID patients everywhere. Many of us remember the stark look of the refrigerator cars not only in this Nation but around the world.

So I am hesitant that at this point we make a decision on the floor of the House, not a scientific report, not a hearing in a committee, to be able to suggest that we could go ahead and remove this particular health caution protection.

Again, COVID-19 cases have been 1,058,000 confirmed in our area, 7,839 active cases now, and 1 million persons recovered. There have been 8,589 deaths. Texas, as a State, has recorded 8.24 million cases and 93,366 deaths.

We are a border State, and so we have the opportunity for people to come in from foreign countries, as well as South and Central America, who come into the United States, and I am saying through legal travel. So it doesn't make sense to go to this length and to do it without further study, further science, and as well for the recognition of the importance of the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health, Health and Human Services, and the President of the United States, who is the leader of this Nation.

So in working with the executive, I believe that we should give them the opportunity to work constructively and to be able to give the right kind of guidance that will protect all of us. We should not precipitously try to overcome a disease that is evident as a major killer of Americans.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to oppose the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for his leadership and of course Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton for her continued consistency in refuting and rebutting wrongheaded and misdirected policies that seem to come year after year.

Let me read breaking news from one of the historic newspapers in this month that we begin to focus on Black history. From ``The Washington Informer,'' the headline says, ``D.C. Council Blasts House GOP Interference in City Law.''

``D.C. Council members have lashed out at Republicans on Capitol Hill for seeking to meddle in city affairs.''

For some reason, Ranking Member Raskin, there was some thought that our friends were riding in on a white horse because there was some disagreement on the Council. That disagreement, as you have so effectively said, with the Congresswoman as well, is that they want to handle their own matters.

Let the record be clear: The United States Constitution does not forbid noncitizens from casting a vote in local, State, and other elections. At least 15 cities currently allow noncitizens to cast ballots in local elections, and particularly noncitizens were occasionally permitted to cast ballots in local, State, and Federal elections in 40 States from the time of the Nation's inception until 1926.

We have had a history of local decisions being made by local voters. In this instance, local voters voted and made a decision. Whatever modifications they desire to make, they are not asking this place to implode their work.

As we begin to think about voting rights, I would ask my colleagues to help join us in supporting the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act that Democrats have tried to pass here in this Congress for a long, long time.

I would ask them to help us in the redistricting that skewed and denied Democrats in Texas two districts that were legitimately, based upon the Census, in fact, created by Hispanics and African Americans.

In redistricting across the Nation, North Carolina, Georgia, Texas were States in which voting rights were directly undermined. Some of the restrictive legislation that was passed in Georgia and Texas is evidence of the oppression of many in the party of my friends across the aisle's States to deny people of color their right to vote.

Mr. Speaker, it looks as if we have an opportunity here. For champions of voting rights that seem to be evidenced across the aisle, join me in the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. At this time in this month, we ask that you allow the citizens of Washington, D.C., one, at some point to have statehood, but, more importantly, in this instance to stay out of home rule decisions or to stay out of decisions granted to them. Those decisions are granted to them.

For that reason, I am enthusiastically in opposition to H.J. Res. 24 because this legislation goes beyond the boundaries of the responsibilities, duties, and rights of this body. Leave the Government of Washington, D.C., to the people of Washington, D.C.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 24-- Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022.

H.J. Res. 24 will overturn the Local Resident Voting Act of 2022, a measure passed by will of the people in the District of Columbia Council.

This overreaching resolution seeks to overturn the will of Washington, D.C. people, who voted to support the rights of noncitizens who fulfill residency and other requirements to vote in district local elections under the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022.

Let the record be clear, Mr. Speaker, the United States Constitution does not forbid noncitizens from casting their vote in local, state, or federal elections.

At least 15 cities currently allow non-citizens to cast ballots in local elections.

While voting in federal elections was made illegal for noncitizens in 1996, the legal voting of noncitizens in American elections has a long history in this nation.

Noncitizens were occasionally permitted to cast ballots in local, state, and federal elections in 40 states from the time of the nation's inception until 1926.

During the early years, the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801 granted Congress

sole power over the district's boundaries, depriving its citizens of the voting privileges they had previously enjoyed as residents of Maryland and Virginia.

