Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, as a senior member of this body and the Committee on the Judiciary, I want to offer praise and a message of appreciation for a beloved man, who served as a member of my personal staff in service of the constituents of the 18th Congressional District of Texas, located in the city of Houston.

He was a member of the baby boom generation that directly benefited from and was inspired by the work of President John F. Kennedy, President Lyndon Banes Johnson, Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, and many other leaders that worked for equality and justice for all.

I am proud but heart-broken to later today participate in a tribute to his service in the U.S. House of Representatives, because Gregory Berry is an American original, my friend and valued member of my staff who died on March 15, 2022, at the age of 66 years old.

Gregory Alan Berry, long-time legislative counsel in the U.S. House of Representatives, died unexpectedly from hypertension on March 15, 2022, at his home in Gaithersburg, Maryland.

Greg was born in Cleveland, Ohio, on February 16, 1956, the second son of Jesse Frank Berry and Bonnie Allena Berry. His father preceded him in death. He is survived by

his mother; his two sons, Michael Jeffrey Berry and Connor Sias Berry, and their mother Elva Bowden Berry; his two brothers, Jeffrey (Donene) and Michael Berry, his sister, Bonnie Berry LaMon (Andre); two nieces, one nephew, two great-nieces, one great-nephew, five aunts and four uncles.

When Greg was four years old, his family moved to California where he attended various schools including Saddleback High School in Santa Ana. He graduated from Evergreen High School in Seattle after his family moved there the summer before his senior year.

Greg played both baseball and football in high school but was best known for his copious understanding of current political events, his debate skills, and his ability to recite on-demand the famous speeches of Abraham Lincoln and other seminal politicians and orators. Greg graduated from the University of Washington with a B.A. in Business Administration. In 1980, he obtained his J.D from University of Pennsylvania Law School.

Greg began his career as a Senior Attorney-Advisor in the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Hearing Appeals, where he received the DOE Special Achievement Award for superior performance and sustained excellence and originality in legal analysis, research, and writing.

Four years later he became a Senior Trial Attorney in the Office of General Counsel at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, where he received several Special Achievement and High Quality Awards as well as Certificates of Appreciation for Outstanding Performance.

Greg excelled at both these positions, but the call on his heart and mind since the early 1960s had always been American politics.

In 1989 he answered that call by matriculating into the University of Michigan Political Science Department. He graduated in 1991 with an M.A. in American Politics and Government, and within two years thereafter had completed all coursework and qualifying exams in connection with a Ph.D from the same program.

While still a Ph.D candidate at the University of Michigan, Greg accepted a position as Visiting Lecturer of Political Science at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand.

He taught several courses in American national government, politics, and American political thought.

The University of Canterbury offered him a full-time position and he returned to the University of Michigan where he taught introductory and advanced courses in American politics, government, political theory, race and politics, and political communication.

He then taught similar courses at James Madison University, in Virginia, before accepting a position as Legal Writing Professor at Howard University School of Law (HUSL), in Washington, D.C.

At HUSL he taught litigation related courses, Legal Reasoning, Research and Writing, Appellate Advocacy, and Legal Methods.

He was the Faculty Advisor to an award-winning National Moot Court Team and was voted ``Law Professor of the Year'' in 2003, and several times received the Warren S. Romarin Award for Excellence in Teaching and Service.

In 2006, Greg ``entered Congress'' as my Legislative Director/Senior Policy Adviser.

I knew then that I had found an extraordinary mind to serve in my personal office and the Hill had a great scholar who would contribute to the work of this great democracy.

Gregory over the years, also served as Legislative Counsel to Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA).

At the time of his passing Greg had worked for nine years as my Chief Counsel and Legislative Director.

He enjoyed developing, drafting, and managing legislation for the Appropriations, Judiciary, Foreign Affairs, Transportation & Infrastructure, Homeland Security, Science, and Rules Committees.

He negotiated with senior staff officials in the House leadership and standing committees, frequently on behalf of the office.

He sat in countless meetings with Executive Department officials at the federal and state level, and often met with lobbyists and policy entrepreneurs to garner support for important legislative initiatives.

He especially enjoyed writing statements and speeches for delivery in committee hearings and markups; before the Rules Committee and on the House floor; in the congressional district, across the nation, and abroad; and for print, electronic, and online media.

In his capacity as Legislative Director, Greg thrived on supervising, mentoring, and training the junior staff of legislative assistants, correspondents, and interns.

Greg was also a kind hearted person who treated everyone with dignity and respect.

His family is exceedingly grateful to Greg's colleagues and friends on the Hill for sharing his love of public service in the United States House of Representatives because he was able to spend the last sixteen years of his life steeped in the political world which unrelentingly captured his imagination as a young boy.

