Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6878, the Pregnant Women in Custody Act, because women's lives matter, pregnant women's lives matter, their babies' lives matter, as do the lives of incarcerated women and their babies.

I have worked on this issue for a very long time and am delighted to be able to support this legislation introduced by my friend and colleague, Congresswoman Bass.

This works to ensure that we recognize the increasing population of women incarcerated. Unfortunately, women are the fastest-growing segment of the incarcerated population in the United States. Conversations about criminal justice reform often overlook their unique experiences and the needs of women and girls within the criminal justice system.

For instance, Mr. Speaker, the United States has the second highest rate of women incarcerated in the world, with 64 women per 100,000 in custody and nearly 60,000 pregnant women admitted into American jails and prisons every year. That is a lot.

Some States have yet to prohibit the shackling of women when they are giving birth. We have to do something.

This bipartisan legislation would establish Federal policies to prohibit the use of restrictive housing on incarcerated pregnant women and develop a national standard of care to add to the pregnancy-related needs of incarcerated women, including access to prenatal and post- delivery care and support.

My legislation, the SIMARRA Act, also complements this by creating a pilot program in the Federal system for mothers to stay with their infants for a period of time. This humane response and the humane response of this bill are what we need to do.

Oftentimes, pregnant women lack access to appropriate nutrition while incarcerated, and the use of restrictive housing can have detrimental effects on a woman's health, as well as the health of her baby. While women of color are disproportionately impacted by incarceration, they also face higher risks of both miscarriage and maternal mortality.

This bill would make certain that incarcerated pregnant women receive vital prenatal healthcare and postpartum support and ensures the Bureau of Prisons and the Marshals Service protect the health and safety of incarcerated women through their pregnancy, when they deliver their child, and as they receive postpartum care. They should not be shackled, and they should not be intimidated or frightened.

The one thing I want to say, Mr. Speaker, even though many of us have different views--and I am an avid supporter of the right to choose-- this is not an abortion bill. This is a healthcare bill.

We also know that the prisons make their determinations on how they help women in their contraceptives. H.R. 6878 would allow BOP to collect data on healthcare needs of pregnant women so that we may have a better understanding.

Let me clearly say that separating a newborn from its mother gives it less chance for both survival and success in life.

We know in Harris County, Texas, there are approximately 1,000 women incarcerated in the Harris County Jail. This bill would require a GAO study, setting national standards, and endeavor to do a landscape to understand reproductive freedom in this country.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I was glad to see my bill, the Stop Infant Mortality And Recidivism Reduction Act of 2021, or the SIMARRA Act, included in the Violence Against Women Act, which passed earlier this year. That bill established a pilot program to allow women incarcerated in Federal prisons and their babies to reside with each other while the mother is incarcerated for a period of time.

Mr. Speaker, let us continue to be innovators in the treatment of those who are incarcerated, and let us make sure that we give every newborn a healthy life. I ask my colleagues to support the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6878, the ``Pregnant Women in Custody Act,'' because women's lives matter, pregnant women's lives matter, their babies' lives matter--as do the lives of incarcerated women and their babies.

Although women are the fastest growing segment of the incarcerated population in the United States, conversations about criminal justice reform often overlook the unique experiences and needs of women and girls within the criminal justice system.

The United States has the second highest rate of women incarcerated in the world, with 64 women per 100,000 in custody, and nearly 60,000 pregnant women admitted into American jails and prisons every year, while some states have yet to prohibit the shackling of women when they are giving birth.

This bipartisan legislation would establish federal policies to prohibit the use of restrictive housing on incarcerated pregnant women and develop a national standard of care to address the pregnancy- related needs of incarcerated women, including access to prenatal and post-delivery care and support.

Oftentimes pregnant women lack access to appropriate nutrition while incarcerated and the use of restrictive housing can have detrimental effects on a woman's health as well as the health of her baby. And while women of color are disproportionately impacted by incarceration, they also face higher risks of both miscarriage and maternal mortality.

This bill would make certain that incarcerated pregnant women receive vital prenatal healthcare and post-partum support and ensure the Bureau of Prisons and the Marshal's service protect the health and safety of incarcerated women throughout their pregnancy, when they deliver their child, and as they recover post-partum.

H.R. 6878 would also require BOP to collect data on the healthcare needs of pregnant

women, so that we may better understand the challenges incarcerated women face and determine how to address the needs of this vulnerable population.

In Harris County, Texas, on average, there are approximately 1,000 women incarcerated in the county jail and on average 25 to 30 of them are pregnant. The jail offers specific programs for mothers to reduce recidivism and help them support their families upon release.

This bill would require GAO to study state and local corrections facilities to understand the services and protections provided for pregnant women, like the program offered in Harris County.

Setting national standards for the treatment of incarcerated pregnant women in federal custody would set an example for state and local facilities to follow and the data collected by BOP would farther inform Congress of the additional health and safety needs of this vulnerable population.

As we endeavor to navigate a new landscape for reproductive freedom across the country, we must recognize that incarcerated women will continue to face challenges in carrying healthy pregnancies to term.

That is why I was glad to see my bill, the ``Stop Infant Mortality and Recidivism Reduction Act of 2021'' (or the ``SIMARRA Act''), included in the Violence Against Women Act which passed earlier this year. That bill established a pilot program to allow women incarcerated in Federal prisons and their babies born during their incarceration to reside together with while the mother is incarcerated.

Let us continue to be innovators in the treatment of those who are incarcerated. And let us make sure women receive proper health care and humane treatment whether they are incarcerated or not--because all women deserve proper health care and to be treated with dignity--no matter their circumstance.

I thank Representative Karen Bass for her steadfast commitment to addressing this important issue. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this long overdue legislation.

I include in the Record a Prison Policy Initiative document titled: ``Unsupportive environments and limited policies: Pregnancy, postpartum, and birth during incarceration.''

[From Prison Policy Initiative, Aug. 19, 2021]

Unsupportive Environments and Limited Policies: Pregnancy, Postpartum,

and Birth During Incarceration

(By Leah Wang)

Making up for a serious gap in government data collection

and understanding, researchers are discovering what pregnant

incarcerated women should expect when they're expecting (or

when they give birth while in custody). Findings indicate

that jails, prisons, and youth facilities have yet to

adequately recognize pregnancy and postpartum needs either in

policy or in practice.

Recently published findings from the groundbreaking

Pregnancy in Prison Statistics (PIPS) Project and other

datasets shed light on a common but rarely discussed

experience: being pregnant, postpartum or giving birth while

incarcerated. Spearheaded by Dr. Carolyn Sufrin of the Johns

Hopkins University School of Medicine and School of Public

Health, this series of studies is our best look yet at

pregnancy prevalence and outcomes in U.S. jails, prisons, and

youth facilities.

In total, 22 state prison systems, all federal prisons, 6

jails, and 3 youth confinement systems participated in the

PIPS Project, a systematic study of pregnancy and its

outcomes among incarcerated women. Historically, the

government has not collected data about carceral pregnancy on

a regular basis, meaning no national effort has been made to

understand maternity care for thousands of incarcerated

pregnant women. The project's sample represents 57 percent of

all women in prison, 5 percent of all women in jail and about

3 percent of young women in youth facilities.

Our takeaway: Carceral pregnancy, whether in jail, prison,

or youth confinement, is characterized by a lack of

supportive policies and practices. Some of the major findings

to come out of these publications are:

There are an estimated 58,000 admissions of pregnant women

into jails and prisons every year, and thousands give birth

or have other outcomes while still incarcerated. Pregnancy

rates among confined youth were similar to those among

adults.

In some state prison systems, miscarriage, premature birth,

and cesarean section rates were higher than national rates

among the general population.

Only one-third of prisons and jails had any written policy

about breastfeeding or lactation, and even where policies

supporting lactation did exist, relatively few women were

actually breastfeeding or pumping.

There are an estimated 8,000 admissions of pregnant women

with opioid use disorder (OUD) into prisons and jails each

year, but long-term treatment using medication is the

exception, not the rule.

A related (non-PIPS Project) study finds paternal

incarceration is also linked to adverse birth outcomes like

low birth weight, which are widely known to impact long-term

health.

The researchers' findings add complexity to a growing body

of literature and consensus linking incarceration to negative

health impacts. And although PIPS Project data can't be

broken down by race, ethnicity, or gender identity, measuring

the scale and outcomes of pregnancies in prison and jail is a

major public health research accomplishment. The fact that

academic researchers had to conduct this research to fill the

data gap--and the shortage of appropriate policies they

found--makes it clear that many correctional agencies have

yet to even acknowledge the needs of pregnant incarcerated

women.

every year, thousands of incarcerated expecting mothers and babies face

adverse outcomes from exposure to incarceration

Over the 12 months of the Pregnancy in Prison Statistics

(PIPS) study period, there were nearly 1,400 admissions of

pregnant women to participating state and federal prisons

with over 800 pregnancies ending in custody (births,

miscarriages, and others), and over 1,600 admissions of

pregnant women to jails with 224 pregnancies ending in

custody. Unsurprisingly, given the short length of most jail

stays, more pregnant women are admitted to jails each year,

but more births take place in prisons, where the average stay

is longer. Based on their data, the authors estimate that,

nationally, 4 percent of women entering prison (in line with

Bureau of Justice Statistics 2016 estimates) and 3 percent of

women admitted to jail (lower than BJS' most recent 2002

estimates) are pregnant.

