Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6943, the bipartisan Public Safety Officer Support Act, which would expand the Public Safety Officer Benefits Program to include death benefits for the families of officers who die by suicide, and disability benefits for officers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and other trauma related disorders.

During Police Week, as we honor the men and women of law enforcement agencies who serve across the country, we must fully consider the sacrifices officers make and the risks they take to keep our communities safe.

Officers who dedicate their careers to our safety do so at the expense of spending long hours away from their families, while subjecting themselves to traumatic events, and in too many instances, making the ultimate sacrifice.

The Public Safety Officer Benefits program is an important initiative within the Department of Justice that provides financial support to officers, who are injured while serving their communities in the line of duty, and to families of officers killed in the line of duty.

In 2017, the Department of Justice approved 481 PSOB claims, but not a single claim for the over 240 public safety officers who died by suicide.

Unfortunately, the PSOB program does not currently cover injury or death caused by trauma and/or mental illness, although public safety officers are disproportionately exposed to traumatic events.

Research shows that law enforcement officers are called to the scene of roughly 140 traumatic incidents over the course of their careers.

The resulting rates of PTSD and depression among police officers and firefighters are unsurprisingly five times higher than among the civilian population.

While we have known for some time that law enforcement officers are more likely to die by suicide than by traffic accidents and shootings combined, officer suicides have increased over the last two years.

Sadly, several examples come to mind, including Amanda Crowder, a Harris County Deputy with the Harris County Sheriff's Office in Houston, who died in January after shooting herself; two deputies in St. Lucie County, Florida, who both died by suicide days apart, leaving behind their one-month-old son; and four police officers, of the Capitol Police and Washington Metropolitan Police Departments, who died by suicide after fighting valiantly to protect members of Congress and preserve the rule of law on January 6, 2021.

The families of the officers who died by suicide following the January 6th attack are likely barred from receiving any benefit from the PSOB program under current law.

The failure to provide PSOB benefits to deserving officers and their families under such circumstances is a deeply troubling limitation on federal support for first responders and their families that must be rectified.

And it is drastically different from the United States' military policy, where suicides are presumed to be line-of-duty deaths caused by post-traumatic stress, brain injuries, and other deployment hazards.

Now is the time for the Federal government to similarly support public safety officers suffering from trauma-related injuries and their families.

Expansion of the PSOB program would provide crucial financial support to officers and families grieving the devastating loss of a loved one, following a line of duty injury caused by trauma.

H.R. 6943 would correct a historic wrong by recognizing the impact of PTSD and other stress disorders on our public safety officers and expanding the eligibility of the PSOB program to include trauma-related injuries and death by suicide.

I thank Representatives David Trone and Guy Reschenthaler for introducing this thoughtful, bipartisan legislation and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 350, the ``Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2022.'' I am proudly supporting this critical measure and encourage my colleagues to do so, as well.

On this past Saturday, 13 people were shot and 10 were killed going about their daily lives at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York.

of those lost souls were Black.

We know from the racist, xenophobic screeds posted online by the perpetrator of this attack that this particular supermarket was targeted because it was located in a predominantly Black residential neighborhood.

Then, on Sunday, one person was killed and four people were critically injured at a church in Laguna Woods, California. It appears this attack was motivated by political hatred directed at the Taiwanese community.

We must respond to these brazen attacks because this country--our country--cannot continue down this hateful pathway.

H.R. 350, the bipartisan Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act, of which I am a cosponsor, will strengthen the federal government's efforts to respond to domestic terrorism, focusing primarily on the threat of white supremacy.

It is a necessary response to the elevated threat of violence posed by domestic violent extremists, as declared by the FBI--which we must not allow to continue.

Each component of this bill has been carefully tailored to address the inadequacies of our current approach to fighting domestic terrorism and white supremacy.

First, it would authorize the creation of dedicated offices within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the FBI to analyze, investigate, monitor, and prosecute domestic terrorism jointly; promote information sharing among federal law enforcement agencies; and take preventative measures, focusing federal resources on the most significant threats based on the data collected.

Second, DOJ, FBI, and DHS would be required to provide critical training and resources to help state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies focus on understanding, detecting, preventing, and preempting domestic terrorism.

Third, the bill would also require establishment of an interagency task force to address the chronic infiltration of Federal law enforcement agencies and the military by white supremacists and neo- Nazis and biannual reporting on the state of domestic terrorism threats.

Fourth, this bill does not create new criminal offenses, new lists of designated domestic terrorist groups, or new investigative powers for law enforcement.

And because the fight against terrorism should not encroach upon Constitutional protections, the bill makes clear that no provisions shall be construed to infringe upon rights protected by the First Amendment and requires that each report must include a certification that all civil rights and civil liberties laws and regulations were followed when conducting assessments and investigations.

We must better equip law enforcement in all communities, on the local and federal level, to collaborate effectively to identify domestic terror threats and thwart these cowardly attacks before they happen.

In the last decade, every ethnic group in the United States has been touched by the increase in domestic terrorism.

These tragedies and their circumstances are all too familiar--the shooting spree at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas which left twenty-two dead and twenty-four injured; the rampage at Pittsburgh's Tree of Life synagogue where eleven people were killed; the racist attack on the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin which left six people dead; the brutal murder of nine worshippers at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina; three Muslim college students executed in Chapel Hill, North Carolina supposedly over parking but tinged with hostility for the young people's ``look''; the spa shooter in Atlanta who killed eight people, including six women of Asian descent; and bomb threats repeatedly called into historically black colleges, universities, and places of worship during Black History Month this year.

This bill addresses a real problem that we can no longer ignore. Thoughts and prayers are not enough. It is time we do more to help root out domestic terrorism and white supremacy.

I would like to thank Representative Brad Schneider for his dedication to crafting this bill in a thoughtful, responsive manner.

I urge all members on both sides of the aisle to support this important legislation just as they did last Congress.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 350--Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2022, a bill that will counter domestic terrorism.

I am a cosponsor of H.R. 350, and I thank Chairman Thompson for his leadership of the Committee on Homeland Security and his efforts to prioritize the issue of domestic terrorism.

H.R. 350 would authorize a dedicated domestic terrorism office within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) responsible for identifying and analyzing domestic terrorism activity in keeping with existing authorities and would codify in statute the establishment of dedicated offices within the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to investigate and prosecute domestic terrorism.

Domestic terrorism has posed a growing threat over the past decade. FBI Director Wray, when testifying before the House Committees on Homeland Security and Judiciary warned about this escalating threat, including in congressional testimony.

In 2017, Director Wray characterized domestic terrorism as a ``very serious'' issue and noted that the FBI had approximately 1,000 open domestic terrorism investigations, approximately the same as the number of FBI's investigations into U.S.-based individuals inspired by foreign terrorist organizations.

In 2018, Director Wray warned that ``law enforcement, racial minorities, and the U.S. Government will continue to be significant targets for many domestic extremist movements.''

In 2021, Director Wray stated that the domestic terrorism threat is ``metastasizing across the country.''

In response to the Biden Administration's direction to produce a comprehensive assessment of domestic terrorism threats, the Intelligence Community and law enforcement concluded in March 2021 that domestic violent extremists ``pose an elevated threat to the Homeland.''

No matter what other challenges might emerge we must never forget that one of our nation's greatest threats comes from our struggle against violent extremism that began on September 11, 2001 and has extended to violent extremist living among us who use political affiliation as a justification for acts of terror.

September 11, 2001 remains a tragedy that defines our nation's history, but the final chapter will be written by those who are charged with keeping our nation and its people safe while preserving the way of life that terrorists sought to change.

I was at the September 11, 2021 commemoration held in New York last year and reflected on the twenty years since that day of the attacks.

Since September 11, 2001, it has been a priority of this nation to prevent terrorists, or those who would do American's harm, from boarding flights whether they are domestic or international.

Over the nearly twenty years since enactment of the Homeland Security Act, the mission of the Department of Homeland Security has expanded to include cyber defense of civilian agency and private sector networks; protecting critical infrastructure in the form of the nation's electric grid, water delivery systems, transportation networks and federal election systems; and most recently managing the question of essential workers during this pandemic.

Annually the Committee on Homeland Security has held a hearing on the topic of Worldwide Threats to Homeland Security, which have covered a range of topics from terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and ISIS, to home grown involving Lone Wolves and White Supremacists.

The mission of the Committee on Homeland Security has been and will continue to be on the nearly 3,000 people who died on September 11, 2001, and whom we owe a debt to do all that we can to prevent another attack on United States soil.

The escalation in violent domestic attacks since the January 6 attack has particularly been felt by our nation's law enforcement officers, but others as well in the rise in murder and assaults across the nation.

Today, we find ourselves in a nation where the terrorism landscape is more complex and it is imperative that we recognize the unorthodox nature of the terrorism threat we face today.

The current terrorism threat landscape has three major drivers of heightened threat:

(1) the convergence of extremist ideologies;

(2) the speed at which individuals who ascribe to extremist ideologies escalate to violence;

(3) and the enormous growth of misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information.