A fitting and proper means of paying tribute to Gregory Berry's extraordinary life is to join with family, friends and co-workers to salute this great democracy, which he loved without ceasing through his years of dedicated service.

I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in memory and thanks of Gregory Alan Berry, the three year old boy who visited the Capitol with his mother who returned to work in the job that gave him immense joy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5497, ``Burma Unified through Rigorous Military Accountability Act of 2021'' or BURMA Act.

The purpose of this bill is to authorize humanitarian assistance and civil society support, promote democracy and human rights, and impose targeted sanctions with respect to human rights abuses in Burma.

The legislation condemns the actions taken by the Burmese military during its coup on February 1, 2021 and its aftermath.

The BURMA Act:

Authorizes sanctions on individuals and entities who helped stage the February 1 coup d'etat and are responsible for the subsequent repression of fundamental freedoms, human rights abuses, use of indiscriminate violence towards civilians, and other gross atrocities.

Prohibits the import of precious and semi-precious gemstones from Burma into the United States.

Authorizes a new position at the State Department, a Special Coordinator for Burmese Democracy, to promote an international effort to impose and enforce multilateral sanctions on Burma and coordinate United States Government interagency efforts on Burma.

Authorizes support to civil society and for humanitarian assistance in Burma, Bangladesh, Thailand, and the surrounding region.

Calls for the Department of State to make a genocide determination with regard to the persecution of the Rohingya.

Calls for the United States to pressure the United Nations to take more decisive action with regards to Burma.

By authorizing targeted sanctions against the Burmese military, the Burmese Administrative Council and affiliated entities, the bill holds accountable those responsible for the perpetration of the coup and the ensuing atrocities that have claimed over a thousand lives.

It has been a little over a year since the Burmese military staged its illegal and illegitimate coup, reversing years of reform and Burma's fragile transition to democracy.

The military regime has killed more than 1,728 people since February of 2021, including around 100 children, and illegally detained more than 13,084 people.

The violence toward its own citizens has displaced roughly 400,000 people within the country.

This brings the estimated total of internally displaced persons to 776,000 and of refugees and asylum-seekers in neighboring countries to more than 1 million.

People in Myanmar desperately need food, clean water and protection to survive.

The BURMA Act would address these gaps by funding humanitarian assistance and addressing issues in Myanmar including human rights violations, displacement, and armed conflict.

Having previously lived under military rule and authoritarianism for decades, the people of Myanmar responded to the coup with courage and resistance.

Democracy activists flooded the streets, formed a shadow government, and carried out a massive civil disobedience movement to shut down the machinery of the state.

The tragedy underway in Myanmar epitomizes the battle between democracy and authoritarianism.

However, the people of Myanmar have not received much support from the international community, in efforts to condemn this coup the United States must act now by expanding targeted sanctions to halt this.

The toll on the people of Burma has been truly staggering, under the military's harsh rule, no one is safe from violence, arbitrary detainment, military attack, and infringements on human rights.

I am optimistic that we will pass the BURMA Act to apply economic pressure, provide humanitarian support, and redouble diplomatic efforts against the military junta.

The people of Burma can no longer afford to wait, so neither should we.

I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 5497 because these people who have survived crimes against humanity, discrimination, gender-based violence and forced displacement in Myanmar need the humanitarian assistance this bill would provide.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the leadership of our chairman and the working relationship with the ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, I was in Lithuania as the Russians were coming in, and I spent a couple of days there with the hopes and dreams of many people that, in actuality, there would not be an invasion of Russia into Ukraine, even though we were being briefed on the 30,000 to 40,000 troops in Belarus.

Even on that day, we spoke to Ukraine parliamentarians, who indicated that they were leaving the meeting we were in and taking a 17-hour trip back to Ukraine as their son was standing up to join the Ukrainian military.

Little did we expect--as some people said, ``just a couple of days''--that we would be at a point where--we will not call it World War III, but we will call it the most brutal, vicious, and murderous effort in Europe and the world almost since World War II.

I cannot fathom the bodies found in a pit. I cannot understand moms and babies dying in the street. I cannot understand or accept the numbers of civilians targeted, their bodies strewn throughout the various cities.

The movement to the east, the destruction of Odessa, and the unwillingness of Vladimir Putin to even think of being serious at the peace table--it is important to say pronounced war crimes have been committed, that he must be at The Hague.

I believe Europe should be more pronounced in its annunciation. I frankly believe that there is a heavier penalty that he must pay. I don't believe he should sit at another table of Western civilization.