Pregnancy outcomes in prisons and jails in some places were

worse than national trends across the general population.

When pregnancy did end in custody, in some states like

Arizona, Kansas and Minnesota, rates of miscarriage ranged

from 19 to 22 percent, exceeding estimates of the national

rate. In Ohio and Massachusetts, premature births exceeded

the general population rate of about 10 percent. Among live

births, which were 92 percent of birth outcomes in custody,

one-third (32 percent) of these were caesarean section

births, in line with the national average rate. In some

states, the C-section rate was much higher, suggesting that

C-sections may be taking place when not medically necessary,

risking short- and long-term health problems in babies.

pregnancy among confined youth is not uncommon, and better testing

might reveal it's even more widespread

Upon hearing about the Pregnancy in Prison Statistics

(PIPS) Project, three juvenile justice systems (one state-

level, and one county-level system) volunteered to complete a

survey about pregnant adolescents in the custody of 17 of

their ``juvenile residential placement'' facilities,

providing a window into this population for the first time.

One takeaway from the survey's findings was that adolescent

pregnancies--both in confinement, and upon release--may risk

poorer outcomes because of a lack of continuity of medical

care between confinement facilities and the community. Even

though all three state systems provided basic prenatal care,

with the typical length of stay for young women lasting a few

months or less, justice-involved youth would benefit

enormously from consistency in medical care throughout

pregnancy.

The survey also showed that the rate of pregnancy among

confined youth (3.3 percent) was similar to that of the adult

incarcerated population (3.5 percent). However, the youth

facilities reported less routine pregnancy testing,

bolstering a 2004 study revealing that only 15-17 percent of

1,255 juvenile facilities nationwide tested youth for

pregnancy at admission (with about two-thirds of facilities

providing tests only if requested). Therefore, it's possible

the youth carceral pregnancy rate is a very conservative

estimate, and that thousands of pregnant youth are going

without prenatal care when their health needs are likely

complicated.

Eight pregnancies ended among youth confined in the

surveyed facilities during the 12-month study period,

including four miscarriages, three induced abortions, and one

live full-term birth. It would be misleading to view these

outcomes as representative of all pregnant confined youth,

but the authors advise youth confinement facilities to be

prepared for high rates of miscarriage and other adverse

birth outcomes, seeing as justice-involved pregnant youth are

going through highly stressful life experiences.

Services and policies regarding prenatal and postpartum

care were variable: All three juvenile systems allowed

abortion, and some covered the cost; all three systems also

allowed lactation through either breastfeeding or pumping.

Still, the small sample size (which represented just 2.8

percent of all confined female youth) and the potential

influence of self-selecting facilities make it difficult to

draw conclusions about the experience of pregnant youth in

confinement.

breastfeeding and lactation are not guaranteed to new mothers and

babies, ignoring the enormous benefits of breast milk

When the cohort of 22 prison systems and 6 jail systems

described their lactation-related policies to the

researchers, they painted a discouraging picture of how

correctional facilities largely don't support breastfeeding,

a practice chosen by some mothers for its unique benefits.

To begin, only one-third of prisons and jails had any

written policy on lactation, leaving many incarcerated women

to the whims of facility staff who may not be

trained in this area or understand its importance. Even where

women were formally allowed to lactate, milk was sometimes

discarded at the study sites due to mother-infant separation,

providing only a benefit to the mother of maintaining milk

supply.

Because it is a matter of health equity to provide the

opportunity to lactate and breastfeed (among other parental

choices), researchers extend the ``further research is

needed'' statement in order to understand the probable racial

disparities within carceral pregnancy: ``. . . research in

collaboration with current and formerly incarcerated women,

specifically Black, Indigenous, and women of color, is needed

to fully understand breadth of experiences and perspectives

related to breastfeeding and lactation while in custody.''

opioid use disorder among incarcerated women is treated under some

circumstances, but leaves mothers without help postpartum

In addition to known medical needs during pregnancy, some

women enter incarceration with other health problems.

Researchers accessed six months of activity and policy

related to opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment of pregnant

women in the Pregnancy in Prison Statistics (PIPS) study

sites and found that 26 percent of those entering prison and

14 percent entering jail had OUD. The gold standard of care

for these women would be medication for opioid use disorder

(MOUD), which is linked to better pregnancy outcomes and

increased engagement with addiction treatment and other

medical care.

Twenty-two of 28 sites did offer this avenue for treatment

of pregnant women in some way, but the narrow window in which

they could be treated for OUD leaves much room for

improvement. In most facilities offering MOUD, it would not

be initiated in the facility; they would only continue

someone on MOUD if they were already on it. This unfairly

excludes women who were unable to begin treatment before

admission; for example, if someone was in jail before being

transferred to prison, their access would then depend on the

jail's policy. Postpartum, most facilities providing MOUD

would discontinue treatment, showing a clear disregard for

the mother's well-being after birth.

Still, one-third of surveyed sites managed OUD among

pregnant women through detoxification, some with and some

without medication to manage symptoms. Detox, or ``medically

supervised withdrawal,'' can be a painful process and has a

high rate of failure for pregnant women, increasing the risk

of future overdose.

These exclusionary policies and practices are troubling

given the fact that opioid overdose is a major cause of death

for pregnant and postpartum women in the United States, and

remains a huge concern for formerly incarcerated people. In

Rhode Island, where MOUD has been implemented comprehensively

in their unified prison-jail system, there has been a huge

reduction in post-release overdose deaths; replicating their

initiative would have a great impact on carceral pregnancy

and postpartum outcomes.

the incarceration of fathers is also linked to worse birth outcomes

As if it's not bad enough that incarceration prevents

expecting mothers from receiving care and providing care to

their babies, another recent study finds that incarcerating

fathers during pregnancy or at the time of birth is also

harmful to babies' health.

In another recent study--unrelated to the Pregnancy in

Prison Statistics (PIPS) project--Youngmin Yi and fellow

researchers matched hundreds of thousands of birth records to

jail records in New York City between 2010 and 2016,

observing trends in birth weight, preterm (premature) birth,

admission to the NICU (neonatal intensive care unit), and

more. Paternal incarceration was associated with nearly all

adverse outcomes, even after other characteristics of mother

and father were accounted for statistically. ``Exposed'' to

their fathers' incarceration--even for as little as one day--

babies were born with these vulnerabilities, such as low

birth weight, known to have an impact later in life.

incarcerated pregnant people and their babies deserve better care that

is codified in policy

The findings by Sufrin, Asiodu, Kim and fellow researchers

offer a desperately-needed look into pregnancy during

incarceration. And the findings by Yi et al. contribute to an

even more holistic picture of what it means to be a growing

family entangled in the criminal legal system. Families

experiencing pregnancy are impacted by incarceration whether

the mother or the father is incarcerated, and whether or not

the baby is born during the mother's incarceration.

Both adolescents and adults in confinement should be

afforded comprehensive prenatal care, including education,

lactation support, and opioid use disorder treatment that

continues beyond the end of pregnancy. And babies born right

after or during their parents' incarceration, who risk health

issues like lower life expectancy and social and emotional

challenges, deserve the chance to begin life with one or both

parents as much as possible. These efforts and programs

should be clearly written into agency policy so that facility

staff can be trained and expected to provide care.

One way that prisons and jails can begin to assess and

improve their care for pregnant women is by reviewing the

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' recently

updated comprehensive set of guidelines for carceral

reproductive health care. Facilities should also consider

subscribing to the National Commission on Correctional Health

Care's standards for health services, which have clear ways

of addressing many of the above topics. Prisons and jails

should make their policies publicly available, and create

ways to keep healthy mothers and their babies together.

note about the language used

Throughout these publications, the terms ``pregnant women''

and ``mother'' described those people who were pregnant in

custody during the study period. While we've deferred to the

terminology used by the authors, we acknowledge that

pregnancy can overlap with multiple gender identities, and

our conclusions and recommendations apply to all pregnant

people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2521, DOULA for VA Act of 2021--to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a pilot program to furnish doula services to veterans.

Doulas provide emotional and physical support to pregnant people during pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum. A doula will assist during birth by providing a positive and safe birthing experience.

Studies show that when doulas are present in the birthing process labors are shorter, it is less likely that a C-section will be needed, there are less requests for pain medication, and there is a more positive childbirth experience.