The fringe ideologies that have adherents that move from group to group complicates the work of counterterrorism investigations, operations, and policy making because the focus would be on means and methods, understanding the hagiarchy of an organization, then moving to nullify threats before they manifest into acts of physical violence.

Research shows that ``over the past roughly 15 years, the average time span of radicalization in the U.S. has shrunk from 18 months to 7 months.''

As Director Wray said in a hearing before the Committee in September 2020, domestic violent extremists ``can go from radicalization to mobilization in weeks, if not days.''

The speed and ease of the proliferation of misinformation, disinformation mal-information is unprecedented joined with the mass invitation to willing minds to commit acts of violence based on information is unprecedented.

Misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information proliferate on the internet and build bridges between conspiracy theory and violent extremism.

According to research by the Soufan Group, ``algorithms employed by social media companies to generate continued engagement with platforms are partly responsible for radicalizing individuals to support QAnon,'' with anti-Semitism serving as a bridge between QAnon and white supremacy extremism.

The non-profit research group Tech Against Terrorism issued a report finding that ``terrorist

and violent extremist operated websites from across the ideological spectrum . . . pose one of the most significant threats to global efforts in tackling terrorist use of the internet by governments, the tech sector, law enforcement and NGOs.

While mis-, dis-, or mal-information may not in and of itself constitute terrorist content, conspiracy theories in such information may propel terrorists and violent extremists to action.

Misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information undermine homeland security and law enforcement efforts to combat violent extremism.

Misinformation and false narratives in political discourse, news media, and online have increased support for political violence.

The availability of extremist content online means that today, ``everyone is just a few clicks away from an ever-expanding series of rabbit holes that offer up whole worlds of disinformation and hate.''

In January 2021, President Biden initiated a 100-day comprehensive review of Federal efforts to address domestic terrorism.

The review found that racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists who advocate for the superiority of the white race and anti- government or anti-authority violent extremists are the two most lethal elements of today's terrorism threat, and as a result of that review, in June 2021 the Biden Administration released the first-ever National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism.

It is a comprehensive strategy for addressing the threat posed by domestic violent extremists and recognizes that online narratives promoting attacks on U.S. citizens, institutions, and critical infrastructure are a key factor driving radicalization and mobilization to violence.

Under the Strategy, DHS is responsible for preventing terrorism and I targeted violence, including through threat assessments, grants, and community-based prevention programs; enhancing public awareness; assessing, evaluating, and mitigating the 'risk of violence inspired by violent extremist narratives, including those narratives shared via online platforms; and establishing partnerships with nongovernmental organizations.

In May 2021, DHS announced the establishment of the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships (CP3), which would help the Department combat terrorism and targeted violence.

The City of Houston's Mayor's Office of Public Safety and Homeland Security (MOPSHS) is a recipient of $603,855.00 and has used the funds to reengage the cities community partners to form a coalition that will share information, assess threats, and be a resource to the community.

The city will work with the Texas Educational Service Center to develop a curriculum to educate students about radicalization to violence, media literacy, and bias.

According to CSIS, White supremacists, extremist militia members, and other violent far-right extremists were responsible for 66 percent of domestic terrorist attacks and plots in 2020.

On June 7, Harry H. Rogers--a self-proclaimed leader of the Ku Klux Klan--intentionally drove his pick-up truck into a crowd of Black Lives Matter demonstrators in Henrico, Virginia. One protester was injured, and Rogers received a six-year prison sentence.

In another case a Nevada man used an armored truck to block traffic on the Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge and held up signs--then he fled to Arizona where he was arrested.

At the time of his arrest he referenced QAnon conspiracy theories and discussed related conspiratorial beliefs.

No matter what other challenges might emerge, we must never forget that one of our nation's greatest threats comes from our struggle against violent extremism that began on September 11, 2001 and has extended to violent extremists living among us who use political affiliation as a justification for acts of terror.

I ask fellow members of the House to join me in voting in favor of

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 7791, Access to Baby Formula Act, a bill to amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to establish waiver authority to address certain emergencies, disasters, and supply chain disruptions.

I am a cosponsor of H.R. 7791, and I thank my good friend and colleague Congresswoman Jahana Hayes for introducing this important bill that addresses the ongoing national crisis in shortages of infant baby formula.

I serve on the House Committees on the Budget and Homeland Security both of which have oversight or funding responsibilities for addressing this current crisis.

Many parents know there has been a short supply of baby formula nationwide for months, due to pandemic-related supply chain issues.

That shortage is now a crisis after four children became sick, and two died, after suspected bacterial contamination of formula which originated from Abbott Nutrition's formula plant in Sturgis, Michigan.

This key bill will help improve access to infant formula for vulnerable families during the infant formula shortage crisis.

Infant formula is essential to a baby's early life and development.

The shortage of infant formula has disproportionately affected women and children who rely on WIC benefits to purchase infant formula.

Over fifty percent of the infant formula produced in the United States goes to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (commonly known as the WIC program).

The infant formula shortage crisis has taken a especially dangerous toll on women and children from underserved communities who use WIC benefits to access infant formula.

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) helps ensure the health and well-being of low-income women, infants, and children up to ages five who are at an increased nutritional risk.

WIC participation has been associated with improved infant health outcomes--including reduced infant mortality and reduced disparities in hospitalization rates among black and Latino infants.

WIC serves to safeguard the health of low-income women, infants, and children younger than 5 who are at nutritional risk.

About half of infant formula sold nationwide is purchased with WIC benefits.

The baby formula shortage is hitting poorer communities disproportionately hard.

According to an article from CNN, about half of WIC beneficiaries lost access to baby formula when their major supplier, Abbott Nutrition, recalled their products.

The shortage has left all parents with less choices and is adding further pressure to already existing economic disparities.

Recently, I partnered with the National Association of Christian Churches to distribute baby formula to 800 desperate parents at Jack Yates High School to provide help to parents with the greatest need in Houston.

Ovie and Mikayla Cade were two parents of the hundreds that came to the school for formula to feed their baby and looked to Jack Yates High School for relief.

The baby formula give-away provided short-term relief to parents in search of formula to feed their babies.

That is why for the time being I plan to reach out to national disaster organizations to pull together resources to provide immediate support for these families.

This shortage transcends state lines and requires a joint effort on all fronts to get these infants the nutrition they need as quickly as possible.

This bill provides the Department of Agriculture (USDA) the authority to waive certain requirements so that vulnerable families in the WIC program can continue purchasing other safe and available infant formula products with their WIC benefits during extenuating circumstances, such as a public health emergency or supply chain disruption.

The current WIC program has restrictions on which infant formula products a WIC participant can purchase using their WIC benefits.

WIC has limited the types and form of baby formula that can be purchased by families by only allowing powder formula.

The current crisis is an opportunity to remove this limitation on the types of baby formula available to parents and focus on the nutritional needs of babies.

The bill will also ensure that WIC participants are better protected during a product recall.

This is the first time in recorded memory that our nation has had a substantial shortage of infant formula.

Babies are in need and parents and caregivers are desperate to find formula to feed their children.

As the founder and Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I have worked to address the needs of women, families, and children.

Currently, the nationwide out-of-stock rate for baby formula has reached a high of 43 percent.

According to CBS News, more than half of all baby formula products available in Texas are completely sold out, with an out-of-stock rate at 52.5 percent in Houston.

Infants must eat every three to four hours and their formula or breast milk must have certain nutrients in order to provide them with essential nutrition for their growth and development.

The fact that formula feeding exists on a continuum with breast feeding.

There is no substitute for formula feeding because only 1 in 4 infants breastfeed exclusively.

For parents who depend on baby formula either out of choice or necessity, this crisis has the potential of impacting an entire generation of infants for the rest of their lives.

Desperation is overwhelming parents, and some are turning to making their own baby formula at home.

Pediatricians caution against homemade baby formula as it runs the risk of not providing the right amount of nutrients necessary for healthy development.

This crisis was triggered by a manufacturing recall and subsequent closure of a major manufacturing plant as well as pandemic-related supply chain issues.

Specifically, on February 17, Abbott Nutrition--the largest infant formula manufacturer in the country--initiated a voluntary recall of several lines of powdered formula (including Similac, Alimentum, and EleCare) and subsequently closed its large manufacturing facility in Sturgis, Michigan.

The recall and closure of the plant happened because of concerns about bacterial infection at the Sturgis manufacturing facility after four infants fell ill and two died.

Also, at the time of the recall, FDA issued a warning to consumers not to use these recalled products.

President Biden has directed his Administration to work urgently to ensure that infant formula is safe and available for families across the country during the Abbott Nutrition voluntary recall.

Yesterday President Biden spoke with retailers and manufacturers-- including the CEOs of Walmart, Target, Reckett, and Gerber--and called on them to do more to help families purchase infant formula.

President Biden also announced additional steps to get infant formula onto store shelves as quickly as possible without compromising safety. These steps include:

Cutting red tape to get more infant formula to store shelves quicker by urging states to provide consumers flexibility on types of formula they can buy with WIC dollars

Calling on the FTC and state attorneys general to crack down on any price gouging or unfair market practices related to sales of infant formula, like third party sellers re-selling formula at steep prices

The Biden-Harris Administration will continue to monitor the situation and identify other ways it can support the safe and rapid increase in the production and distribution of baby formula.