Most importantly, I rise to support this legislation and believe America is right to insist on Mr. Putin being tried for war crimes.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7276 the Ukraine Invasion War Crimes Deterrence and Accountability Act, to direct the President to submit a report to Congress on the United States efforts to collect and analyze evidence and information related to the war crimes committed by the Russian Federation during their full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

This legislation requires the Administration to detail the process our government will undertake to collect, analyze, and preserve evidence of these war crimes, so that perpetrators of these and other atrocities are held accountable.

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

H.R. 7276 will ensure the U.S. maintains a coordinated effort to collect evidence to be used to prosecute Russian war crimes in Ukraine.

This bill will help to deter future war crimes by ensuring Russian troops and their commanders know the world is watching closely.

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

Since 2013, the Russian Federation under the direction of President Vladimir Putin, has imposed a campaign of political, economic, and military aggression against Ukraine.

In February 2014, the Russian military began the invasion of eastern regions in Ukraine, including the Crimean Peninsula. The military also backed separatist insurgents in the Donbass region, where fighting has killed over 14,000 people.

Today the world is witnessing the unprovoked aggression and invasion 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 civilian infrastructure has been completely obliterated in parts of eastern Ukraine.

These reckless Russian attacks have leveled homes, preschools, post offices, museums, sports facilities, hospitals, and factories.

Power and gas lines have been severed, bridges and railway stations blown up intentionally to restrict refugee movement within the country.

Civilians have been killed in their cars, while waiting in bread lines, and while seeking treatment in hospitals.

Remnants of a missile were found in a Ukrainian zoo, residential neighborhoods have been shelled to pieces and morgues are overflowing with bodies.

Additionally, 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 shells and cruise missiles in subways and bomb shelters.

But in addition to the conventional military forces that Russia brings to bear, Russia has been utilizing nonconventional warfare for years.

Russia has been running a long-running campaign to cast Ukrainians as Nazis and the perpetrators of genocide against Russian-speakers in eastern Ukraine in order to justify an invasion.

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

We will make it clear to President Putin that there is no possibility for him to win this war when our alliances are as united and as fortified as they are now and will continue to be throughout the entire duration of this conflict.

Putin may seize ground, but he will never hold it.

Thank you, and I look forward to discussing recommended measures to hold Russia accountable for this manufactured war.

Mr. Speaker, the people of the United States deserve to know the truth. With all the ranting of my friends across the aisle, the Constitution indicates that this Nation was formed to create a more perfect Union.

There were those who incited January 6. There were those who surrounded President Trump who did nothing to stop the violence and terrorism of January 6. If witnesses come before a duly authorized bipartisan committee and refuse to provide the American people with the truth, then we need to stand here and provide them with a contempt order so that the truth can be found.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for this contempt order for the truth for the American people and the sanctity of the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the manager for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership. I thank, of course, the chairwoman of the Small Business Committee, Mr. Blumenauer, and the many supporters who have provided support for this legislation.

I am hoping that as my colleagues begin to see the light, that they will understand that it will be far worse for all of the employees who are in restaurants that may close that they will not even be employed to think about paying for any gas prices no matter how much they might be.

I stand with them to ensure that inflation goes down and that we respond to gasoline prices. But they are not clear in what we are doing today. We are helping small and hard-hit businesses--sole proprietors, independent contractors, and businesses that are not over 200 employees--to keep these employees who have suffered from the devastation of the pandemic.

We are doing more. We are not spending an extra penny because we are capturing those dollars from those who fraudulently used dollars before. So we are making good on our promise to spend the American tax dollars correctly. We are having a data collection. We are going to have oversight on this particular program to ensure that it is spent effectively.

We are going to respond, if you will, to the needs of the mom and pops, the really oldest and distinguished restaurants like This is It in Houston, Texas; Burns Original BBQ; and J&J; as people who have stood the storm yet, have kept employees but that didn't know whether they could keep their doors open.

This is an important and vital piece of legislation. I support the underlying legislation, which is the bill that deals with relief for restaurants and other hard-hit small businesses and the underlying rule.

Don't you get it?

We are keeping businesses open and keeping people employed. That is what we are doing today. Support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule to consider H.R. 3807, the ``Relief for Restaurants and Other Hard Hit Small Businesses Act of 2022,'' which provides $70.6 billion in FY2022 for the Restaurant Revitalization Fund.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this committee is reconsidering this critical piece of legislation for America's restaurant owners. The American Rescue Plan made great progress in providing the funding in an equitable manner, prioritizing women, veteran, and economically and socially disadvantaged restaurant owners. In addition, the majority of funds were reserved for restaurants whose gross receipts were no more than $1,500,000 dollars.

It is essential to promote equity through the Restaurant Revitalization Fund Mr. Speaker, considering that only 8 percent of restaurants are owned by blacks and 23.8% of Asian owned businesses are restaurants. As legislators we must do everything we can to ensure their survival.