In 2013, the Journal of Perinatal Education conducted a study which found that expectant mothers matched with a doula had better birth outcomes than did mothers who gave birth without involvement of a doula.

Doulas work to develop birthing plans, help the parent understand labor and delivery procedures, communicate preferences to the medical staff, and teach relaxation and breathing skills, along with many other non-clinical tasks that improve the birthing experience.

Currently, Veterans Affairs benefits do not cover doulas.

Improving the childbirth experience should be a priority for us all. Veterans and their family members deserve to have positive birthing experiences, just as all Amencans do.

Maternal mortality is an issue that continues to plague the United States health care system. In 2020, 861 women died of maternal causes in the United States. In the U.S., two-thirds of those pregnancy- related deaths are preventable and for every pregnancy-related death, there are 70 pregnancy-related near-death experiences. It's extremely important that we remove barriers in health care that may be contributing to these deaths.

Maternal mortality is caused by several issues such as cardiovascular problems, high blood pressure, blood clots, and complications of labor and delivery.

One step to removing health care barriers is to provide more services such as doulas who can advocate for the parent and provide positive birthing experiences.

From 2010 through 2015, the use of maternity services from the Veterans Health Administration increased by 44 percent.

If doula services are improving care for the general public, then veterans should be provided with the opportunity to utilize doula services as well.

A study in 2010 found that veterans returning from Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom who experienced pregnancy were twice as likely to have a diagnosis of depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia as compared to those who had not experienced a pregnancy.

H.R. 2521, Doula for VA Act of 2021 is important because we should be working to improve the lives of women and children in the United States. This bill directly impacts the health of veterans and their families.

I know that this bill is important to my constituents in Houston. Over 282,000 Veterans live in the Houston area, and almost 25,000 Veterans in Houston are women. Improving the birthing experience for these women is a top priority to me.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this critical bill that will direct the Department of Veterans Affairs to establish a pilot program to furnish doula services to veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I proudly stand in strong support of H.R. 4601, the Commitment to Veteran Support and Outreach Act, which will authorize the VA to provide grants to states to implement programs that improve outreach and assistance to veterans and their families to ensure that such individuals are fully informed about veterans' benefits and programs.

As our veterans have put their lives on the line for defense of our nation, we must do everything in our power to support them when they return home after their service.

This bill achieves this goal by increasing outreach to veterans and their families to ensure that they are fully informed about their benefits and can get the assistance they need to apply for and get the benefits to which they are entitled.

According to a report by the Department of Veterans Affairs, America has over 19 million veterans, of whom over 1,567,000 live in Texas, the second most of any state. Over 179,000 live in Harris County and about 29,000 live in my district.

Of the total veteran population, the VA reports that only 49% (9.8 million out of 20.0 million) used at least one VA benefit or service in

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4772, the Mark O'Brien VA Clothing Allowance Improvement Act.

This legislation would amend the VA's existing clothing allowance program by enabling automatic payments to continue being made to eligible veterans on a recurring basis until the veteran opts out of the program or is no longer eligible.

The bill will make it easier for veterans--especially veterans living with lifelong disabilities--to receive their earned clothing benefits which enables them to live with the dignity and comfort that they earned and so rightfully deserve.

Millions of veterans will live the rest of their lives with disabilities due to service-incurred injuries and physical impairments that resulted after they made the decision to protect our nation and safeguard our freedom.

Our courageous servicemembers have pledged that, on the battlefield, they will leave no soldier behind. In carrying out this sacred obligation, many have suffered life-altering injuries, including loss of limbs.

These injuries often result in loss of mobility or the need for a prosthetic which require specialized clothing and cause accelerated deterioration of standard garments.

In full appreciation of their devotion and the consequences they suffered from it, as a nation, let it be our pledge that when they return home, we leave no veteran behind.

H.R. 4772, the Mark O'Brien VA Clothing Allowance Improvement Act will alleviate these veterans' burden of needing to reapply for clothing benefits every year for our 1.9 million veterans with a service-connected disability.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 4772, the Mark O'Brien VA Clothing Allowance Improvement Act.

Veterans have kept their promise to serve our nation; they have willingly risked their lives to protect the country we all love. We must now ensure that we keep our promises to our veterans.

Let us resolve together that we will provide returning veterans with the welcome, services, care, and compassion that they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Michigan for managing and her leadership and the gentleman from Oklahoma for his leadership.

As a member of the Homeland Security Committee that has dealt with PFAS over the years, I am extremely grateful for this legislation that has come from the Senate and particularly grateful because I use as a backdrop having been on the Homeland Security Committee since its origins, on 9/11, when firefighters rushed in to save lives. Some, of course, tragically lost their lives along with other law enforcement as they were attempting to save people from the burning buildings.

But we do know that their long journey that was taken in order to get coverage and compensation for the terrible exposures that they had in the chemicals in the aftermath of 9/11.

This brings to mind the importance of this legislation having dealt with PFAS in many different forms, particularly in the agriculture arena, the Homeland Security Committee has looked at these chemicals and how they can be made safe, if you will, in the midst of the utilization that they have.

This legislation is extremely important because it works to develop guidance to firefighters and other emergency response personnel on training, education, and best practices to protect them from exposure from PFAS, these chemicals that they are bound to engage when they rush in to save lives and to save property from the terrors of fire.

I am excited about this legislation and hope that it gets to the President's desk because I have seen what chemicals can do in the midst of a 9/11 but also in the midst of an ordinary house fire or business fire.

I applaud the proponents of this bill. I am excited about it reducing and eliminating exposure to PFAS from firefighter foam, personal protective equipment, PPE, prevent the release of the PFAS from firefighting foam into the environment so that it provides for an environmentally safe pathway, and educating firefighters and other emergency response personnel on the foams and non-foam alternative.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman and continue to say that I think what we have here is an important directive for the Department of Homeland Security. Under their jurisdiction are the first responders, and we clearly know the wide range of needs that firefighters face. Look at the West and the series of wildfires that have spread from California to the far Northwest. Fires are never- ending; chemical exposures are never-ending; and firefighters never stop going into places where people are desperate or there is a need.

Mr. Speaker, I am excited about this legislation because it is long overdue. I hope it gets to the President's desk as quickly as possible. I believe that once we pass this, we will give a new lifeline to the Nation's firefighters. As a member of the Fire Caucus, I know that this is a bill long overdue.

Mr. Speaker, as I conclude my remarks celebrating the firefighters and supporting this legislation, let me say: Go USA against Iran.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, I rise in strong support of S. 231, the Protecting Firefighters from Adverse Substances Act.

Known as PFAS, for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, the chemicals in this class of approximately 5,000 substances have become notorious for their danger to human health.

Because the chemical bonds that hold the compounds together don't break down easily, they last a very long time. This has led to a commonly used name for the group: ``Forever chemicals.''

According to monitoring by the Environmental Protection Agency, millions of Americans are easily exposed to unsafe levels of PFAS through outlets as simple as drinking water.

PFAS chemicals have been associated with several health problems, including testicular and kidney cancers, reduced immunity, thyroid problems, and reproductive harms.

Our first responders are at the front lines of PFAS exposure. Firefighters have been shown to have a 14% higher risk of dying from cancer than the general U.S. population does.

This is a result of direct exposure to PFAS chemicals in firefighting foam and personal protective equipment.

It is time we do something to protect the brave men and women who, even in the face of danger, continue to put themselves at risk for our safety and protection.

Mr. Speaker, it is urgent that this Congress enact this legislation because agencies such as the Environmental Protection Administration have failed to address known threats presented by PFAS chemicals.

The EPA has known about the risks from PFAS chemicals for decades but failed to act to prevent the spread of this contamination.

Because of such negligence, the persistent and toxic effects of PFAS linger and firefighters are now forced to work around these ``forever chemicals.''

With S. 231, the Department of Homeland Security will be required to develop guidance for firefighters and other emergency response personnel on training and education programs to protect them from exposure to PFAS.

This curriculum would not only educate firefighters on how to protect themselves, but also educate them on how to prevent the release of PFAS into the environment.

Clear and swift action from Congress is needed to address the PFAS crisis, and we need an all-hands-on-deck effort to protect both the health of our first responders and our environment.

Backing our first responders should be a non-partisan issue, so I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for S. 231, the Protecting Firefighters from Adverse Substances Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to counter my good friend and indicate that this is important legislation. It is documented to be important legislation, and the documentation is clear because of the widespread support of such a wide range of Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the floor to support S. 4003. I thank my colleagues, Senator Cornyn from Texas and Congresswoman Bass.

As this legislation came out of the Judiciary Committee as well, this is legislation that fits very well under the Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee, which I chair. Our responsibilities are to address the question of crime but also to address the question of social justice and reform.

We have heard over the last couple of months--many of us have been in the mode of campaigning--challenges against Democrats, as to whether or not we are tough on crime or whether or not we can work to protect our communities. One thing that protects our communities is strong law enforcement that knows how to engage with the community and is given the tools that will help them do so, and to help the community engage with law enforcement so that they can collectively solve crime.