Due to its treatment as a U.S. territory rather than a state, the District of Columbia has no voting representation in Congress and is certainly not given its fair amount of federal funding--despite the fact that Washington, D.C. residents pay more federal taxes per person than citizens of any other state, and more than residents of 22 states combined.

It is no secret that when politicians seek to suppress voting rights, the feared component of increased racial political power rears its ugly head in driving and motivating shifts in laws that will eliminate or stunt the political growth of minority populations in America.

As we stand here today, marking the first week of Black History Month, we must acknowledge that we are standing in a building built by the hands of slaves, and we are standing in a city that is not only one of the most diverse cities in the country, but is also home to one of the largest Black populations--yes, Washington DC--our nation's capital.

The underrepresentation of Blacks and minorities in our nation's capital and in our national democratic systems is a shameful stain on our morals and values as Americans.

We must put an end to current and historical voter suppression and we must stop pushing oppressive and systemically racist policies if we are ever to truly be a nation united by our democratic pillars and principles.

The nearly 700,000 D.C. residents, a majority of whom are Black and Brown, are worthy and capable of self-government.

And Congress, which is not accountable to D.C. residents, should not interfere with legislation duly enacted by the duly elected D.C. government.

Members of Congress should not substitute their policy judgment for the judgment of D.C.'s elected officials.

Quite simply, Congress should keep its hands off D.C.

The legislative history and merits of the two bills enacted by D.C. that are the subject of the disapproval resolutions--the Revised Criminal Code Act and the Local Resident Voting Amendment Act--should be irrelevant to the consideration of these disapproval resolutions, since there is never justification for Congress nullifying legislation enacted by D.C.

That being said, we need to set the record straight on these two bills enacted by D.C.

Under the D.C. Home Rule Act, which was passed by Congress, D.C.'s legislature, the 13-member D.C. Council, is required to pass legislation twice, with at least 13 intervening days between each vote, to enact legislation.

Legislation passed by the Council and signed by the D.C. mayor--or with a veto override or without the mayor's signatures--is transmitted to Congress for a review period.

The legislation takes effect at the expiration of a review period, unless a resolution of disapproval is enacted into law during the review period.

And yet, the House did not hold a hearing or markup on either disapproval resolution.

This resolution cannot stand as a serious policy measure to be respected on the floors of this chamber, and must be opposed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 26 a resolution disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022.

This resolution is not only a brazen and misguided measure seeking to uphold decades of racially systemic policies of criminal injustice, it is an insulting attempt to trample on the rights and the will of the people in the District of Columbia.

By subjecting thousands of Black residents of Washington D.C. to criminalization and incarceration, the Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 was the first comprehensive revision of the D.C. code since the year 1901, something that should've been revised long before.

However, in contrast to the majority of other states, D.C. did not update its criminal statues throughout the 1960s and 1970s.

As a result of the antiquated legislation, which had been in place for decades, the human rights and freedoms of Washingtonians has been compromised, resulting in D.C. having one of the highest imprisonment rates in the nation, whereby Black males account for more than 95 percent of those who are behind bars.

The 2022 revision was a necessary push forward, and for the Republicans within this congress to attempt to undo these revisions, shows the true opinion and intentions of the party.

The revisions helped to correct many of the faults that the District of Columbia continuously ran into with the district itself making the necessary corrections with the support of the public.

The D.C. Criminal Code Reform Commission was formed by the D.C. Council to revise the statutes to guarantee that the revisions of offenses and punishments are precise, consistent, reasonable, and constitutional.

The District of Columbia Public Defender Service, the District of Columbia Attorney General, legal professionals, and the general public were among the sources of input that the Commission consulted.

Members of Congress should not use their own policy judgment to replace that of the elected officials within D.C.

Prior to these revisions simple assault carried a sentence of less than six months in prison, while the threat of simple assault carried a 20-year sentence.

Possession of self-defense spray and possession of a fully automatic machine gun carried the same maximum penalty of one year.

Some offenses can be traced back to the District's Black Codes and Slave Codes and others that were introduced by segregationists from states outside D.C.

The almost 700,000 individuals who live in Washington, D.C., are capable of self-government and through the Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022, proved themselves as such.