As a result, more infant formula has been produced in the last four weeks than in the four weeks preceding the recall--despite one of the largest infant formula production facilities in the U.S. being offline.

The CDC has ended its investigation and directs consumers to the Abbott website to get information on the lots recalled and not recommended for use.

The baby formula shortage is not over and the Congress and the Administration must work together to find the solutions parents need to have access to baby formula to feed their infants.

This is not an issue that parents can easily solve at home.

I ask fellow members of the House to join me in voting in favor of

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 7790, the Infant Formula Supplemental Appropriations Act which would provide $28 million in emergency supplemental appropriations to address the shortage of infant formula in the United States.

I thank my good friend and colleague, Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro, for introducing this important bill that addresses the ongoing national crisis in shortages of infant baby formula.

The bill provides appropriations for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to:

address the current shortage of FDA-regulated infant formula and certain medical foods in the United States; and

prevent future shortages by taking necessary steps to block fraudulent products from entering the U.S. market.

This is the first time in recorded memory that our Nation has had a substantial shortage of infant formula.

Babies are in need and parents and caregivers are desperate to find formula to feed their children.

As the founder and Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I have worked to address the needs of women, families, and children.

On Saturday, May 14, 2022, I hosted a baby formula giveaway and was joined by the National Association of Christian Churches (NACC), a 501(c)(3) organization to provide free baby formula to eight hundred families in need of formula for the babies.

The formula provided would only last a few days, but it was important because it gave families a few more days to find more formula for their children.

I am in strong support of this bill and H.R. 7791, a bill to amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to establish waiver authority to address certain emergencies, disasters, and supply chain disruptions, which includes providing relief during this baby formula crisis.

I serve on the House Committees on the Budget and Homeland Security, both of which have oversight or funding responsibilities for addressing this current crisis.

As many parents know, there has been a short supply of baby formula nationwide for months, due to pandemic-related supply chain issues.

That shortage is now a crisis after four children became sick, and two died, after suspected bacterial contamination of formula which originated from Abbott Nutrition's formula plant in Sturgis, Michigan.

The FDA's Coordinated Outbreak Response and Evaluation (CORE) Network, along with the CDC and state and local partners investigated the issue.

According to the FDA, CORE is no longer investigating the incident, but the FDA established an Incident Management Group (IMG) on April 1, to continue to work on supply chain and food safety issues.

Although the source of the contamination has been determined and the investigation has ended, the baby formula shortage problems continue to remain around the country, and the recall is still in effect.

Currently, the nationwide out-of-stock rate for baby formula has reached a high of 43 percent.

Over fifty percent of the infant formula produced in the United States goes to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (commonly known as the WIC program).

WIC serves to safeguard the health of low-income women, infants, and children younger than 5 who are at nutritional risk.

Infants must eat every three to four hours and their formula or breast milk must have certain nutrients in order to provide them with essential nutrition for their growth and development.

Oftentimes, formula feeding exists on a continuum with breast feeding.

There is no substitute for formula feeding because only 1 in 4 infants breastfeed exclusively.

For parents who depend on baby formula either out of choice or necessity, this crisis has the potential of impacting an entire generation of infants for the rest of their lives.

Desperation is overwhelming parents, and some are turning to making their own baby formula at home.

Pediatricians caution against homemade baby formula as it runs the risk of not providing the right amount of nutrients necessary for healthy development.

Not having the correct formula can put a child's physical and mental development at risk due to malnourishment that could occur if the formula is not correct.

This is not an issue that parents can easily solve at home.

This places the onus on the manufacturers of baby formula and the Congress to handle the supply chain issues to deliver formula to parents and caregivers as quickly as possible.

This bill would give money to ensure that already existing formula brands are safe and can return to shelves as soon as possible.

According to CBS News, more than half of all baby formula products available in Texas are completely sold out, with an out-of-stock rate at 52.5 percent in Houston.

The baby formula shortage is hitting poorer communities disproportionately hard.

According to an article from CNN, about half of WIC beneficiaries lost access to baby formula when their major supplier, Abbott Nutrition, recalled their products.

The shortage has left all parents with less choices and is adding further pressure to already existing economic disparities.

Recently, I partnered with the National Association of Christian Churches to distribute baby formula at Jack Yates High School to my constituents in Houston.

Ovie and Mikayla Cade are just two of the many parents that have been struggling to feed their baby and looked to the drive for much needed support.

A drive like this provides short-term relief for an issue that requires institutional action to create long-term changes.

That is why for the time being I plan to reach out to national disaster organizations to pull together resources to provide immediate support for these families.

This shortage transcends state lines and requires a joint effort on all fronts to get these infants the nutrition they need as quickly as possible.

I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 7790 for the Infant Formula Supplemental Appropriations Act.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 7309 is truly transformational legislation that will have a profound impact on workforce development and job skills training for decades to come. By virtue of this legislation, the American economy will be well positioned for success in emerging industries as well as traditional jobs in an increasingly competitive global landscape.

With the new initiatives and support for state and local efforts that this bill provides, more institutions will be able to provide education and job training services; a wider range of curricula will be available that enables learners to become job-ready; and more Americans will be equipped with skills that will jump-start long-term careers.

Very importantly, this bill will extend the reach of job skills training and employment preparation to all corners of the country and all segments of society. It does so by creating vital national programs and instituting accountability systems that will monitor program operations and success.

This legislation also ensures that students will have access to training through online digital platforms. Use of e-learning opens the doors for education even where cultural barriers and long distances from brick-and-mortar institutes often had the effect of excluding many Americans.

As enthusiastic as I am about this legislation and its comprehensive approach toward elevating our country's workforce preparation infrastructure, there are additional elements that I believed were necessary. We must ensure that diversity, inclusion, and equity are always cornerstones of our economy and society; and ensure that this bill will prepare all demographic groups with our workforce for success in key industries that are vital to our nation's future economy.

As a result, I submitted amendments to the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, and I am delighted that the Rules Committee agreed that these were important additions to H.R. 7309. I would like to share a few thoughts with my colleagues and the American people about my two amendments which are being considered by the House of Representatives today.

My first amendment stems from my fervent and long-held belief that women and girls should have a level playing field for any type of study, job, or career. Throughout my life, I have fought for women and girls to have equal opportunity to learn in classrooms, excel in workplaces, and achieve in life.

Where women faced walls, I sought to tear down the walls or lean a ladder against them to climb over. When girls were being discouraged from educational or career pursuits, I set out to change mindsets. When females faced biases or glass ceilings that restrained success, I organized and marched to level the playing field.

As a result, my first amendment would ensure that women and girls are encouraged to enroll for STEM education, that is, the study of science, technology, engineering, and math. These subjects are the key to success in a vast range of industries and professions, especially in this advanced era in which information and technology propels most innovations and program. Women and girls must be welcomed for a seat at those tables, which will dramatically impact gender equality over time.

In addition to being encouraged to enroll, I believe girls and women should receive priority for both the study of these fields and the jobs and careers that await them, and that support services should be provided to them along the way to help ensure their success. The days of male-dominated stem-based industries must be relegated to history books, as that bias has no place in modern America.

Because of entrenched, long-standing discrimination against women and girls, not only do we need equality; we also need equity. In other words, more must be done to right the wrongs of the past, prioritize participation by women and girls, and fast-track us for promotions, advancement, and success.

My second amendment is rooted in similar concerns. It insists that this legislation help all Americans, specifically communities of color that historically did not benefit equally from workforce development and job skills training programs. My amendment would ensure that HBCUs and other minority-serving educational institutions are eligible and encouraged to apply for maximal benefits under H.R. 7309's programs.

Moreover, beyond just equality, the job training and workforce development programs at these institutions should be given priority in order to promote equity for students whose ancestors were denied that right. H.R. 7309 can be the impetus for a fresh start.

By including and prioritizing HBCUs and other minority-serving institutions, the institutionalized barriers which impeded generational prosperity will be eroded, even if only incrementally and over many years. By leveling the playing field, the imbalance of generational wealth will also be rectified.

Madam Speaker, I believe these two amendments are central to the purpose of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, and will strengthen the bill both legislatively and in practice across the country. Diversity and inclusion must always be a priority particularly in future high-growth industries that are essential to our nation's long-term economic growth, success, and and job creation strategy.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Jayapal and Congresswoman Maloney, for leading today's special order on the threat to reproductive rights and the devastating impact that the loss of our rights would have on communities and families.

Reproductive rights have constantly been at risk since Roe vs. Wade became the law of the land almost 50 years ago. But never have they been in jeopardy as much as they are today.

The recent disclosure of the U.S. Supreme Court's draft opinion in the Dobbs case shows just how precarious reproductive rights are in the United States.

By imposing their personal views and impetuous whim, the five justices who support that opinion could eliminate essential rights that are Constitutionally protected, relied upon by American society, and supported overwhelmingly by the American people.

Yet, these five Supreme Court Justices--who embody antiquated, regressive views--could turn the clock back to days when women did not have the right to control their bodies or their reproductive health.