This legislation is a bipartisan bill that would improve public safety and strengthen public trust in law enforcement, one of the first steps toward bringing down crime.

S. 4003 would require the Department of Justice to develop a de- escalation training curriculum in collaboration with mental health providers, law enforcement agencies, civil rights organizations, and associations representing individuals with mental health diagnoses.

How many times have mothers and fathers had to deal with the loss of a child because they were having a mental health episode?

This legislation continues to be a need to improve the practices that law enforcement officers can use to reduce use-of-force incidents and also protect themselves.

When individuals are in crisis, police are often the first to respond. We understand that is not their total responsibility, but because of our lack of access to mental health resources, they have been on the front lines; and so, without training necessary to recognize a mental health crisis, someone winds up injured or dead. Interactions between law enforcement and civilians can escalate to potentially deadly consequences.

As the country faces an epidemic of violence committed by officers and the disproportionate impact that this violence has on people of color, we remember the lives lost to police violence, including Nicolas Chavez, who was killed by law enforcement, among others in cities across the land.

Just this week, we learned that two Colorado deputies that killed Christian Glass in June have been indicted. That was a sad circumstance. We wish it had not happened, and it did not need to happen.

This legislation will give us the opportunity, again, to do what we want to do; to keep America safe; to bring down crime; and to protect our officers and to give them the training that helps them to be able to engage in de-escalation tactics.

Somewhat similar to the overall bill that I introduced, and John Conyers before me, I introduced the Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act, which I hope to reintroduce again, and seeking bipartisan support; this would authorize $70 million in annual grant funding for training that includes improving community officer relations and engage in training on use of force or de-escalation scenario-based exercises.

In addition, this bill would provide support to law enforcement agencies to train and equip officers. This legislation, of course, is widely supported.

This legislation is widely supported. It is bipartisan; and I thank Mayor-Elect, Congresswoman Karen Bass for her leadership on the companion bill.

I also thank my colleague, Senator Cornyn from Texas for his commitment and concern.

Mr. Speaker, I quickly want to acknowledge that the faith community is squarely in support of this, and they certainly care about law enforcement and bringing down crime.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by Catholic Charities USA, Catholic Prison Ministry Coalition, Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, United Sates Conference of Catholic Bishops, Center for Public Justice, Jesuit Conference, Office of Justice and Ecology, National Association of Evangelicals, National Latino Evangelical Coalition, National Hispanic Christian Leadershp Coalition, and Prison Fellowship; a letter from CPAC; a letter from National Fraternal Order of Police; and a letter from Major Cities Chiefs Associations.

November 29, 2022.

Senator John Cornyn,

Hart Senate Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse,

Hart Senate Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senators Cornyn and Whitehouse: Our faith-based

organizations write to urge for broad co-sponsorship among

your colleagues and the swift passage of the Law Enforcement

De-escalation Training Act of 2022 (S. 4003) as it would help

police officers better serve vulnerable populations and keep

our communities safe. Furthermore, this bill would promote a

more restorative justice system that respects the God-given

dignity of each person and promote safe communities for both

law enforcement officers and residents. The bill would also

provide law enforcement officers with the skills and tools

needed to respond appropriately to the needs of the

communities they protect and serve.

Police officers respond every day to calls for service for

men and women grappling with grave mental and behavioral

health challenges. However, they are not consistently trained

to address these situations effectively. Inadequate training

can undermine law enforcement officers' wellbeing and job

satisfaction, and increase incidents of excessive use of

force that erodes public trust. Policymakers must better

equip law enforcement officers with evidence-based training

for interactions with people in crisis that

fosters community partnership, promotes understanding of

mental illness, and prioritizes the lowest level of force

necessary to keep communities safe.

Several key provisions position the Law Enforcement De-

escalation Training Act (S. 4003) to be a catalyst for

modernizing American policing. The legislation would create a

new federal funding stream to provide training for law

enforcement agencies on de-escalation techniques, on

participation in crisis intervention teams, on making

referrals to community-based service providers, on safely

responding to individuals in a behavioral or mental health

crisis, and on alternatives to use of force. Furthermore, the

bill would advance transparency and accountability to best

practices through strong reporting and evaluation

requirements from the Department of Justice, National

Institute of Justice, and Government Accountability Office.

To foster public trust, the Department of Justice will

develop training curriculum in collaboration with mental

health providers, law enforcement agencies, civil rights

organizations, and other stakeholders. The legislation would

provide funding for continuing education for law enforcement

officers to further refine their knowledge and tactical

skills beyond initial training requirements.

We support the passage of the Law Enforcement De-escalation

Training Act of 2022 as it would provide law enforcement

officers the training needed to carefully respond to the

needs of the community in a way that would promote human

dignity and strengthen public trust.

Sincerely,

Catholic Charities USA, Catholic Prison Ministry Coalition,

Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, United

States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Center for Public

Justice, Jesuit Conference Office of Justice and Ecology,

National Association of Evangelicals, National Latino

Evangelical Coalition, National Hispanic Christian Leadership

Coalition, Prison Fellowship.

Mr. Speaker, I rise, first of all, to thank the chairman and to thank the sponsor, my friend from Virginia, Congressman Bobby Scott.

As I think of my dear friend from Virginia, let me also acknowledge my deep sadness for the loss of our dear friend, Congressman McEachin, and acknowledge the beauty of his service and, of course, his compassion and his true spirit, a true American hero.

Mr. Speaker, I will quickly say that any of us who have been engaged in the criminal justice arena, who have engaged with police officers, whether they are local, State, or Federal, those of us who have served as judges, understand the value of this important legislation. It is bipartisan and will build on

the success of the JMHCP grant program and make necessary improvements to enable State and local governments to better serve their communities.

This reauthorization will make critical improvements to the JMHCP program which supports services for individuals with mental health issues who are involved in the criminal justice system, including expansions in suicide prevention in jails and prisons, co-responder programs that pair law enforcement with mental health professionals and, of course, recognizing that though we give them this responsibility, law enforcement needs to have wraparound services and those that have the expertise to work with those suffering from mental health crises.

With the continued impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, communities across the country have suffered increased challenges in addressing mental health. We, as Democrats, have consistently said that we need a holistic approach.

Again, I said that we take no back seat to fighting crime and being successful, but we understand public safety and civil rights.

I thank Chairman Scott for this work and for acknowledging where we are at a loss; that is, with people who are suffering mental health issues.

Now, we have had a series of mass murders, mass killings, of course using the weapon of choice for young men who espouse hatred, but many have been determined or assessed to have had mental health crisis issues, at least that has been the defense. We now need to really invest in this program and ensure that this is a national program.

In 2018, Harris County Jail, mental health division expanded as an alternative to jail, diverting individuals with mental health illnesses away from incarceration. I want to see this program grow. The updated diversion program allows law enforcement to direct individuals with mental illness over to these programs; those picked up for low-level, nonviolent offenses. Many of us know that these are sometimes homeless persons, and many of these persons are veterans. By the way, we have a veterans' court in Harris County.

So I am excited about this bipartisan legislation that would also support State implementation of the newly established 988 suicide crisis hotline. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters of support from the National Fraternal Order of Police, the Conference of Chief Justices Conference of State Court Administrators, among others.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

National Fraternal Order

of Police,

April 29, 2022.

Hon. John Cornyn III,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Cornyn: I am writing on behalf of the members

of the Fraternal Order of Police to advise you of our support

for S. 3846, the ``Justice and Mental Health Collaboration

Reauthorization Act.''

According to recent studies, one in ten calls for service

to law enforcement involve a person suffering from a mental

illness. One in three people taken to a hospital emergency

room for psychiatric reasons are transported there by law

enforcement. Our officers respond to these calls for service

with care, compassion, and professionalism. While we have

come a long way in our ability to handle these incidents

safely and effectively, law enforcement officers need the

training and resources this legislation provides.

The legislation would reauthorize the Justice and Mental

Health Collaboration Program (JMHCP) through 2026. First

authorized in 2004, JMHCP grants have funded mental health

courts, other court-based initiatives, diversion and

deflection programs, crisis intervention teams, training for

local police departments, and other programs to improve

outcomes for people with mental illness and co-occurring

substance use conditions who come into contact with the

justice system. In addition to adding $10 million to program

funding, this legislation would also expand the allowable

uses of grants to include the funding of crisis response

teams, suicide prevention in jails, and the hiring of

community health workers.

Law enforcement officers have one of the toughest and most

dangerous jobs in the United States. They are tasked with

keeping our streets and neighborhoods safe from crime,

ensuring that every citizen can live free and without fear.

By putting funding and resources into improving mental health

outcomes across the criminal justice system, this bill

ensures that law enforcement officers will have a reduced

risk of encountering dangerous situations on a day-to-day

basis.