Congress is not judge, jury, and executioner and should not overstep its place within Washington, D.C.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 185, to terminate the requirement imposed by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for proof of COVID-19 vaccination for foreign travelers.

H.R. 185 is hasty attempt to reverse the order issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention without any proper planning or preparation.

The Amended Order Implementinq Presidential Proclamation on Advancing the Safe Resumption of Global Travel During the COVID-19 Pandemic was first published on April 7, 2022, and was implemented to save lives.

The CDS order imposes necessary restrictions on the entry of noncitizens into the United States by air travel unless they are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or otherwise attest that they will take public health measures to prevent the spread of the disease.

Similar restrictions have been implemented and enforced worldwide, and countries like Thailand have had to reimplement such restrictions after lifting them.

Now is not the time to roll back protections, only to be in a place where we will need to reimpose more onerous and unwanted lockdowns and shutdowns across the country.

Yet, H.R. 185 would nullify any successor or subsequent orders that require foreign persons traveling by air to show proof of a COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of entry, as well as prohibit the use of federal funds to administer or enforce such a requirement.

Mr. Speaker, the wellbeing of the American People should hold the utmost importance and any act against their health and wellbeing should be strongly condemned.

Since March 2020, life in Houston--like most of the world--has been upended.

Houston, Texas is the 4th largest city in the country and is one of the most racially and ethnically diverse cities in the United States.

In addition to Houston being a culturally diverse city and home to international students, residents, and families from all over the world, Houston also serves as an international hub for millions of people all over the world who travel to my city every year for both leisure and business.

According to the Houston First Corporation, a record 22.3 million people from around the world visited Houston in 2018.

Notably, the 2023 Houston Rodeo season, scheduled for Feb. 28-March 19, is the largest rodeo in the world and contributes significantly to our city's economy. In 2022, this event attracted over 2.4 million international travelers from around the world.

Despite the senseless and disingenuous politicization of the COVID-19 vaccine, it has and continues to save countless lives--particularly in my home state and internationally rich travel hub of Houston, Texas.

In Houston, specifically Harris County, there have been 1,058,476 confirmed COVID-19 cases, 7,839 active cases, 1,041,939 recovered, and 8,589 deaths. Furthermore, Texas as a state has recorded 8.24 million cases and 93,366 deaths.

In the United States, there have been 102 million confirmed cases and 1.11 million deaths.

And across the globe, there have been 671 million confirmed cases and 6.83 million deaths.

These statistics serve as a harrowing reminder of the gravity of this epidemic and the caution we should be taking in ensuring preventative responses and remaining vigilant against the spread of COVID-19.

Rolling back critical vaccination policies put in place to protect Americans through hasty measures such as H.R. 185, undermines the national mission and unified efforts nationwide to prevent future cases infiltrating our communities.

While progress has certainly been made in protecting Americans from this deadly virus, we cannot stand for the erosion of such progress through ill-conceived and politicized measures.

As we continue to make strides to prevent and eradicate current and future variants plaguing our cities, states, nation, and world, let it be known that H.R. 185 would only serve to disregard the health and well-being of all Americans, foolishly jeopardizing our lives and the ongoing fight to keep everyone healthy and safe.

Instead of halting vital funding and vaccine policies for international travelers, without a plan or forethought of the disastrous impact that will inevitably result, it is imperative that we stand together in planning and preparing for smart policy shifts that will allow our country to effectively and safely ease back into some sense of normalcy.

Anything less is an abdication of our governmental duties and an insult and danger to the welfare of all those we are sworn to serve.

With strong opposition to this bill, I urge my Republican colleagues to step back and actually work with us to lay forward common sense implementations of care and safety for our fellow Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 24--Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022.

H.J. Res. 24 will overturn the Local Resident Voting Act of 2022, a measure passed by will of the people in the District of Columbia Council.

This overreaching resolution seeks to overturn the will of Washington DC people, who voted to support the rights of noncitizens who fulfill residency and other requirements to vote in district local elections under the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022.

Let the record be clear, Mr. Speaker, the United States Constitution does not forbid noncitizens from casting their vote In local, state, or federal elections.

At least 15 cities currently allow non-citizens to cast ballots in local elections.

While voting in federal elections was made illegal for noncitizens in 1996, the legal voting of noncitizens in American elections has a long history in this nation.