In fact, by basing the draft opinion on a strict textualist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, the five renegades would be issuing an opinion that reverses a whole roster of Constitutionally protected rights, even beyond reversing Roe vs. Wade.

If the draft opinion is issued, these five jurists would be doing exactly what they testified under oath at their confirmation hearings that they would not do. It seems clear to me that they were not forthcoming--even worse, they were not truthful--when they testified to the U.S. Senate under penalty of perjury.

The myopic rationale on which the draft opinion is based reveals a lack of fidelity to the principle of stare decisis, despite the claims to the contrary that each of the five made when asked about the Roe case at their confirmation hearings.

Equally tragically, if the draft opinion in the Dobbs case becomes law without major changes, it will open the floodgates for states to curtail women's reproductive rights in myriad nefarious ways. Many states have already enacted laws which severely restrict access to abortions and other reproductive rights, and many more have accelerated the process to follow that path.

These are tragically just the latest in a long history of conservative efforts to marginalize women by eliminating our reproductive rights. These draconian efforts have an impact that disrupts every aspect of women's lives, extending to their educational plans, economic status, career paths, family choices, and role in society.

Restrictions on reproductive rights have a disproportionate effect on low-income individuals and women of color.

Low-income individuals and people of color face a range of worse health outcomes than higher income individuals and white people.

These worse outcomes are the result of higher barriers to quality health care, higher rates of stress, poorer living and working conditions, and, for people of color, racial discrimination.

People of color and low-income individuals, experience the highest rates of unintended pregnancy, partially because of barriers to accessing quality family planning services and contraception, lack of insurance coverage, and, for racial minorities, discrimination in health care.

Because of this, low-income people and people of color have higher rates of abortion, as abortion rates mirror rates of unintended pregnancy.

According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 2018 the reported legal abortions in Texas broken down by race were:

White: 27 percent

African American: 27 percent

Hispanic: 39 percent

Other: 7 percent

Because people of color are disproportionately low income, they are also disproportionately impacted by abortion restrictions: policies such as early abortion bans, and mandatory waiting periods disproportionately hurt people of color, who are less likely to be able to miss work to travel to far-away clinics. Abortion restrictions put the health of people of color at risk.

According to the CDC, Black, American Indian, and Alaska Native pregnant people are nearly two to three times as likely to die from pregnancy-related complications than white people.

A new study by Dr. David Eisenberg, a board-certified obstetrician- gynecologist, estimates that Texas SB 8's new restrictions on women's health could cause increases in maternal mortality of up to 15 percent overall, and up to 33 percent for Black women next year.

Texas Senate Bill 8, or the ``Texas Heartbeat Act'' which has recently been passed in my home state restricts access to abortion and is one of the harshest laws regarding abortion access in the Nation.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, before the ban, the average woman of childbearing age in Texas lived 17 miles from the nearest abortion provider, now, the average driving distance is 247 miles.

This ban is a clear violation of the right to abortion established by the Supreme Court's landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

The Roe Court rooted its decision in the right to personal privacy, connecting it to other fundamental rights of self-determination such as the freedom to marry, the freedom to procreate or use contraception, and the right to make one's own decisions about child rearing and education.

The Roe Court also rejected the argument that an embryo or fetus constitutes a ``person'' for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Nearly two decades later, in 1992, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the basic right to terminate a pregnancy but weakened Constitutional safeguards surrounding abortion in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.

However, the Casey Court concluded that states could enact certain types of pre-viability regulations to protect fetal life, holding that abortion, ``the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,'' is only protected ``where state regulation imposes an undue burden on a woman's ability to make this decision.''

In the decades following Casey, many states sought to reduce or eliminate abortions: Texas, for example, passed a law requiring abortion clinics to meet ambulatory surgical center standards even though other providers of procedures such as colonoscopies and liposuction--which have far higher mortality rates--were subject to none of the same regulations .

In 2016, the Supreme Court in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt held by a margin of 5-4 that this Texas law was unconstitutional, and also struck down a provision of the same law that required physicians performing abortions in Texas to have active admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their facilities.

Today, we see the state of Texas once again attempting to curtail women's constitutional right to terminate pregnancy through SB 8.

SB 8 bans abortions at around six weeks into the gestation period, when fetal cardiac activity can be detected, which falls before many people even know that they are pregnant.

The bill doesn't stop there, as the enforcement of the law by private citizens is incentivized.

This law places a bounty on people seeking healthcare--a minimum of $10,000 plus costs and attorneys' fees--to the individual who successfully brings a suit under the law's private right of action.

Not since the Fugitive Slave Act has a law been enacted that turns people into bounty hunters to hunt people for profit in the pursuit of enforcement of an unjust immoral law.

This empowers any private citizen--including but not limited to, antichoice extremists, ex-partners, assaulters, and strangers--to sue any person or organization that helps someone access abortion care after about six weeks of pregnancy.

SB 8 promotes, encourages, and will lead to vigilante justice, which many anti-choice organizations and activists actively try to deny. The law, and how it is enforced, is purposefully designed to have a chilling effect on a deeply private decision.

The private right of action also provides a tool for harassing abortion providers with costly lawsuits, discouraging them from providing services, and limiting access to reproductive healthcare.

As anti-choice activists continue to face questions and criticism, they will continue to

distort the reality of the law and deflect attention from its enforcement mechanism.

However, the effect of the enforcement mechanism is already in the making, as anti-abortion groups in Texas have already set up anonymous tip lines to allow individuals to act on their vigilante desires to punish people for making a personal decision.

This is why, in October 2021, I introduced H.R. 5710, the ``Preventing Vigilante Stalking that Stops Women's Access to Healthcare and Abortion Rights Act of 2021''; my Senate companion bill S.3057 .

This bicameral bill will enhance criminal penalties under the federal stalking statute if the stalking is done with the intent to prevent or report on a woman's health decisions. This bill does not include any mandatory minimums.

The ``Preventing Vigilante Stalking that Stops Women's Access to Healthcare and Abortion Rights Act of 2021'' will save lives--not only for women seeking essential healthcare services; it would also stop the threats poised by abusive partners who may feel emboldened by this heinous Texas law.

Thus far, SB 8 has accomplished exactly what it was meant to: the law's in terrorem effect has forced women to flee the state in order to obtain a safe and legal abortion.

For example, at 21 years old, Texas college student Madi was a senior in college when she discovered that she was pregnant. Madi was in a committed relationship and on birth control, and did not experience any early pregnancy signs until the nine-week mark, which she initially chalked up to the typical stress of being a senior and starting a new semester.

Madi immediately began to research nearby clinics across state lines, because SB8 prevented her from obtaining an abortion in Texas.

Madi called more than 30 clinics in Louisiana, Alabama, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Nevada--they were all booked for weeks.

Eventually, Madi was able to obtain an appointment at Jackson Women's Health in Mississippi, more than 400 miles away.

Another example is Ianthe Davis, who at just over six weeks pregnant ended her bartending shift at 4 a.m. one morning in Dallas in order to drive three three hours up Interstate 35 to Trust Women clinic in Oklahoma City.

She was treated by Dr. Rebecca Taub, an obstetrician and gynecologist who travels once a month from California to perform abortions for women.

After the procedure, Davis drove home; according to Davis on the need for the procedure, ``If I don't work, I don't make money.''

A Texas woman, an Oklahoma clinic, a California doctor: this scene offers a snapshot of the landscape under this horrific Texas law that bans nearly all abortions after an embryonic heartbeat is detected.

And there is Dr. Alan Braid, who was sued in Arkansas and Illinois for carrying out an abortion on a woman who was in the early stages of her pregnancy but beyond the six-week limit set by the law.

Dr. Braid, who has been practicing medicine for nearly 50 years, wrote in a September 18 opinion column in the Washington post that: ``I acted because I had a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients, and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care.''

As Dr. Braid demonstrates, this law places doctors in the impossible position of either obeying an unjust law or upholding their Hippocratic oath.

In addition to this heinous privatization of vigilante bounty hunters, the law has an enforcement mechanism that is uniquely crafted to be difficult to challenge in court.

Unlike other laws that restrict abortion access, SB 8 does not allow for any state officials to enforce the statute.

Rather, the lone enforcement mechanism is a private right of action that allows any individual who knowingly engages in or intends to engage in ``conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion'' in violation of the six-week ban.

SB 8's enforcement structure represents a deliberate and disturbing effort by the State of Texas to evade judicial scrutiny long enough for a clearly unconstitutional law to take effect. Through this enforcement mechanism, a deeply troubling precedent is set.

This precedent could be followed by other states aiming to undermine the constitutional right to abortion, but for any state efforts to undermine any other of our rights protected by the constitution.

If this enforcement mechanism found in SB 8 is to stay, the similar measures can be utilized by any state in order to slowly chip away at constitutional rights.

This bill also willfully ignores the fact that many women will not know they are pregnant at the six-week mark, and this will disproportionately effect women who are struggling to make ends meet, and women of color.

Even if a woman did know that she was pregnant within the narrow six- week period allowed by SB 8, it is not always possible for someone to get an abortion as soon as they have made that decision.