On behalf of the more than 364,000 members of the Fraternal

Order of Police, I am pleased to offer our support for this

legislation. If I can be of any further assistance, please do

not hesitate to contact me or Executive Director Jim Pasco in

our Washington, D.C. office.

Sincerely,

Patrick Yoes,

National President.

Mr. Speaker, this is an enormously important initiative, and I rise today to support the Pro bono Work to Empower and Represent Act of 2021, or the POWER 2.0 Act. This has to be one of the more important bills on the floor, among many.

This is a bill that saves lives, and I certainly want to, at the very beginning, acknowledge certainly the Senator, but as well, I want to acknowledge our friend and colleague in the House and thank her so very much, Congresswoman Peltola, for her great work that has generated something that is very close to my heart.

The POWER Act will give a lifeline to domestic violence sufferers, those who have been abused by domestic violence.

As the author of the Violence Against Women Act in the House over a number of Congresses, I know how important any legislation is dealing with domestic violence and domestic abuse.

I speak to law enforcement and often say to them that domestic violence calls are the most dangerous that law enforcement engage in.

Remember, as I started on this floor, I indicated that as Democrats, we know how to bring down crime and also engage in social justice. We understand that it is extremely important that those in the criminal justice system deserve due process. But the victims of domestic violence, more often than not women, suffer greatly.

In Texas, 40.1 percent of women and 34 percent of men experience intimate partner physical violence, intimate partner rape, and/or intimate partner stalking in their lifetimes. Thousands of incidents are reported every day. On a single day in 2020, domestic violence hotlines across the country receive 21,321 calls.

The provision of legal services through the southern district or through the various Federal districts that train over 600,000 lawyers and then send them out to be able to give assistance to State and local governments is a lifeline. It is a lifesaver.

Less than one-third of domestic violence victims successfully obtain protective orders. Protective orders can be the cause of saving life, keeping a mother to protect her children, keeping an aunt or a grandmother. The POWER Act has an indelible impact on the lives of the most vulnerable Americans, and I stand here in grand support of this important effort.

As a former board member of the Houston Area Women's Center, I know what it means to get calls late into the night and calling the executive director and asking for relief for a woman who is running for her life.

Over this past Thanksgiving weekend, unfortunately, in my own community, there were a series of domestic violence killings of women who suffered at the hands of an ex.

It is important to eliminate the sunset of this provision and to be able to say that no one should be left alone without the idea or the help of ensuring that there is legal protection and that you have access to legal protection.

Again, I want to commend Congresswoman Mary Sattler Peltola, a friend and someone who I appreciate her leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following articles, The Justice in Government Project and HAWC.

[From the Justice in Government Project]

Key Studies and Data About About How Legal Aid Assists Domestic

Violence Survivors

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that

in the U.S., 36.4 percent of women and 33.6 percent of men

experience sexual or physical violence or stalking

perpetrated by an intimate partner in their tifetimes.

Individuals who have experienced domestic violence display a

multitude of legal needs. They may require assistance with

filing protection orders, custody issues, housing, identity

theft, and employment (Lee & Backes, 2018; Allen et al.,

2004).

Mr. Speaker, this bill must be passed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 3115, the ``Pro Bono Work to Empower and Represent Act of 2021,'' also known as the ``POWER 2.0 Act,'' which extends the authorization of vital programs that help victims and survivors of domestic abuse and sexual violence receive free legal assistance--without which they would be unlikely to receive any semblance of justice, let alone safety and security.

No community is safe from domestic violence. It touches people of every socioeconomic status, race, and ethnicity--in red states and blue states

Nearly a quarter of women in this country experience domestic violence or sexual assault at some point in their lives. Many victims of domestic violence are poor, helpless, and living in underserved communities. Many are mere children.

In Texas, 40.1 percent of women and 34.9 percent of men experience intimate partner physical violence, intimate partner rape and/or intimate partner stalking in their lifetimes.

Thousands of incidents are reported daily. On a single day in 2020, domestic violence hotlines across the country received 21,321 calls--an average of almost 15 calls every minute.

The provision of legal services following the first occurrence of domestic violence can be a proactive solution that minimizes the likelihood of victims experiencing farther incidents of abuse. But without access to legal representation, those most in need of protection--which our courts can provide--are often unable to receive the help they need to escape the cycle of violence.

Unfortunately, less than one third of domestic violence victims successfully obtain protective orders if they seek one on their own, without the assistance of counsel.

That is why in 2018, Congress enacted the Power Act, which requires every judicial district within the United States and its territories to hold annual public pro-bono summits to recruit and encourage attorneys to provide free legal services to survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, and sexual assault. It also requires targeted programs in areas with large populations of Native Americans and Alaska Natives.

The Power Act has had an indelible impact on the lives of the most vulnerable Americans. From 2019 to 2021, our courts have held nearly 250 pro bono summits, reaching more than 60,000 attorneys--educating them about the need for their services and letting them know how they can help,

While that is a promising start, it is only the beginning. An innumerable number of domestic and sexual violence victims still need legal assistance to survive. Yet the programs authorized under the Act are set to expire in just a few short weeks.

That is why it is imperative we pass the POWER 2.0 Act, which would remove the 4-year sunset provision from the original legislation and allow us to continue growing an army of capable, volunteer attorneys available to represent, protect, and provide a lifeline to victims and survivors, who so desperately need their help.

I commend Representative Mary Sattler Peltola for her work on the POWER 2.0 Act, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the full committee, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 5455, the Terry Technical Correction Act, which has widespread support from really the people who count that deal with these issues day after day, our law enforcement officers and attorneys general across America.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from several attorneys general, as well as the Major Cities Chiefs Association.

September 2, 2021.

Hon. Chuck Schumer,

Senate Majority Leader,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Senate Minority Leader,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Kevin McCarthy,

Washington, DC.

Dear Leader Schumer, Leader McConnell, Speaker Pelosi, and

Leader McCarthy: As our jurisdictions' Attorneys General, we

are responsible for protecting the health, safety, and well-

being of our residents. Although our jurisdictions vary in

size, geography, and political composition, we are united in

our commitment to an effective criminal justice system that

safeguards the communities of our states. To that end, a

bipartisan coalition of Attorneys General supported the

passage of the First Step Act of 2018--landmark legislation

that brought common sense improvements to myriad aspects of

the criminal justice system. Central to these reforms was

retroactive relief for individuals sentenced under the

discredited 100-to-1 crack-to-powder cocaine ratio that

Congress abolished in 2010. Following the Supreme Court's

recent opinion in Terry v. United States, however, the lowest

level crack cocaine offenders remain categorically ineligible

for resentencing. We write today to urge Congress to amend

the First Step Act, and to clarify that its retroactive

relief applies to all individuals sentenced under the prior

regime.

Congress enacted the historic First Step Act of 2018 to

modernize the criminal justice system, implementing

comprehensive reform in areas such as corrections, criminal

charging, community re-entry, and beyond. The product of a

unique bipartisan consensus, the Act passed with overwhelming

support from organizations across the ideological spectrum,

including the Heritage Foundation, the American Civil

Liberties Union, Freedomworks, the National Urban League, the

American Conservative Union, the Public Defender Association,

Americans for Prosperity, and the Center for American

Progress, among many others. Over three dozen Attorneys

General supported the Act as a critical tool for

strengthening our criminal justice system and better serving

the people of our states.

One of the First Step Act's key pillars was sentencing

reform. This reform included Section 404, which provides

retroactive relief for individuals sentenced under the

discarded 100-to-1 crack cocaine-to-powder-cocaine ratio that

Congress repudiated through the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010.

That earlier legislation abolished the 100-to-1 ratio going

forward, reflecting the overwhelming consensus that treating

crack cocaine and powder cocaine radically differently

exacerbated racial inequality in the criminal justice system

and resulted in unjustly severe sentences for low-level crack

cocaine users.

But the Fair Sentencing Act applied only to sentences

imposed after the Act's passage. As Senator Cory Booker

explained, it left thousands of ``people sitting in jail . .

. for selling an amount of drugs equal to the size of a candy

bar'' based solely on their sentencing date, underscoring the

need, in Senator Mike Lee's words, to apply the law ``equally

to all those convicted of cocaine and crack offenses

regardless of when they were convicted.'' Congress therefore

included Section 404 in the First Step Act, which allowed

individuals sentenced under the discarded 100-to-1 ratio to

seek discretionary resentencing.

Unfortunately, that critical work remains incomplete. In

Terry v. United States, the Supreme Court concluded that

while Section 404 clearly authorized certain mid- or high-

level crack cocaine offenders to seek resentencing, it did

not extend relief to the lowest-level offenders sentenced

under the prior regime. Specifically, the Court relied on

Section 404's definition of a covered offense as any

``violation of a Federal criminal statute, the statutory

penalties for which were modified by'' the Fair Sentencing

Act. The Court reasoned that because the Fair Sentencing Act

did not formally change the elements or penalties for the

lowest level era offensesg--it merely changed the quantities

needed to trigger mid- and high-level charges--the Act failed

to modify the ``statutory penalties'' for the lowest category

of offenders. As a result, these individuals are now the only

ones sentenced under the earlier crack cocaine quantities

that remain categorically ineligible for the First Step Act's

historic relief.