Noncitizens were occasionally permitted to cast ballots in local, state, and federal elections in 40 states from the time of the nation's inception until 1926.

During the early years, the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801 granted Congress sole power over the district's boundaries, depriving its citizens of the voting privileges they had previously enjoyed as residents of Maryland and Virginia.

Due to its treatment as a U.S. territory rather than a state, the District of Columbia has no voting representation in Congress and is certainly not given its fair amount of federal funding--despite the fact that Washington DC residents pay more federal taxes per person than citizens of any other state, and more than residents of 22 states combined.

It is no secret that when politicians seek to suppress voting rights, the feared component of increased racial political power rears its ugly head in driving and motivating shifts in laws that will eliminate or stunt the political growth of minority populations in America.

As we stand here today, marking the first week of Black History Month, we must acknowledge that we are standing in a building built by the hands of slaves, and we are standing in a city that is not only one of the most diverse cities in the country, but is also home to one of the largest Black populations--yes, Washington, DC--our nation's capital.

The underrepresentation of Blacks and minorities in our nation's capital and in our national democratic systems is a shameful stain on our morals and values as Americans.

We must put an end to current and historical voter suppression and we must stop pushing oppressive and systemically racist policies if we are ever to truly be a nation united by our democratic pillars and principles.

The nearly 700,000 D.C. residents, a majority of whom are Black and Brown, are worthy and capable of self-government.

And Congress, which is not accountable to D.C. residents, should not interfere with legislation duly enacted by the duly elected D.C. government.

Members of Congress should not substitute their policy judgment for the judgment of D.C.'s elected officials.

Quite simply, Congress should keep its hands off D.C.

The legislative history and merits of the two bills enacted by D.C. that are the subject of the disapproval resolutions--the Revised Criminal Code Act and the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act-- should be irrelevant to the consideration of these disapproval resolutions, since there is never justification for Congress nullifying legislation enacted by D.C.

That being said, we need to set the record straight on these two bills enacted by D.C.

Under the D.C. Home Rule Act, which was passed by Congress, D.C.'s legislature, the 13-member D.C. Council, is required to pass legislation twice, with at least 13 intervening days between each vote, to enact legislation.

Legislation passed by the Council and signed by the D.C. mayor (or with a veto override or without the mayor's signature) is transmitted to Congress for a review period.

The legislation takes effect at the expiration of a review period, unless a resolution of disapproval is enacted into law during the review period.

And yet, the House did not hold a hearing or markup on either disapproval resolution.

This resolution cannot stand as a serious policy measure to be respected on the floors of this chamber, and must be opposed.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say we will all have an opportunity to debate this legislation in general debate. I do think it is important to frame the challenges that all of these particular initiatives have.

Frankly, let me, first of all, say that I am disappointed that the Rules Committee did not let a very straightforward amendment which I think expresses the view of many of us to strike the entire text of

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support to H.R. 548 the Eastern Band of Cherokee Historic Lands Reacquisition Act.

H.R. 548 aims to take certain Federal lands in Tennessee into trust for the benefit of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.

These lands are intended to be utilized for memorialization, the interpretation of Cherokee history and culture, as well as a space for meeting for events and performing traditions.

For historically significant locations like the Chota and Tanasi, locations that once served as the Cherokee Nation's Capital, memorials are to be built.

From as early as 1721 to 1730, Tanasi functioned as the Overhill Cherokee's de facto capital.

The Cherokee historically were forced to abandon Tanasi, a historic Overhill settlement in modern-day Monroe County, Tennessee, in the 19th century in due to a rising town whose chief held more power.

Chota similarly an Overhill Cherokee towns site in Monroe Country, Tennessee that developed after the loss of Tanasi.

The history of the Cherokee is one that is long and rich with history, yet many persecutions from early the USA infringes on their culture.

They are estimated to have numbered around 22,500 people in 1650 and oversaw an area of the Appalachian Mountains that now is part of Georgia, part of eastern Tennessee, and part of what is now North and South Carolina.

The desire for fertile farmland during the Southeast's rapid expansion of cotton cultivation, the finding of gold on Cherokee territory, and the racial prejudice that many white southerners had against American Indians were all factors in the removal of the Cherokees.