Many things can stand in their way, from not being able to afford it, travel distance to a clinic, not being able to get off work, or barriers put in place by politicians, such as bans on abortion coverage; or they may get new information about their health or their pregnancy.

Ensuring that everyone can get reproductive health care, including abortion is part of addressing racial and economic injustice.

Our Nation is amid a racial reckoning and transformation and we must unite against racism and discrimination and this will always include ending policies that deny people equitable access to healthcare, including abortion.

Forcing someone to continue a pregnancy against their will is simply a violation of their rights and their basic humanity.

The deeply private decision-making process of accessing abortion care is essential to women's bodily autonomy, and SB 8 greatly infringes on that of the people in my home state.

One of the most important and consequential decisions we as people ever make is whether we become parents, and these restrictions were designed to control, dehumanize, and criminalize women and their doctors.

We need to ensure that all people have access to the reproductive health care that they need, including access to abortion.

Once someone has decided to seek abortion care, I want them to be able to have access to safe and affordable medical care. I want them to be supported, not restricted by laws that dictate their decision or place unnecessary barriers on the process.

The decision to have an abortion should happen between those seeking abortions, and their doctors--there is no place for the Governor of Texas, the Texas Legislation, or any other individual to control this private decision.

The Texan government needs to trust people to make decisions for their own lives, their own bodies, and their own futures, and I trust Texans to always do what is right for themselves and those they love.

Those seeking abortion should not be punished or shamed for having an abortion but supported and treated with compassion.

SB 8 and other laws like it are the antithesis to what this country is supposed to be about, which is having the freedom to make your own life.

I have heard some say that this bill is popular in Texas, and that is not the case.

A poll done by NPR found that a clear majority of Americans, specifically 59 percent of Republicans, 61 of Democrats and 53 percent of independents, oppose a ban on abortions at the 6-8 week mark.

Furthermore, the poll found that 74 percent of those polled opposed legal action by private citizens--which broken down was 57 percent of Republicans, 90 percent of Democrats, and 74 percent of Independents.

To say this legislation is popular or is at the wishes of the constituents is a lie.

It's egregious to be focused on outlawing something that most Americans believe should be a personal decision, as a pandemic ravages our communities and basic health care needs go unmet.

Madam Speaker, I thank the manager of the legislation and chairman of the committee for this important legislation.

The Community Services Block Grant Modernization Act is extremely important. As we all know, this bipartisan bill will bring about an enhanced ability to serve the community.

The CSBG moneys are particularly important not only to rural areas but to urban areas. They are important as they relate to many issues, such as in my community dealing with overcoming disasters. Those dollars are utilized to ensure housing.

I include in the Record an article entitled, ``Black communities are last in line for disaster planning in Texas'' and an article entitled, ``5 years after Hurricane Harvey, many in Houston are still waiting for help.''

[From the Washington Post, May 12, 2022]

Black Communities Are Last in Line for Disaster Planning in Texas

Houston.--Lawrence Hester worries every time it rains.

During heavy storms, water overflows the dirt drainage

ditch fronting his yard and the bayou at the end of his

block--flooding the street, creeping up his front steps,

pooling beneath the house, and trapping his family inside.

``We are always underwater here,'' said Hester, 61.

And yet, the state of Texas allocated none of the $1

billion in federal funds it received to protect communities

from future disasters to neighborhoods in Houston that flood

regularly, according to an investigation by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development.

HUD has now found the exclusion of those majority Black and

Hispanic urban communities to be discriminatory. The state

``shifted money away from the areas and people that needed it

the most,'' disproportionately benefiting White residents

living in smaller towns, the agency concluded.

Houston has faced seven federally declared disasters in the

last seven years and suffered an estimated $2 billion in

damage from Hurricane Harvey in 2017. That storm devastated

Kashmere Gardens, where Hester has lived his entire life. The

floodwaters from Harvey deposited black mold throughout

Hester's home and left his daughter chronically short of

breath.

The state, which is appealing HUD's findings, denied

discriminating, saying the Texas General Land Office

administered the federal grant program based on HUD approval.

The situation in Texas illustrates the challenge facing the

Biden administration, which has pledged to focus on racial

equity but is struggling to protect low-income communities of

color from the growing threat of climate change. Even after

HUD's finding of discrimination, the agency said it does not

have the power at this time to suspend the rest of the $4.3

billion in disaster mitigation money awarded to the state

under criteria approved by the Trump administration.

``What is happening here with these federal dollars going

through the state and not one dime coming to the City of

Houston post-Hurricane Harvey is absolutely crazy, and it

cannot be justified,'' said Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner.

``What do I say to the people in Kashmere Gardens when these

storms keep coming, and we are not putting in the

infrastructure that they desperately need to mitigate the

risk of future flooding?''

Black and Hispanic communities in northeast Houston,

including Kashmere Gardens, are especially vulnerable to the

more frequent storms and catastrophic flooding expected due

to climate change, according to the Federal Emergency

Management Agency. Many of the residential streets lack curbs

and gutters--common storm drainage infrastructure in

predominantly White neighborhoods in Houston--and rely

instead on open ditches dating back to the 1930s.

``Sometimes we can't get out because the water is so

high,'' said Jackie Spradley, Hester's wife. ``You're

literally trapped until the water starts to subside.'' She

can't get to work. Their 12-year-old daughter can't get to

school.

The whoosh of traffic and trains permeates the triangular

neighborhood of modest single-family homes penned between two

highways and two sets of railroad tracks. During large

storms, runoff from impervious highway surfaces flows onto

residential streets.

Piles of trash--old tires, mattresses, furniture, home

insulation--accumulate for weeks in the drainage ditches

along many streets, blocking water from flowing through the

ditches to the bayou. Silt and other debris clog many of the

culverts beneath narrow driveways and footpaths spanning the

ditches. In the summers, standing water breeds mosquitoes.

The city of Houston had hoped to use $95 million in federal

grants to upgrade Kashmere Gardens' storm drainage

infrastructure. The proposed improvements, including

converting some of the ditches to a curb and gutter system,

would have removed the flood risk to nearly 1,400 properties.

But without the money, the city shelved those plans.

Hester's daughter Ashlei was 7 years old in 2017 when

Harvey floodwaters breached their family room, lapping at the

legs of the card table on which the family played dominoes.

Her cough worsened, and doctors prescribed four different

medications for asthma. She was hospitalized in 2018 for

more than a week. But doctors still did not know what was

causing her illness.

It wasn't until December 2019, more than two years after

Harvey, when Hester and his wife discovered the black mold

that was making their daughter so sick. A city inspector

recommended that the house be condemned.

``I was so ashamed,'' Hester said. ``We didn't have nowhere

else to go.''

His mother had purchased the home in 1960, paying the

mortgage with wages from her job flipping burgers 16 hours a

day. Hester was born in the house months later.

He had stayed in the house after Hurricane Alicia flooded

the home in 1983. And after Ike in 2008. Even after Harvey,

Hester stayed, hoping to someday pass the three-bedroom

ranch-style home onto his daughter.

But Hester, who is on disability for herniated disks in his

back and neck from his years as a long-haul truck driver, and

his wife, who sells insurance, never had the money to

adequately repair the storm-ravaged roof and mold-covered

walls.

Hester said the city informed him after Harvey that he was

ineligible for funding to fix the home because of unpaid

property taxes.

``It's not just about the storm drainage,'' Hester said.

``It's about everything.''

Hester said that the rainbow-hued oily waters he had

splashed in while playing in the drainage ditches as a child

had been polluted with cancer-causing creosote used to treat

wooden railroad ties and utility poles. A 2019 state health

department investigation confirmed elevated cancer rates

among residents in the southern end of Kashmere Gardens,

located near two Superfund sites. Residents fear that

flooding will carry toxic deposits into their yards.

Hester's mother had died of cancer. So had his father. And

one of his brothers. ``Cancer is killing the whole

neighborhood,'' said Hester, who is too afraid to visit the

doctor about his own health problems.

Federal disaster mitigation grants are supposed to improve

the inferior flood infrastructure in lower income

communities. But the HUD investigation found that competition

rules set by the Texas General Land Office unfairly favored

smaller towns with less urgent needs and where residents are

more likely to be White and less likely to be lower income.

The state knowingly adopted scoring criteria that

prioritized lower-density areas and excluded communities that

HUD designated as the most impacted by disasters from half

the grants, HUD said.

``Because the criteria had these unjustified discriminatory

effects, their use failed to comply with HUD's regulations,''

the agency found.

No other state adopted Texas' method of distributing the

funds, according to HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal

Opportunity. The agency concluded that without Texas's

discriminatory criteria, nearly four times as many Black

residents and more than twice as many Hispanic residents

would have benefited from the grants.

The General Land Office said in its April 1 appeal that the

state ``does not discriminate, and the projects it has funded

help minority beneficiaries across Texas.'' The state said

more than two-thirds of residents in communities that

received awards are Black, Hispanic or Asian. The state

pointed out that its plan was approved two years ago and

characterized HUD's new objections as ``politically

motivated.''