We urge Congress to close this gap. There is no reason why

these individual--and these individuals alone--should

continue to serve sentences informed by the now-discredited

crack-to-powder ratio. Discretionary relief is unambiguously

available to serious dealers and kingpins sentenced under the

prior regime; extending Section 404's scope would simply

allow individual users and other low-level crack cocaine

offenders to have the same opportunity for a second chance.

We therefore urge Congress to clarify that Section 404 of the

First Step Act extends to all individuals convicted of crack

cocaine offenses and sentenced under the 100-to-1 ratio--

including the lowest level offenders.

We thank you for your leadership on this important matter.

Sincerely,

Karl A. Racine, District of Columbia Attorney General; Rob

Bonta, California Attorney General; William Tong, Connecticut

Attorney General; Leevin Taitano Camacho, Guam Attorney

General; Tom Miller, Iowa Attorney General; Brian Frosh,

Maryland Attorney General; Dana Nessel, Michigan Attorney

General; Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney General; Hector

Balderas, New Mexico Attorney General; Sean D. Reyes, Utah

Attorney General; Phil Weiser, Colorado Attorney General;

Kathleen Jennings, Delaware Attorney General; Kwame Raoul,

Illinois Attorney General; Aaron M. Frey, Main Attorney

General; Maura Healey, Massachusetts Attorney General; Keith

Ellison, Minnesota Attorney General; Andrew Buck, Acting New

Jersey Attorney General; Letitia James, New York Attorney

General; Ellen F. Rosenblum, Oregon Attorney General; Peter

F. Neronha, Rhode Island Attorney General; Mark R. Herring,

Virginia Attorney General; Joshua L. Kaul, Wisconsin Attorney

General;

Josh Shapiro, Pennsylvania Attorney General; T.J. Donovan,

Vermont Attorney General; Robert W. Ferguson, Washington

Attorney General.

Major Cities Chiefs

Association,

October 20, 2021.

Hon. Dick Durbin,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Cory Booker,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Chuck Grassley,

Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Mike Lee,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Grassley, Senator

Booker, and Senator Lee: I write on behalf of the Major

Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA) to register our support for

S. 2914, the Terry Technical Corrections Act. The MCCA is a

professional organization of police executives representing

the largest cities in the United States and Canada.

In 2010, Congress reduced the federal sentencing disparity

for crack versus powder cocaine offenses. However, due to an

unclear definition in statute, the Supreme Court recently

held in Terry v. United States that individuals convicted of

some of the least serious crack cocaine offenses are

ineligible to be resentenced under the reduced disparity. The

Terry Technical Corrections Ad will address this issue by

clarifying that all offenders sentenced for a crack cocaine

offense before the disparity was reduced are eligible to be

resentenced. While the MCCA believes Congress should

eliminate the federal sentencing disparity, until that

happens, this legislation will help address inequities in our

criminal justice system related to sentencing for crack

cocaine offenses.

Thank you for your leadership on this important issue.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if the MCCA can be of

any additional assistance.

Sincerely,

Chief Jeri Williams,

Chief, Phoenix Police Department, President, Major Cities

Chiefs Association.

As Justice Thomas noted in his opinion in Terry v. United States, citing my introduction of H.R. 4545, the Drug Sentencing Reform and Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2007, I have long worked to address the sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses, introducing legislation to eliminate the disparity completely.

Mr. Speaker, I include this opinion that cites this legislation, among others, for the Record.

141 S.Ct. 1858

Supreme Court of the United States

Tarahrick TERRY, Petitioner

v.

That is why I introduced H.R. 5455, the Terry Technical Correction Act, which reaffirms Congress' intent to provide retroactive sentencing relief to all individuals convicted of crack cocaine offenses before the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 took effect; and now I support Mr. Jeffries' EQUAL Act, which we hope will be on the President's desk.

With the declaration of the war on drugs in the early 1970s began a dramatic rise in the U.S. prison population. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it was teeming over, fueled largely by excessive, unwarranted drug sentences, some for minimal drug sentences and actions, putting particularly young African-American men in incarceration for decades.

The Federal Government played a pivotal role in America's era of mass incarceration. During the 1980s and 1990s, Congress passed several pieces of legislation that moved away from rehabilitation toward excessive punishment.

One such example is the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which created mandatory minimum penalties for most drug offenses and established the 100-1 cocaine to crack disparity. We have found that that does not bring down drug use. It does not bring down crime. What brings down crime is an effective rehabilitation system so that law enforcement officers do not have to confront recidivists ever again because we have given them a pathway to enter into society.

As Justice Sotomayor acknowledges in her concurring opinion in Terry, African Americans ``bore the brunt of the disparity.''

Between 1992 and 2006, roughly 80 to 90 percent of those convicted of crack offenses were African American. There were many who sounded the alarm during this time, including the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which repeatedly called upon Congress to revisit the mandatory minimum sentencing structure because of the racial disparities in cocaine versus crack sentencing. Sadly, Congress refused to listen for many years, and they did not see any strong impact on that approach.

Thankfully, Members of Congress, on an increasingly bipartisan manner, have worked hard to reduce the harmful impact of the failed policies of the war on drugs, including putting an end to the crack to powder sentencing disparities.

Those who are supporting us--law enforcement officers, attorneys general--are Republicans and Democrats alike. Through our efforts, we have learned that there is no greater danger to public safety from crack offenders than powder cocaine offenders, and that the 100-1 ratio overstated the relative harmfulness of the two forms of cocaine and diverted Federal resources away from prosecuting the highest level of traffickers.

In 2010, Congress began the process to eradicate the devastating consequences of the poorly conceived war on drugs and the punitive response to the crack epidemic.

We have had circumstances where false warrants were used to enter people's homes under the false premise that they were using drugs. That didn't bring down crime. That didn't help eliminate those who were doing ill to people. That was not the right approach.

The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 reduced the sentencing disparity to 18-1, and the First Step Act of 2018 made the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive.

Mr. Speaker, although the Terry decision bars crack offenders convicted of offenses involving small amounts of crack--like the 3.9 grams of crack that the petitioner possessed--that do not trigger the mandatory minimum penalties, Congress can address this injustice.

H.R. 5455, aptly named the Terry Technical Correction Act, would guarantee the ability to seek a sentence reduction to all individuals who have unfairly lost years of freedom under the unfounded 100-1 disparity, including those whose requests for sentence reduction was previously denied based on the narrow interpretation of the First Step Act.

While I continue to look forward to the day that we will fully eliminate the powder-to-crack disparity, I thank Representatives Cicilline, Jeffries,

Owens, Massie, and Delegate Holmes Norton for working with me on this crucial bipartisan piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this. It is long overdue. I also include for the Record a press release from the Maryland Attorney General.

[Press Release from Brian E. Frosh, Maryland Attorney General, Sept. 2,

2021]

Attorney General Frosh Calls on Congress to Clarify First Step Act and

Apply Fair Sentencing Reforms to Low-Level Drug Offenses

Baltimore, MD.--Attorney General Brian E. Frosh today

joined a bipartisan coalition of 25 attorneys general urging

Congress to amend the First Step Act and extend critical

resentencing reforms to individuals convicted of the lowest-

level crack cocaine offenses.

The coalition is calling on legislators to take this needed

step in the wake of the Supreme Court's recent decision in

Terry v. United States, which held that certain mid-level and

high-level crack cocaine offenders could seek resentencing

under the law, but low-level offenders were not eligible.

``The intent of the First Step Act was to correct

disproportionately harsh sentencing. Ironically, the does not

apply to low-level offenders,'' said Attorney General Frosh.

``Congress needs to fix this oversight and ensure that the

law provides relief to those who committed lower-level crimes

and were subject to inequitable sentencing.''

The First Step Act, a landmark criminal justice reform law,

passed Congress with strong bipartisan support in 2018. One

key reform aimed to correct injustices caused by the earlier

crack cocaine vs. powder cocaine sentencing regime. That now-

discredited regime punished users and dealers of crack

cocaine much more harshly than users and dealers of powder

cocaine, which disproportionately harmed communities of

color.

In 2010, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act to reduce

the disparity between sentences for crack cocaine and powder

cocaine. However, the law did not help the many people

sentenced for crack cocaine offenses before 2010 who remained

in prison. The First Step Act then included a provision that

made previous drug sentencing reforms retroactive, allowing

those serving harsh sentences imposed under the former

federal law to seek relief.