The tribe gave up about 4 million acres of territory between 1783 and 1819 in the hopes that this would put a halt to ongoing displacement efforts.

As authorized by the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which resulted in the creation of the Trail of Tears, the Federal Government negotiated treaties aimed at clearing Indian-occupied land for white settlers.

An estimated 4,000 of the roughly 16,000 Cherokee who were forcibly removed between 1836 and 1839 passed away during this process.

The Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians was the name given to the Cherokee by the U.S. Government in 1868 after many decades of struggle.

The relationship between the USA and the American Indian tribes is far from perfect.

As such, offering the Cherokee this land to help rebuild the culture that the United States actively displaced is a worthy cause.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 423, the Pala Band of Mission Indians Land Transfer Act of 2023, which will take certain land located in San Diego County, California into trust for the benefit of the Pala Band of Mission Indians.

H.R. 423 directs the Department of the Interior to take 721.12 acres of tribal land in San Diego County, California, into the trust in order to preserve and protect the part of the Pala Band's reservation land.

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and any other federal statute are both prohibited by H.R. 423 from being used to allow gambling on the land.

The Pala Band, whose reservation it adjoins, currently owns the land in fee simple.

The land is significant because it contains Chokla, a peak that is extremely holy to the Pala Band and many other tribes in Southern California.

Since at least 1903, the Pala Band, which consists of both Cupeo and Luiseo ancestors, has used Chokla as a location for prayer and fasting.

In addition, the land has the remains of an ancestral village, drawings on rocks, relics, and a variety of culturally significant flora and animals.

In an attempt to prevent the construction of a landfill at the base of Chokla in Gregory Canyon, the Pala Band bought the property in 2016.

The Pala Band aims to protect this holy area in its original state after it is placed in trust, according to the U.S. Department of the Interior.

A tribe's belief systems frequently have a physiological basis in sacred sites.

These stories serve as a link between successive generations and their predecessors, weaving them into the fabric of tribal identity and culture.

The preservation and transmission of the unique identities, traditions, and histories of Native peoples from one generation to the next depends on the protection of Native sacred places and the defense of the right to perform rites and ceremonies at these sites in secrecy and without interference.

It goes beyond just being a matter of culture or religion for sacred locations to be used and protected.

It is a recognized and safeguarded human right under international law.

According to Article 25 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People states that, ``Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources and to uphold their obligations to future generations in this regard.''

It is important that we uphold the laws passed in the past to preserve Indigenous peoples' traditions and cultures.

I strongly urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 423, which enables the Pala Band tribes to secure their sacred place in order to preserve their traditions and culture for future generations.

The bill will also restrict any gaming on Pala Band's land by putting in the trust so tribes can peacefully perform and enjoy their rituals at the scared land.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 302, ``To Direct the Secretary of Energy to Establish a Program to Provide Financial Assistance to Graduate Students and Postdoctoral Researchers Pursuing Certain Courses of Study Relating to Cybersecurity and Energy Infrastructure, and for Other Purposes.''

H.R. 302 is an important contribution to and necessary investment in future generations of scientists and researchers, critical for our new age of digitization and increased security threats nationally and internationally.

This effort will support the fundamental development of a robust and resilient cybersecurity workforce to help address the unique challenges of recruiting and retaining cybersecurity professionals for careers serving in local, state, federal or tribal governments.

As such, this bill is vital for the state of our future economies, safety, and sovereignty as a nation.

Specifically, H.R. 302 will put forth the necessary funding through the Secretary of Energy to strategically investment in our students pursuing advanced studies in the fields of cybersecurity and energy infrastructure.

For years, government officials and industry executives have run elaborate simulations of a targeted cyberattack on the power grid or gas pipelines in the United States, imagining how the country would respond.

However, on May 6, 2021, we were attacked through a ransomware attack by a criminal extortion ring that caused long lines of nervous motorists at gas stations--stemming not from a government response but from a unilateral decision by Colonial Pipeline, which controls nearly half the gasoline, jet fuel and diesel flowing along the East Coast, to turn off the spigot.

The lessons are clear and demonstrate how far the government and private industry must go in preventing and dealing with cyberattacks and in creating rapid backup systems for when critical infrastructure goes down.