In addition to Houston and surrounding Harris County, the

General Land Office denied grants to the predominantly Black

and Hispanic cities of Port Arthur, Beaumont and Corpus

Christi as well as Jefferson and Nueces counties--all of

which experienced significant flooding from Harvey, according

to the civil rights complaint. Texas Housers, a nonprofit

focused on housing in low-income communities, and Northeast

Action Collective, a grassroots advocacy group of Houston

residents, filed the complaint with HUD last year.

Instead, funds were steered toward inland, Whiter

communities that were far less severely impacted by

hurricanes and used to fund routine infrastructure, the

complaint said. That includes $17.5 million for a new

community center in Caldwell County that is supposed to

double as an evacuation center; $10.8 million to install a

sewage system in the 379-person town of Iola; $6 million for

a new sheriff's department radio tower and radios for

Gonzales County; and $4.2 million for a 2,000-foot-long road

in Bastrop County to connect a Walmart parking lot and a Home

Depot, justified as an alternate path for emergency vehicles

in case the adjacent freeway is clogged with hurricane

evacuees from the Gulf Coast 161 miles away.

``These mitigation funds are a strategy to undo the

systemic racism of the past, but that's not what we're seeing

Texas interested in at all,'' said John Henneberger, co-

director of Texas Housers. ``This is a test of how serious

HUD and the Biden administration are in enforcing civil

rights.''

HUD's Office of Community Planning and Development, which

oversees disaster mitigation aid, wrote to the Texas General

Land Office in March expressing ``grave concerns'' over the

distribution of the first round of

grants. ``The State has not identified a plan to protect

communities while guarding against competition criteria that

could disadvantage minority residents,'' HUD wrote. If a

voluntary resolution cannot be reached, HUD said it could

refer the matter to the Department of Justice for

enforcement.

But advocates worry that could come too late for

communities like Kashmere Gardens.

While HUD said it cannot stop the state from awarding the

rest of the grants ``due to prior decisions,'' it would begin

monitoring how the money is distributed and warned it could

claw back the funds if necessary.

``Texas has a history of sending money to those who are

politically connected,'' said Shannon Van And, a professor of

urban planning at Texas A.M. University whose research

focuses on hazard reduction and housing. She noted that

racial disparities occurred with the distribution of disaster

funds after Hurricane Ike in 2008.

Civil rights advocates say HUD has the authority to suspend

Texas's ability to spend federal grant money; it has done so

under previous administrations. But Sara Pratt, former deputy

assistant secretary in HUD's fair housing office who is now

representing Texas Housers as an attorney, said there is

longstanding division among HUD staff over enforcing civil

rights violations when making funding decisions.

``There is deep disagreement internally,'' Pratt said.

``The secretary's job is to resolve disputes like this.''

HUD Secretary Marcia L. Fudge declined to comment because

the Texas investigation remains open, HUD spokesman Michael

Burns said.

``Her commitment to civil rights and fair housing is well

documented and unwavering, and she is committed to ensuring

that all HUD funds are used in compliance with all relevant

laws and program requirements,'' Burns said.

In response to widespread criticism over how the first $1

billion in Harvey disaster grants was distributed, Texas now

plans to allocate $750 million to Harris County. Houston is

due to receive an additional $9 million out of $488 million

that the state plans to send to the Houston-Galveston region.

City officials point out that the $9 million amounts to

less than one tenth of the cost of its proposed improvements

to Kashmere Gardens.

In Kashmere Gardens on a recent morning after a

thunderstorm inundated streetside drainage ditches,

bulldozers and dump trucks worked to widen and deepen Hunting

Bayou to absorb runoff from future storms.

The work is a small portion of a $2.5 billion flood

protection bond that Harris County passed in 2018. The bulk

of the bond money was directed to wealthier neighborhoods

because the county expected to receive federal disaster funds

for poorer ones, according to county commissioner Rodney

Ellis.

But without money to upgrade the ditch system to drain

storm water from neighborhood streets, it's unclear if the

bayou expansion will be effective.

``This is the Texas two-step in Houston. You have to get

the water from the neighborhoods to the bayous. And then you

have to get the water from the bayous to the Gulf of

Mexico,'' said Ellis, who represents the area.

Residents, too, remain skeptical.

``It's a wait and see situation,'' said Dorothy Wanza,

another Kashmere Gardens resident whose street turned into a

river during Harvey and flooded her home with more than a

foot of water. The experience left the 80-year-old so

traumatized that ``every time it rains, I get the hell out of

dodge.''

She spent the previous night fully dressed, prepared to

evacuate to one of her children's homes. ``The ditches

overflow, and once they are full, the water comes back on

you,'' Wanza said.

On the other side of the bayou, Hester said the city had

recently cleaned out part of a ditch lining his street for

the first time he could recall in more than a decade. Dirt

and bricks still block some of the culverts.

``Right up under there, look,'' he said, pointing beneath

the concrete walkway leading from the street to his front

yard. ``It's stopped up on both sides.''

He nodded farther down the street to another culvert:

``That whole drain hole was flooded.'' He and his next door

neighbor had removed as many bricks as they could to move the

water through. ``If we don't do things around here, ain't

nothing going to get done. I have to go around here and try

to help, and I'm in bad shape myself.''

Hester limped around the perimeter of his home and pointed

two feet up the siding where Harvey floodwaters had reached--

a reminder of the catastrophe he says he failed to protect

his daughter from.

A nonprofit had removed the mold inside when it fixed up

the house in 2020, installing new cabinets, a new roof and

laminate flooring.

But the entryway still slopes. The floor joists need to be

repaired. The porch is lopsided, its wood rotted.

Hester is stooped from years of pain. Yet he remains intent

on doing what he can to make things right.

``It's not my life I'm worried about. It's my daughter's,''

Hester said. ``I'm half dead.''

Madam Speaker, my amendment is extremely important. Very quickly, it deals with accountability and performance improvement. These are the objectives of my amendment.

My amendment also deals with making sure, through a GAO study, that CSBG has performed well; which programmatic activities, services, and other uses of funds were the most effective and had the greatest positive impact; which administrative, organizational, structural, and operational strategies and tactics that were deployed were most successful; how much of the CSBG funds were allocated to States for distribution to and use by community action agencies; and whether these grants retained by each State exceeded the percentage of such funds that were allowed to be retained.

In effect, the GAO would be conducting a performance audit of this program to position it for a fresh start by determining the extent to which these funds reached their intended beneficiaries. Many times, minorities, though it was directed for them, are disadvantaged because of the agency.

Finally, the net result will be transparency and improvement so that others will be served and helped. I thank you for including it in the amendments en bloc.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5129, the ``Community Service Block Grant Modernization Act of 2022.'' I applaud Leadership for bringing H.R. 5129--which has strong bipartisan support--to the Floor for consideration and votes.

For decades, the Community Service Block Grant (CSBG) has fueled a wide range of anti-poverty programs, activities, and services across the country. It has been profoundly beneficial, improving countless lives by helping Americans who are most in need of an assist, enabling them to rise up and access the path to a better quality-of-life.

H.R. 5129 not only provides a long-overdue reauthorization of the program; it also improves the CSBG in many ways, including by adding systems that will enhance the program's transparency, accountability, and evaluations in the future.

Accountability and performance improvement are also the objectives of the Jackson Lee amendment, through additional mechanisms. My amendment would direct the Comptroller General of the GAO to study how the CSBG has performed over the past ten years, focusing on:

which programmatic activities, services, and other uses of funds were the most effective and had the greatest positive impact on individuals and communities that the CSBG was designed to serve;

which administrative, organizational, structural, and operational strategies and tactics that were deployed by states were the most productive, efficient, and successful, such that they should be considered as ``best practices'' for replication by other states going forward;

how much of CSBG funds that were allocated to states for distribution to, and use by, Community Action Agencies and other eligible entities were not fully disbursed by states to those intended recipients; and

whether CSBG funds retained by each state exceeded the percentage of such funds that were allowed to be retained by the state for

administrative and other permissible purposes, the amount that was retained in excess of what was allowed, and to what other uses those funds were applied or to what other account were they transmitted.

In effect, the GAO would be conducting a ``performance audit'' of the CSBG program to position it for a fresh start, citing its strengths and shortcomings, and making recommendations that will help states optimize their efforts in the years ahead.

By determining the extent to which CSBG funds reached their intended beneficiaries and fulfilled their intended purpose, we will see which states have been conscientiously administering the program, which could help calibrate future strategies to structure and monitor the program.

The net result is that the GAO study and report provided by the Jackson Lee amendment will provide transparency and accountability to the program's recent past performance. The findings will enable the program, and the states that administer it, to learn from the past, adjust their programs to maximize results, and revitalize their efforts for each state's next chapter of CSBG performance.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for bringing this very important bipartisan legislation to the Floor today.

I urge all my colleagues to support the bill, including the Jackson Lee amendment and the entire en bloc amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of this committee and the ranking member on the floor, and let me express my appreciation for his acknowledgment and recognition that we should do something. I know he wants to do something. I am going to try to encourage him to do something to alter his position and to stand with this legislation.