U.S. Senators Richard J. Durbin, Charles E. Grassley, Cory

A. Booker, and Mike Lee--the drafters of the First Step Act--

confirmed in an amicus brief that the sentencing relief was

intended to apply to all crack cocaine offenders sentenced

before 2010. Nevertheless, in Terry v. United States, the

Supreme Court concluded that while the First Step Act clearly

authorized certain mid- or high-level crack cocaine offenders

to seek resentencing, it failed to extend relief to the

lowest-level offenders.

In today's letter, the attorneys general urge Congress to

close that gap and clarify that the sentencing relief

provided by the First Step Act extends to all individuals

convicted of crack cocaine offenses under the earlier regime,

including the lowest-level offenders. They argue that there

is no reason that only these low-level offenders should

continue to serve sentences informed by now-discredited

standards, and that they should have an opportunity to seek a

second chance.

Attorney General Frosh is joined in the letter by the

attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut,

Delaware, the District of Columbia, Guam, Illinois, Iowa,

Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New

Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode

Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5455, the ``Terry Technical Correction Act.''

As Justice Thomas noted in his opinion in Terry v. United States, citing my introduction of H.R. 4545, the ``Drug Sentencing Reform and Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2007,'' I have long worked to address the sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses--introducing legislation to eliminate the disparity completely.

That is why I introduced H.R. 5455, the ``Terry Technical Correction Act''--which reaffirms Congress's intent to provide retroactive sentencing relief to all individuals convicted of crack cocaine offenses before the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 took effect.

With the declaration of the ``War on Drugs'' in the early 1970's began a dramatic rise in the U.S. prison population--fueled largely by excessive, unwarranted drug sentences.

The federal government played a pivotal role in America's era of mass incarceration. During the 1980s and 1990s, Congress passed several pieces of legislation that moved away from rehabilitation toward excessive punishment.

One such example is the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which created mandatory minimum penalties for most drug offenses, and established the 100-to-1, cocaine to crack disparity.

And, as Justice Sotomayor acknowledges in her concurring opinion in Terry, African Americans ``bore the brunt of the disparity.''

Between 1992 and 2006, roughly 80 to 90 percent of those convicted of crack offenses were African American.

There were many who sounded the alarm during this time, including the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which repeatedly called upon Congress to revisit the mandatory minimum sentencing structure because of the racial disparities in cocaine versus crack sentencing. Sadly, Congress refused to listen for many years.

Thankfully, members of Congress, on an increasingly bipartisan basis have worked hard to reduce the harmful impact of the failed policies of the War on Drugs, including putting an end to the crack to powder sentencing disparity.

Through our efforts, we have learned that there is no greater danger to public safety from crack offenders than powder cocaine offenders, and that the 100-to-1 ratio overstated the relative harmfulness of the two forms of cocaine and diverted federal resources away from prosecuting the highest-level traffickers.

In 2010, Congress began the process to eradicate the devastating consequences of the poorly conceived War on Drugs--and the punitive response to the crack epidemic.

The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 reduced the sentencing disparity to 18-to-1, and the First Step Act of 2018 made the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive.

Although the Terry decision bars crack offenders convicted of offenses involving small amounts of crack--like the 3.9 grams of crack that the petitioner possessed that do not trigger the mandatory minimum penalties--Congress can correct this injustice.

H.R. 5455, aptly named the ``Terry Technical Correction Act,'' would guarantee the ability to seek a sentence reduction to all individuals who have unfairly lost years of freedom under the unfounded 100 to 1 disparity, including those whose requests for sentence reductions were previously denied based on the narrow interpretation of the First Step Act.

While I continue to look forward to the day that we will fully eliminate the powder to crack disparity, I thank Representatives Cicilline, Jeffries, Owens, and Massie, and Delegate Holmes Norton for working with me on this crucial, bipartisan piece of legislation and ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 922, ``Condemning the use of hunger as a weapon of war and recognizing the effect of conflict on global food security and famine Act''.

This resolution condemns the use of starvation of civilians as a weapon of warfare. It also calls on the U.S. government to prioritize diplomatic efforts to call out and address instances where hunger and intentional deprivation of food is being utilized as a weapon of war, including efforts to ensure that security operations do not undermine livelihoods of local populations to minimize civilian harm.

The United States has always been a nation that espouses human rights. That's a central tenet on which we were founded.

So when we see starvation being used as a weapon of warfare, it is reprehensible to us.

Global food insecurity is of great importance to me because, not only am I a longtime Member of the House Hunger Caucus, I represent the same Congressional District that had been represented by iconic leaders who fought to end hunger in the U.S. and globally.

I am proud to continue the historic legacy of Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, who was a champion for human dignity and fought for the rights of all people regardless of race, gender, heritage, or economic status, and Congressman Mickey Leland, who worked tirelessly to raise awareness of, and fight for, policies to end food insecurity around the globe and who, tragically, died in a plane crash while working to end world hunger on a relief mission in Ethiopia.

Starvation is a brutal and inhumane way to force someone to surrender. It's a slow and agonizing death, used by the immoral to gain leverage in a war of attrition and aggression.

Starvation tactics typically target innocent, vulnerable civilians who are not directly a party to the conflict; instead they are merely caught in the crossfire of conflict.

That is why we must adopt this legislation.

The United States government must prioritize diplomatic efforts to call out and address instances where hunger and intentional deprivation of food is being utilized as a weapon.

We must show the world that we do not condone this type of behavior and that we will not stand for it.

The United States should prioritize diplomatic efforts to call out and address instances where hunger and intentional deprivation of food is being utilized as a weapon.

We must do everything in our power to protect innocent civilians from this barbaric practice.

Starvation is a terrible thing. It's something that nobody should have to go through. And yet, there are people in this world who are starving right now as a consequence of war, or, perhaps worse, as a tool of warfare.

The people of Ethiopia's Tigre Province are being subjected to a truly vile and malicious use of food deprivation in this way. The region was already suffering from drought, and when compounded by forced starvation from denial of access to food as a weapon of war, the effect is heinous and the consequences are unforgiveable.

In Pakistan, food deprivation is compounded by the human toll from recent floods and other natural disasters. Using drought to strategically exacerbate starvation is unacceptable.

Russia's aggression against Ukraine is a global food insecurity tragedy on multiple levels. As Putin wages his war against the people of Ukraine, he uses food as a weapon by destroying the food production and transportation capacity of the country he invaded. At the same time, since Ukraine grows grains and crops that feed much of the world, Putin's devastation of Ukraine's food production infrastructure and takeovers of Ukrainian food exports cause food insecure populations of countless countries to suffer, especially in Africa.

Finally, I condemn the use of government blockades as a weapon of war to deliberately increase starvation.

Government blockades are nothing more than collective punishment, and they're a violation of the human rights of the people who are suffering under them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 744-- Condemning the Government of Iran's state-sponsored persecution of its Baha'i minority and its continued violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

This resolution condemns Iran's state-sponsored persecution of its Baha'i minority and its continued violation of the international covenants on human rights.

Further, the resolution calls on Iran to immediately release all imprisoned or detained Baha'is, and it urges the President and the Department of State to impose sanctions on Iranian officials and others who are responsible for serious human rights abuses, including abuses against Iran's Baha'i community.

Persecution of religious minorities in Iran is rampant. For over 40 years, the Government of Iran has persecuted members of the Baha'i faith, killing over 200 Baha'i leaders, dismissing more than 10,000 from their government and university jobs, and using intimidation and violence to target them as enemies of the state.

The Iranian regime routinely arrests Baha'is and imposes lengthy prison sentences. Between 50 and 100 Baha'is were reported to be in prisons in Iran during 2020, despite the widespread prevalence of

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4785, the Uyghur Policy Act of 2021, a bill that addresses the human rights issues concerning the Uyghurs and other minority groups in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in China.

The Uyghur Policy Act would authorize the establishment of a Special Coordinator for Uyghur Issues position within the Department of State.

The bill would also allow the State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs make certain funds available to human rights advocates working on behalf of Uyghurs and members of other minority groups.

The funds, if made available, shall be used to facilitate the presence of such human rights advocates at public diplomacy forums to speak on issues related to the human rights and religious freedoms of minority groups in Xinjiang.

Mr. Speaker, in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China, the Government of the People's Republic of China has, since 2017, arbitrarily detained as many as 1.8 million Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, and members of other Muslim minority groups in a system of extrajudicial mass internment camps.

Additionally, the Chinese government has arbitrarily detained many in formal prisons and detention centers, and has subjected detainees to forced labor, torture, political indoctrination, and other severe human rights abuses.

Forced labor exists within the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region's system of mass internment camps, and throughout the region.

These assertions have been confirmed by the testimony of former camp detainees, satellite imagery, official media reports, publicly available documents, official statements, and official leaked documents from the Government of the People's Republic of China as part of a targeted campaign of repression of Muslim ethnic minorities.

These atrocious acts are indicative of a state sponsored systematic effort to eradicate the ethnic and cultural identity and religious beliefs of religious minorities in China.