Furthermore, Russian hackers have been probing Texas' energy infrastructure for weak points in digital systems that would allow them to steal sensitive information or disrupt operations, according to interviews with energy companies, state officials and cybersecurity experts.

We must invest in our educational institutions and our student's ability to hone the necessary skills to not only work in the digital age but to become the cybersecurity leaders of the future.

Texas is already deemed to be the hub of science and technology innovation and the center of cybersecurity development.

This bill will further support and uplift the potential of Texas and other states to not only prepare students for cybersecurity careers but also to raise awareness and protect against cyberthreats across our nation.

Additionally, in supporting our economy this investment recognizes the incredible value and revenue streams afforded through the cybersecurity market.

This market is projected to reach $64.86 billion this year alone, according to data provider Statista. And by 2027, that number is expected to climb to $116.3 billion.

In line with that projected revenue growth, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics forecasts the number of information security analysts in the U.S. will rise 35 percent between 2021 and 2031. And the bureau lists the median pay for an information security analyst as $102,600 per year.

We must continue to invest in the future of our cybersecurity education and careers to support and uphold our future economies, safety, and sovereignty as a nation.

Simply stated, this bill is smart policy moving us in that right direction, and its passage will certainly help to keep our Nation strong and competitive.

I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of H.R. 302.

Mr. Speaker, the Chinese spy balloon may not have been the first, and it may not be the last.

It is interesting how the Chinese can characterize an outright spy balloon of some sort, suggest it is only trying to find out the weather, whether we have sunny days or not.

I rise to support H.R. 302 that provided for establishment of a program to provide financial assistance to graduate students and postdoctoral researchers pursuing certain courses of

study related to cybersecurity and energy infrastructure, and other purposes.

I am on the Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Innovation Subcommittee, and I cannot tell you how important it is to develop a modern, 21st century workforce and to develop the investment to give us the future generations of scientists and researchers critical for our new age of digitalization and increased security threats nationally and internationally.

This is not going to be the end. It is simply the beginning. It is important for us, as Americans, to have that workforce that is entrenched in cybersecurity protecting Americans' national security.

It is important to recruit these young people, and I look forward to participating with all universities in Houston on recruiting a new cybersecurity workforce.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Maryland, Congressman Ivey, and the distinguished gentlewoman from the great State of California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove), for leading such an important Special Order. Let me also thank Chairman Horsford for immediately capturing the pain and sentiment of the American people.

When I say that, I am speaking of all the American people, Mr. Speaker, because I believe more than any part of our constitutional rights, the right to be free and safe in this Nation is one that Americans crave. For no matter whether they are in the beauty of Utah, in the richness of Mississippi, in the smart and urban life of New York, or in the beauty of the West Coast, Republican or Democrat, Independent and any other affiliation, we are concerned about safety.

The reason is because safety involves the coming and going of our family members and our children. For any of us who have ever been parents, we have always had a little trepidation when that little one leaves home for the first time to go to pre-K or kindergarten that they would be safe.

We are appalled at the unsafe conditions that we face in our schools today: Uvalde, Sandy Hook, Santa Fe, and beyond. We know that violence permeated those safe spaces.

At the same time I think, as I thank the Congressional Black Caucus for its recognition, that as it speaks here on the floor today it is embracing an American issue: public safety.

I will be looking for Republicans who are going to admit that even as we want those who protect and serve to go home to their families, we cannot deny American mothers and fathers the right to expect their young people to come home.

We can walk, if I might say, and chew gum at the same time. We can uplift the urgency of the importance of law enforcement at all levels: first responders, EMTs, and firefighters, as I do, as a member of the Fire Services Caucus, former chair of the Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee and now ranking member. We have worked in the House Judiciary Committee and worked with the Congressional Black Caucus on major legislation that deals with answering all of these concerns.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss to think that there are not Republicans who will not join us in this whole idea of crafting a 21st century approach to police-community relations.

There is no one that could in any way accept the murder of a man on the streets in video, as was my constituent's brother. Philonise Floyd is here, and he will join me at the State of the Union. His brother, George Floyd, big George, who grew up in Cuney Homes, was everybody's friend. Their mother and their family was everybody's family. They opened their doors to children who may not have a good hot meal, and they gave it to them.