I want to take a moment to present tribute and accolades, as should be, though he never asked for such, to our chairman. I cannot remember a day that he did not gather us to meet with the transportation security officers, the American Federation of Government Employees, and others, over a decade maybe, as I chaired the Transportation Security Committee of the Homeland Security Committee, where he has not worked without ceasing, we have not joined him without ceasing, to be able to rectify this injustice. That is what it is. It is a plain and simple injustice.

I stand on this floor, in the name of Gerardo Hernandez, from the Los Angeles airport, who died in the line of duty as a TSA officer. We met his family. We mourn with them. We mourn with those who suffer.

We mourn with those who lost their lives in the pandemic, front line, really front line, because before this was even diagnosed, there were COVID patients or COVID-infected persons going through airports, and our TSOs had no experience, protection, and they were becoming infected by the dozens, and many died.

So breaking news today. This is a breaking news story. This legislation now comes to remedy and solve the problem we have needed to fix, really since 9/11 and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.

Specifically, the bill within 180 days eliminates personnel authorities of the

Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation governing the conditions of employment of TSA employees, thus making TSA employees subject to the personnel management system applicable to other Federal employees.

Justice, fairness, the removal of injustice, sets forth transition rules that protect the pay rates, leave rights and other rights of TSA employees, and requires DHS to consult with the labor organizations certified by the Federal Labor Relations Authority to carry out the conversion of such positions.

Let me be very clear: Those persons sitting at desks may wind up in some airport in the midst of crisis. How do I know? During Hurricane Harvey, tens upon tens of TSA and TSO officers flew into Houston because our officers were desperate, suffering from this catastrophic flood and rain.

So it should be across the board. It is fair. It should be no different from other Federal employees. The bill directs the TSA to consult with public and private entities associated with the Federal air marshals to address concerns regarding Federal air marshals, including mental health and suicide rates. Absolutely imperative.

I went to the office of the Federal air marshals when they were under stress, and they thought that they were imploding. The atmosphere of flying, the hours, and the lack of sensitivity of those hours, drove mental health cases among the Federal air marshals. We went to tell them that they were important and that we were going to work on this.

How long must we wait? This bill prohibits TSA employees from using or installing the social media video application TikTok on U.S. Government-issued mobile devices, cleaning things up; requires DHS to prioritize the hiring of veterans, including disabled veterans; and directs the TSA to ensure its employees are provided proper guidance regarding prevention and protections against the coronavirus.

But what it also does is retention. Do you know how much rotation goes on with these TSOs? We bring them in young. Every time I go to airports across America, they are the ones that I stop and talk to. ``How long have you been here?'' I applaud them when they say: ``We came in one year after.'' ``We came in the same year.'' I say: ``You are lifers. Thank you for your service.''

We try to encourage younger persons to understand that they are on the front lines saving lives, because as our chairman said, every day they are picking up guns and various other things that can be a danger to the traveling public. It is crucial that we recognize this.

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge, again, the shooting incident of Gerardo Hernandez, who became the first officer killed in the line of duty. There was the machete attack at the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport that resulted in injury to Senior Transportation Security Officer Carol Richel.

This bill represents longstanding priority. It is breaking news. I stand with TSOs, and I stand with the TSA. It is long overdue. They saved us after 9/11. They came in and stood in the gap. We must fix the morale. We must get rid of the allegation of mismanagement and wasteful procedures, retaliation against whistleblowers, low morale, and security gaps within the agency. This will do that.

So I ask my colleagues to support it. I am on the Budget Committee, and it is paid for. This is going to be the pathway of professionalism at the airport, saving lives, protecting the public, and ensuring that we have a professional, young, and growing team that is going to be part of America's front lines. I ask my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 903, Rights for the TSA Workforce Act, which bill modifies the workplace rights, protections, and benefits applicable to Transportation Security Administration (TSA) personnel.

Specifically, the bill:

Within 180 days, eliminates personnel authorities of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and theDepartment of Transportation governing the conditions of employment for TSA employees, thus making TSA employees subject to the personnel management system applicable to other federal employees;

Sets forth transition rules that protect the pay rates, leave rights, and other rights of TSA employees; and

Requires DHS to consult with the labor organization certified by the Federal Labor Relations Authority to carry out the conversion of such positions.

The bill also:

Directs the TSA to consult with public and private entities associated with the Federal Air Marshal Service to address concerns regarding federal air marshals, including mental health and suicide rates;

Prohibits TSA employees from using or installing the social media video application TikTok on U.S.government-issued mobile devices;

Requires DHS to prioritize the hiring of veterans, including disabled veterans; and

Directs the TSA to ensure its employees are provided proper guidance regarding prevention and protections against the coronavirus (i.e., the virus that causes COVID-19).

I view the work of the TSA as vital to our Nation's homeland security.

The agency mission is to protect the Nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce.

The Committee on Homeland Security provides the needed policy guidance and funding to ensure that the TSA has what it needs to create and sustain the most effective transportation security as a high performing counterterrorism organization.

The work of the TSA is a front-line Department of Homeland Security and it is not easy--it can, in fact, be very dangerous.

Like many of my colleagues, I recall the shooting incident at LAX that killed Gerardo Hernandez, who became the first TSA officer killed in the line of duty; and the machete attack at the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport that resulted in injuries to Senior Transportation Security Officer Carol Richel.

These incidents only highlight the difficult work that the men and women of the TSA must perform each day to keep our Nation's airports and flights safe.

The bill represents a longstanding priority, since the time I chaired the Homeland Security Committee Subcommittee on Transportation Security to extend to TSA employees the same rights and protections afforded to all federal government employees. The legislation curtails TSA's broad authorities to create and control its personnel systems, instead requiring TSA to abide by the provisions of title 5 which regulate personnel systems for most Federal agencies.

The bill would provide TSA employees with the workforce protections and benefits available to most other Federal workers.

The bill sets forth transition rules to protect the rate of pay and other rights of TSA employees during a transition to title 5.

The bill also requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to consult with the appropriate labor organizations to carry out the transition. This bill does not affect prohibitions against disloyalty and asserting the right to strike against the federal government.

The bill also extends the timeline for the transition from 60 days to a more realistic 180 days, and it contains language to protect employees with grievances or disciplinary actions pending during the transition.

Following terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there was urgency to have a whole of government response to secure the Nation's commercial aviation.

On that day, nearly 3,000 people were killed in a series of coordinated terrorist attacks in New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

The attacks resulted in the creation of the Transportation Security Administration, which was designed to prevent similar attacks in the future by removing the responsibility for transportation security from private entities.

The Aviation and Transportation Security Act, passed by the 107th Congress and signed on November 19, 2001, established TSA just 2 months following the September 11, 2001 attacks.

The urgent need to provide a response to the available security threat was facing meant that much of the work to provide administrative structure and integration measures that would have woven in the civil service protections now be added did not occur at that time.

The urgency of establishing TSA created another type of federal employee with no job security, worker rights, and ability to advance within the federal workforce.

The consequences of these shortcomings is high turnover, low morale, and higher costs for training and retaining personnel that is undermining the security we need for air travelers.

It is past time to make the changes provided by H.R. 1140, so the TSA workforce is treated equally to other federal employees with the power to advance and expand their opportunities as government employees.

Allegations about mismanagement, wasteful procedures, retaliation against whistleblowers,

low morale, and security gaps within the Agency are causes for concern.

TSA has consistently struggled with low morale across the workforce, ranking 303 out of 305 government agencies in 2016.

Low morale has a nexus to the high turnover rate within the ranks of Transportation Security Officers (TSOs).

TSOs represent 70 percent of the TSA workforce, yet have been denied full collective bargaining rights, whistleblower protections, and opportunities to effectively raise issues in dispute to an independent third party, such as the Merit Systems Protection Board.

Additionally, TSOs are subject to a pay and performance system that does not track with the General Services (GS) wage system, the primary wage system for Federal workers.

In order to move the workforce forward and see the necessary changes envisioned, it is imperative for TSA's frontline personnel receive these critical protections.

This is an essential bill that must be sent to the President's desk because it will strengthen transportation security by removing barriers that are undermining retention and professional development at the TSA.

I ask that my colleagues join me in voting in favor of HR. 903.

Thank you.

Madam Speaker, it is not often that America seems to be stunned by an action of this Government. They may be disappointed, they may disagree, but I can assure you they may not be stunned.

In the leak of the Supreme Court decision, America overall, over 70 percent, are stunned by the idea that women no longer are equal in this Nation, they do not have women's rights, human rights, or reproductive rights.

The tragedy for those of us who are lawyers, who understand the Constitution, is that when settled law has been announced, that is your belief. To see that that is no longer the standard of the highest court in the land, we are stunned and, yes, we are frightened.

Roe v. Wade must be codified, reproductive rights must be protected, and the anti-vigilante stalking bill, to stop individuals from stalking women who are simply seeking healthcare and abortion, should be passed by the House of Representatives. We must stand for human rights and women's rights.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), and the manager for the minority.

Mr. Speaker, let me rise with enthusiasm for this legislation for it has been a long-time investment of Whip Clyburn.

The Targeting Resources to Communities in Need Act of 2022 tracks work that I have done as it relates to equity in various entities, but in particular in African Americans.