Recent reports have also indicated that the Chinese Government is aiming to prevent the births of, Uyghurs, ethnic Kazakhs and Kyrgyz, and members of religious minority groups.

Recent data has shown a significant drop in birth rates among Uyghurs due to enforced sterilization and enforced abortion.

Indeed, the birth rate in the Xinjiang region fell by 24 percent in 2019 compared to a 4.2 percent decline nationwide.

In addition, there are credible reports of the Peoples Republic of China's Government campaigns to promote marriages between Uyghurs and Han and to reduce birth rates among Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims.

It has also been reported that many Uyghurs have been assigned to factory employment under conditions that indicate forced labor, and some former detainees have reported food deprivation, beatings, suppression of religious practices, family separation, and sexual abuse.

Reporting from international news organizations has found that over the past decade, family members of Uyghurs living outside of China have gone missing or been detained to force their return to China or silence dissent.

Mr. Speaker, on January 19, 2021, the Department of State determined the Peoples Republic of China's Government, under the direction and control of the Chinese Communist Party, has committed crimes against humanity and genocide against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minority groups in Xinjiang.

The Chinese government must answer for the barbaric acts of terror they have afflicted on their own people.

H.R. 4785 the Uyghur Policy Act of 2021 call for the Government of the People's Republic of China to open the XUAR to regular visits by United States Members of Congress, Congressional staff delegations, the United States Special Coordinator for Uyghur Issues under section 4, and members and staff of the Congressional-Executive Commission on the People's Republic of China to monitor the human rights violations and abuses occurring in Xuar.

As members of the United States Congress, we must use our voice to condemn, monitor and oppose the atrocities occurring in China.

I and this chamber stand with the Uyghurs, ethnic Kazakhs and Kyrgyz, and members of

other religious minority groups in China being terrorized by their own governments.

I encourage all my colleagues to support H.R. 4785--Uyghur Policy Act of 2021 to promote justice globally.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Manufacturing.gov Act, H.R. 6290, a bill that would refine the Manufacturing.gov website to serve as the main source for key information regarding federal manufacturing programs.

Manufacturing.gov brings together industry, academia and federal partners within a network of advanced manufacturing institutes to increase U.S. manufacturing competitiveness and promote a robust and sustainable national manufacturing R&D infrastructure.

This legislation would specify improvements to the website to make it even more useful and valuable by requiring the inclusion of relevant contact information, opportunities for public input, and webpages focusing on topics related to the website.

Small and medium sized manufacturers are an essential part of the U.S. economy.

In Texas, they make up approximately 13 percent of output and employ just above 7 percent state's workforce.

Manufacturing companies need easy access to critical information within their industrial field to optimize their efficiency and ability to compete. To promote domestic production and provide job opportunities to hard-working Americans, these companies need real-time data on sourcing, markets, supply chains, and fulfillment.

As the U.S. elevates domestic manufacturing to a top economic priority, we must improve and update our systems to better equip these companies, and the public, with the resources they need to succeed.

This bill would establish a new section of the Manufacturing.gov website titled ``Manufacturing.gov hub'' to include federal manufacturing program information.

To ensure that the Manufacturing.gov hub serves the needs of the people, it is important that the public has the ability to suggest input and feedback.

Allowing the public to give feedback on the website's functionality, as well as its content, allows the site to better serve the needs of U.S. manufacturing while providing a safe, constructive environment to present concerns and solutions.

In order to support the interests of the free market, it is imperative that we make transparent the types of technologies and research that are being developed.

Texas is home to companies that manufacture a wide range of advanced and essential goods, including railcars and railways, clean energy equipment, and everyday household items such as backpacks, blankets, and towels.

Providing these companies with easily accessible sites that are dedicated to their respective industries provides them with the necessary information they need to improve their production.

This bill would provide industrial sectors with accurate, up-to-date information webpages within each hub.

Finally, the Manufacturing.gov Act will utilize machine learning to highlight frequently asked questions and provide corresponding answers for such questions.

By introducing machine learning into the hub, we can refine the website to fit the needs of U.S. manufacturers.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill dedicated to bolstering the U.S. manufacturing and production industry by establishing a hub that supplies U.S. small and medium manufacturing companies with recent technological and research developments.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4275, the ``Ensuring Phone and Internet Access Through Lifeline and Affordable Connectivity Program Act of 2022.''

This bill would increase internet and communications access for low- income consumers by promoting enrollment in the Lifeline Program and Affordable Connectivity Program.

In today's technological age, internet and phone communications have become integral to the ever-growing United States economy and to society overall. Having access to the internet is crucial for all Americans, whether that be for educational purposes, business usage, or contacting friends and family.

Given the rapid development in the technological sector, one might be inclined to believe that high-speed internet access has become even more widespread and easily available to all Americans. However, despite critical developments in high-speed data, the U.S. Census Bureau has indicated that 2.8 million households and 7 million individuals in Texas lack broadband access.

Lack of access to broadband internet has impeded not only Texans, but also Americans nationwide from attending classes, filling job forms, and seeing healthcare providers. For low-income families, lack of internet and communication access acts as an economic barrier, impeding opportunities, furthering the socioeconomic gap, and elevating the risk of eventual poverty.

The Ensuring Phone and Internet Access Through Lifeline and Affordable Connectivity Program Act intends to promote access to broadband internet and phone connectivity by proactively providing low- income Americans the information they need to enroll into either of the two programs.

The Lifeline program helps bring phone service to low-income consumers at a heavily discounted price, allowing them to connect with family, job opportunities, and emergency services. This bill aims to increase enrollment of millions of eligible Americans who suffer from financial barriers.

The Affordable Connective program, like the Lifeline program, helps bring fast, reliable internet access to low-income consumers at discounted prices. After the COVID-19 pandemic, it is obvious how essential online communication has become for modern society to function. Providing access to internet allows for low-income individuals the freedom to explore more opportunities to develop their lives via online education and jobs.

Furthermore, this bill also plans to provide oversight of the enrollment numbers by requiring the Commission to submit annual reports to Congress with enrollment statistics for both programs.

Finally, the Ensuring Phone and Internet Access Through Lifeline and Affordable Connectivity Program Act of 2022 requires that the Comptroller General submit annual reports identifying outreach initiatives that aim to increase awareness of both programs so that potential beneficiaries will take advantage of them.

With this data, Congress can look to refine and expand both programs, creating innovative ways to circumvent lack of internet and phone access.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my fellow Members of Congress to support this bill that is dedicated to the principles of equity and opportunity for all Americans.

Since internet access and phone connectivity are crucial for success and advancement in today's society, we must ensure that everyone is aware of resources that provide these services at subsidized prices, so that, ultimately, internet and phone access are available to everyone.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7299, the Strengthening VA Cybersecurity Act of 2022, to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to obtain an independent cybersecurity assessment of information systems of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

According to the Department of Defense, cyber criminals target victims in order to weaken U.S. supply chains, threaten national security, and endanger the American way of life.

Although cyberattacks can potentially harm all Americans, attacks against veterans are especially problematic because of the vast population of veterans and the amount of data that is maintained about their service and benefits.

In the United States, there are an estimated 18.5 million veterans.

Currently, there are 1.2 million active-duty military members and 778,000 reserve forces. More than half of active-duty personnel have family member dependents.

Because there are so many veterans--and future veterans--the data systems that manage their service records, salaries, health conditions, and benefits provided to them and their families must be maintained securely and insulated from risk of being exposed, corrupted, deleted, or held for ransom.

Just as veterans have served America, protecting our safety and freedoms, it is vital that we protect veterans when they complete their service, start a new chapter of their life, and depend on our government to protect their personal information and privacy.

The Department of Veterans Affairs stores important material such as social security numbers, health records, financial information, and more. It is the Department's responsibility to protect and preserve veterans' data for future use and needs that the veterans may have.

In 1973, a firestorm at the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri

destroyed the records of veterans that served from 1912 to 1964. Almost 18 million records went up in flames. Up to 80 percent of veterans who discharged during this time had their records destroyed.

We learned from that conflagration, and since 1973, we have become increasingly reliant on technology, although that, too, creates exposure to potential vulnerabilities.

If cybersecurity is not protected appropriately, then millions of records could be at risk just like they were in 1973.

Strengthening information systems at Veterans Affairs will protect against cybersecurity threats, ransomware, insider threats, threats from foreign actors, phishing, and any other attacks that seek to cause harm.

Congress must require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to obtain an independent cybersecurity assessment of information systems at the Department of Veterans Affairs to ensure that this fragile information is protected.

This bill should be extremely important to all of us because it is personal. Many of our colleagues in Congress are veterans. Many of our neighbors are veterans or have family and friends who are veterans. They are our constituents, our community leaders, and often, our heroes and sheroes.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this critical bill that will safeguard the information of millions of veterans and their families.