However, like every American who leaves their hometown and looks for a greener space, as what he looked for in Minneapolis, Minnesota, he found a deadly end. No one could accept that. The reason, Mr. Speaker, that I know that is because the people who took to the streets nonviolently and walked shoulder to shoulder with us were from all walks of life.

Out of that was crafted a combination of Republican-supported ideas, things that were embraced in the Trump executive order, now embraced in the Biden executive order dealing with a reconstruct of police- community relationships, which would include the idea of making sure that random stops that caught Tyre Nichols in the throngs of violence, that lasted for an hour on videotape; or the tragedy of Breonna Taylor; or the tragedy of Eric Garner; or the tragedy in the early stages under color of law, Trayvon Martin, by someone who was supposed to be a civil patrol, and a young boy lost his life; or the young boy in Cleveland, Ohio, who lost his life at age 12 or 13 years old; or the cafeteria worker who lost his life; or Pam Turner, who lost her life; or Sandra Bland, who lost her life.

We can construct under the Constitution a reasonable response to traffic stops included in the early premise of legislation. We can deal with the right way to, in essence, address a human being, and chokeholds when you are not in danger basically are without place. No knocks that come to, in essence, a wrong person's home or someone entering the wrong home. All of that is reasonable to deal with in a new construct of which we hope the President of the United States will join us in a bipartisan, bicameral effort.

That would include training and accountability as well. It would include dealing with mental health concerns or violence intervention as well as the necessity of wearing body cams, which were the element of truth and have been.

I was very proud in the small cities that I represent, Mr. Speaker, to be able to provide grant money for our cities to get body cams, small cities that don't have it. Just think if we passed legislation that allows all departments to seek body cams for truth for all that are involved.

I rise today to capture the essence of the importance of this Congressional Black Caucus Special Order because it is laying the footprints for the day tomorrow, as the President speaks to the Nation on many issues.

There is no doubt, as someone who went to the funeral of Tyre Nichols as a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, to be able to say that we can do this together.

Public safety is an American issue. It is an American families' issue. It is the issue of those who are entrusted to protect and serve. It is the issue of local government, State government. It is the issue of moms and dads. It is the issue of teenagers and young families and senior citizens. It does not leave one person untouched.

I believe that the work that was done in the last years with legislation that carried the name of George Floyd has the ability to embrace a wide perspective of diversity and new changes and inspiration and, of course, working as one would with all persons concerned and even respecting the other body.

The Congressional Black Caucus has taken up the light, and I am grateful for that leadership. I look forward that we continue to work because we are not a nation of laws and values if we do not adhere as a nation to the belief that every person deserves the dignity of their humanity and does not deserve, under the Constitution, to be denied their equal protection of the law, their due process in the workings between law and community.

I thank my very important coleaders of this Special Order. I wish them well. I know that they will be a dynamic team. I had the privilege of doing this in the last session. I can tell you, you will have a moment of joy every time you rise on this floor and are joined by the esteemed members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Each and every one of them have their own special story. We do make a difference. We can change lives, and we can change laws.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H. Con. Res. 9--Denouncing the Horrors of Socialism''.

Mr. Speaker, as we begin the month of February that has been designated to not only educate but to embrace and confirm the wonderment of America's diversity, as we would in every single important aspect of American life, and it is from our Native Americans to our immigrants of the 1800s and 1900s and even today.

African Americans have their own special history, and so it is very important to rise today to speak specifically about H.R. 40, the Commission to Study Slavery and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans Act. That legislation should be passed. It should be an executive order. It connotes the trajectory of the history of those who fought in every war, who shed their blood for this Nation, but walked in a second-class citizenship, but yet come today to educate and to have people embrace the richness of their history so that we can reconcile and heal.

That is what the Commission to Study Slavery and Develop Reparation Proposals is. It is about repairing. Added to that is the Emancipation National Historic Trail, which would create a historic pathway from Galveston to Houston to talk about the pathway of slaves.

Mr. Speaker, we are one country with many voices. Let us all be heard.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 497, the Freedom for Health Care Workers Act that would endanger health care workers, their families and their patients.

H.R. 497 would put more strain on our already fragile health care system by eliminating the COVID-19 vaccine mandate for health care providers.