This work of Mr. Clyburn, 10-20-30, has the ability to reach poor communities that have not been necessarily receiving the benefits equitably of Federal resources. This can be a great boost to our rural communities. It can be a source of change.

For example, in Texas, during the pandemic, we lost a large number of rural hospitals, and in those communities people were deprived of access to good healthcare. The hospitals just closed because they did not have the resources.

This, as well, deals with education, flood mitigation, infrastructure, all of these issues come out of appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Rogers who I know has been working with Whip Clyburn for a long time on this equitable approach to the distribution of our funds.

I think it is important for the American people to know that Members of Congress are concerned that Federal funds get to the people, and they get to the people that are most in need--they are life-changing efforts.

For example, as we worked on the community projects, many Members have found that when they give those pointed dollars, you can change lives of communities, schools, neighborhoods, and families. This particular legislation, the Targeting Resources to Communities in Need Act, is an appropriate approach to ensuring that tax dollars get to where they are needed and help those in need.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 6531 and congratulate Mr. Clyburn for his work.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I reject the notion that America is not strong enough to stand with Ukraine as it tramples on autocracy. I reject the notion that America and the American people are not strong enough to stand with those in Ukraine who are fighting for their survival and fighting against the horrible violence of Vladimir Putin. I reject the notion that Americans are not empathetic about Mariupol and what the mayor at that time on April 12 said; he noted that 210 children were murdered by this vicious bombing in the midst of 21,000 dead.

As I traveled with Leader Hoyer, over and over again I asked the question about the children. As UNICEF said, this war is a nightmare for Ukraine's children.

This supplemental for Ukraine recognizes that. It recognizes that democracy must stand but that children must be protected with the focus on humanitarian aid, eliminating or stopping human trafficking, and recognizing that girls and women have been raped. It is time for us to speak what the American people have spoken, that

they are standing with Ukraine. They want a victory for Ukraine.

This supplemental will help us stand with Ukraine. I ask my colleagues to support it and to recognize victory for Ukraine.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the leadership that we have shown in this Democratic Caucus, joined by our Republican friends.

Let me thank the chairwoman, the manager of this bill, and the Republican manager, my friend from Texas.

The one point that I think we can all agree to: This is a vile and violent and brutal and senseless war. It is Vladimir Putin trying to return to the greatness of Russia that fought Nazism but is now making a fiasco and light of what fighting Nazism is all about.

Going to Ukraine with the Hoyer codel, my focus was on the terrible plight of children. In an op-ed that was printed in the Houston Chronicle, I said that our children in war must never suffer the nightmare that UNICEF says.

So, I support this supplemental for the very reason of dealing with, one, providing for the munitions and exportability of funds to procure critical munitions, but as well the humanitarian aid that is to correct the devastation of children who saw the bodies of their parents dead in the street.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her kindness.

Dealing with the pictures that were depicted, but the stories that I heard of children sitting next to dead parents, or dead bodies, children unaccompanied, lost, orphaned.

So my conclusion is that, in addition to war, we must realize that our children are our future.

In this bill, the administration for children and families, $900 million to provide refugee support services, housing, English language, trauma and support services to help those who have been trafficked or may be trafficked, to help those who have been raped, young women and children; to deal with the Centers for Disease Control with $54 million to provide them medical support; and, of course, to be able to provide dealing with the migration and refugee circumstances that we saw in Poland that took 2 to 3 million refugees, including children.

We are standing on democracy. We are not afraid to stand with what is right, and we are not afraid to say glory to Ukraine. We want the victory for Ukraine, and we want defeat for Vladimir Putin. Regime change would be great, but we realize that will not happen, but defeat must happen. I support the supplemental. Let us stand for democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute this naming of a Houston post office after Vanessa Guillen and to congratulate my colleague, Congresswoman Sylvia Garcia, whose constituent Vanessa was, for her leadership in recognizing the importance of the life and legacy of Vanessa Guillen. She was a hero in life and a hero in death.

As the story is told, all of her life she wanted to be in the United States Army, and she was an impeccable member of the United States military. Her tragic story is not one that she deserved, the violent death, the sexual assault, the lack of oversight, the lack of knowledge and investigation and process that would have really saved her life.

She did her duty. She made those in positions of power aware of the journey and the trials and tribulations that she was facing. Yet, her life was lost but not her legacy, not her story, and not the response that has come about through the United States Congress. And that will continue.

As I heard my colleague say, she will not rest until Vanessa Guillen gets justice. This is one step of honor for all little girls to know what a brave and wonderful young woman she was and to be able to say to her family that we will never forget her story.

I honor her tonight; I honor her legacy; I honor her bravery; and I honor her story.

What are we to say to the young girls who seek to be part of the United States military and to fight and stand for their country? Yes, they can model their lives after the service given by Vanessa Guillen.

I thank her, brave that she was and, yes, a servant of the people of the United States. I thank her, and I salute her.

Congratulations for this post office to her family and her community and to Congresswoman Sylvia Garcia.

Madam Speaker, in these tumultuous days of crisis and challenge, Members of Congress know well, perhaps better than most, how blessed our Nation is to have in reserve such exceptional young men and women who will go on to become leaders in their local communities, states, and the nation in the areas of business, education, law, government, philanthropy, the arts and culture, and the military.

We know this because we see them and benefit from their contributions every day. Many of them work for us in our offices as junior staff members, congressional fellows, or interns and they do amazing work for and on behalf of the constituents we are privileged to represent.

Madam Speaker, I believe there is no higher calling than the call to serve a cause larger than ourselves. That is why I ran for public office. I was inspired to serve by President Kennedy who said, ``Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,'' and by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who said:

``Everybody can be great because anybody can serve. . . . You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love.''

By this measure, there are several other great young men and women who served as volunteers this year in my offices. They brave the dangers of the pandemic that has wrought so much suffering and heartbreak across our nation. They cheerfully do their duty in the U.S. Capitol complex that just over one year ago was the site of an insurrection attack not seen since the War of 1812. These dedicated and public-spirited men and women may toil in obscurity but their contributions to the constituents we serve are deeply appreciated. That is why today I rise to pay tribute to five extraordinary young persons for their service to my constituents in the 18th Congressional District of Texas and to the American people. They are:

Alexander Nordahl, University of Houston;

Shania Jackson, Texas Tech University;

Laura Rincon-Bianchi, University of Houston;

Jordan Webster, Howard University; and

Ayana Ahuja, The Madeira School.

Madam Speaker, the energy, intelligence, and idealism these wonderful young people brought to my office and those interning in the offices of my colleagues help keep our democracy vibrant. The insights, skills, and knowledge of the governmental process they gain from their experiences will last a lifetime and prove invaluable to them as they go about making their mark in this world.

Because of persons like them the future of our country is bright, and its best days lie ahead. I wish them all well.

Madam Speaker, I am grateful that such thoughtful committed young men and women can be found working in my office, those of my colleagues, and in every community in America. Their good works will keep America great, good, and forever young.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6930 the Asset Seizure for Ukraine Reconstruction Act, which authorizes the President to, subject to certain conditions, seize assets belonging to a foreign person whose wealth is derived in part through political support for or corruption linked to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In the two years that follow this bill's enactment, the President may seize assets if Russia remains engaged in a conflict of territorial conquest in Ukraine; the President has imposed sanctions on the owner of the assets for reasons related to corruption, human rights violations, malign influence, or conflicts in Ukraine; and the assets are valued at over $5 million.

The seized assets may be liquidated, and the resulting funds may only be used for specified purposes, including the post-conflict reconstruction of Ukraine, humanitarian assistance and refugee support for the Ukrainian people, weapons for Ukraine's uniformed military forces, and humanitarian and development assistance for the Russian people.

There is no question of whether the Russian Federation, under the direction of Vladimir Putin, has been defying the laws of war throughout their unprovoked, unjust, and unlawful invasion of Ukraine.

In the three decades since gaining independence, Ukraine has sought closer economic, social, and political ties with the free market and democratic nations of the West.

Since 2013, the Russian Federation has imposed a campaign of political, economic, and military aggression in Ukraine.

Today the world is witnessing a manufactured war, arbitrarily ordered by Vladimir Putin.

President Putin and his associates must be held personally liable for the war crimes committed against the people of Ukraine.

Russia claims it is not attacking civilians, yet thousands of people have been killed, mostly from explosive weapons with a wide impact area, including shelling from heavy artillery and multi-launch rocket systems, and missile and air strikes.

Families are being separated by war, adults and children are being ruthlessly killed, and a rogue Russia is violently crushing political speech opposing the war from its own citizens.

As Russian ground forces advance in Ukraine, Ukrainians are sheltering from artillery and cruise missiles in subways and bomb shelters.

The western world must continue to march in unison against this senseless Russian invasion of a sovereign nation.

It is our duty to do all we can to stop these brutal attacks on democracy. Squeezing the bank accounts and assets of Russian oligarchs will eventually force them to take matter into their own hands and stop Putin.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6930 the Asset Seizure for Ukraine Reconstruction Act to help put an end to Putin's evil invasion.