As a Member of Congress, who represents a congressional district that has experienced the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic, I must oppose this bill.

The Biden administration plans to end the public health emergency in May, but we must remember that we are currently in a winter surge.

The current COVID positivity rate in Houston is 20 percent.

We are still in a pandemic, and we must do what we can to slow the spread so that less people are ending up in hospitals.

Before widespread availability and access to COVID vaccines, health care workers were 3 times more likely to get COVID than the rest of the public.

By keeping the vaccine mandates for health care workers, we can continue to slow the spread and keep health care workers and their families safe.

In a 2020 survey by MentalHealthAmerica, 76 percent of respondents were worried about bringing COVID home to their children, and half of respondents worried about bringing COVID home to their partners or an older family member.

In a survey of U.S. physicians, it was found that the portion of the day spent treating COVID-19 patients was associated with higher PTSD scores, depression and anxiety.

Additionally, many health care workers at the beginning of the pandemic saw coworkers get sick and die from COVID, and this contributed to their increased stress and anxiety.

According to the University of Chicago, it was found that an increase in staff vaccination rates resulted in fewer COVID-19 cases among the staff and the patients.

Additionally, the same study found that the more transmittable variants of COVID may require additional boosters for staff to help manage COVID-19 cases in nursing homes.

By taking away the vaccine mandate, we are making health care workers and their patients even more susceptible to the virus.

By taking away the vaccine mandate, we are neglecting vulnerable Americans who deserve their right to life and safety when getting health care.

It is important to remember, that vaccines are not new and that they are necessary to limiting viruses and keeping the country safe.

It is federal law that any health care settings that receive money for Medicare or Medicaid patients must ensure that their health care workers are vaccinated against COVID-19.

Even though the vaccine requirement caused many health care workers to leave, the health care work force is larger than it was prior to the pandemic.

As of December 2022, the health sector added 54,700 jobs over the previous month and the employment in healthcare was 1.2 percent higher than the peak in February 2020.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill to show our support for our health care workers.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 382--Pandemic is Over Act, H.R. 497--Freedom for Health Care Workers Act, H.R. 139--SHOW UP Act of 2023, and H.J. Res. 7--Relating to a national emergency declared by the Presidenton March 13, 2020.

House Republicans have professed a commitment to transparency and fairness that allows all voices to be heard in the legislative process.

Yet, by House Republicans choosing a closed rule, have denied this body the right to weigh in on the rules or these bills.

Republicans are attempting to push through statements of principle that represent the entirety of the House without any reasonable consideration.

These bills have not been adequately considered in committee hearing by the committee of jurisdiction.

Amendments to these bills have not been raised or debated.

Now, with this closed Rule, members are unable to offer any amendments to each of these bills.

The business of the House is of the utmost importance to the American people.

Democrats remain committed to putting people over politics.

During 2020 within my District, the COVID-19 pandemic was surging and I worked desperately to bring COVID-19 testing and then vaccines to communities in need throughout my district.

At the time many Republican leaders refused to even acknowledge the reality of the pandemic.

Now the Republicans are furthering their narrative and lack of action on COVID-19 by attempting to normalize and even deny the horrors of the pandemic.

We should never forget the lives lost and all that we have learned for the pandemic.

In Harris County, over 11 thousand people have died of COVID-19 since 2020. Every one of those lives was important and we must work together to save every life possible.

Vaccines have saved lives and continue to save lives.

The issue of the pandemics' ongoing nature is a complex one that will need to consider potential seasonal surges and the need for annual vaccines.

The Republicans today barely secured a majority in the House and only chose a Speaker from their party after 14 votes. They cannot claim to have any mandate from the public.

We must continue to keep COVID-19 front of mind and create a plan of shifting to living with COVID-19 rather than these brash political statements.

I, for one, care about the safety of healthcare works, the safety of my constituents, and the safety of workers.

The fact is that we must continue to identify the best way out of the COVID-19 pandemic with careful consideration of the science, and strategic plans that consider the uniqueness of each of the communities that we represent.

The rule before us makes bold unsubstantiated claims that threaten the safety of our healthcare workers, teleworkers, and the constituents in each of our districts.

There is a better way forward.

We must have more discussion and debate.

I cannot in good conscious support this rule.