To underscore the personal importance this funding holds to me, I would like to mention a widely loved, black owned, and historic Third Ward restaurant: Cream Burger.

Cream Burger sits on the corner of Elgin and Scott and has been in operation for 60 years. It is a cash only restaurant that has only had two additions to the menu across the entirety of its existence: chili cheese fries and bacon.

The Greenwood family has been serving the residents of the Third Ward their delicious burgers and homemade ice cream for decades and has no plans of closing any time soon.

The original owners of the restaurant, Verna and Willie Greenwood, opened the restaurant to generate their own income and create generational wealth, which they certainly have done. Ever since their tragic passing, the business is now owned and operated by their daughters, Beverly and Sandra.

Beverly and Sandra hope to pass the business onto the next generation of children so they can, ``see it through. Maybe 100 years,'' Beverly said.

The restaurant sees a range of Third Ward customers every day, from the students at the University of Houston to the cashiers working at the historic Houston Food Mart just down the street.

Cream Burger is iconic in the city of Houston, and I hold it in the highest reverence. It, and so many restaurants like it, is one of those restaurants that would receive funds from this legislation.

It is for that reason Mr. Speaker I support the rule to consider H.R. 3807, the ``Relief for Restaurants and other Hard Hit Small Businesses Act of 2022.'' It will help save so many businesses like the beloved Cream Burger, so I urge my colleagues to support the rule as well.

Mr. Speaker, I will start with associating myself with my colleagues who have just spoken and say, ``Glory to Ukraine'' and to indicate that my heart is broken. The words will not elevate the despicable actions of Vladimir Putin.

Today we voted to secure and seek, I hope, an indictment. He is a war criminal, and he is killing children.

But I must, Mr. Speaker, suggest that we have a difficult problem at the border exacerbated by Governor Greg Abbott, who wishes to make a mockery of the desperate people coming, including Ukrainian refugees, who gather at the southern border. Today, he has announced that he will bus these migrants to Washington, D.C.

I am embarrassed.

With the likes of George H.W. Bush, Ann Richards, Henry B. Gonzalez, as well as Barbara Jordan, who are brothers and sisters of Texas, I now have to live with Governor Greg Abbott who disgraces us by suggesting that we must take migrants and drop them off on the steps of the Capitol.

I welcome them.

Why don't we sit down and resolve how we deal with these desperate people? Why don't we find a way, as we were trying to do with George W. Bush, to have an immigration policy? But when he does that, he will also do that to Ukrainian refugees at the southern border.

Enough is enough.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his consistent leadership as he serves as chair and ranking member of a number of subcommittees of the Homeland Security Committee. He has been not only an effective manager here on the floor, but he has been a very effective Member and effective leader on so many issues.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 4209 from my colleague and friend from Texas (Mr. Pfluger).

After years of service on the Homeland Security Committee and any number of times going to the border, I would like to first describe and acknowledge that the southern border is many things.

It is a lifeline to desperate people who are fleeing horrible, violent situations that include the decapitating of their sons and daughters or their husbands and even wives. With the violence of some of the oppressive states in Central and South America, where young boys are recruited right out of their homes for gangs, gang warfare, those families are intimidated and frightened if they do not give their boys to these major gangs and cartels.

We have had any number of a series of the flow of massive influx of migrants from the region. Many may come out of desperation for economic reasons, but many come with credible fear. We expect that that may even occur as early as the next couple of months. I implore my colleagues to respond to that desperation in a unified, committed, and dedicated way of Democrats and Republicans reminding themselves that the Statue of Liberty may be along the New York shore, but people view this place as a refuge.

As a resident of Houston, I can attest to the fact that Ukrainians, Afghans, Africans, Haitians, and, yes, those from South and Central America, and as far away as Southeast Asia, are now congregating at the southern border. I, too, was in Del Rio when the massive movement of human beings flowed for desperate reasons.

This DHS Illicit Cross-Border Tunnel Defense Act is what we need as it relates to the known cartels and persons who are desperate to do evil and to bring the goods that will destroy our young and others who are addicted into the United States.

This is the way. They have proudly said that we build tunnels with lights, air-conditioning, in whatever manner to make them palatable to be able to block, if you will, our law enforcement from achieving their goals.

As the first Member of Congress to bring a human trafficking hearing to Houston, which is known as the epicenter of human trafficking, this is vital legislation to stop the scourge of human trafficking, of bringing young children and young women.

We already know that at the Ukrainian borders in different countries, there is trafficking of young kids who are not killed by Putin; that they are trafficking children and women in that crisis situation. They have no moral compass.

This bill, which strengthens DHS' efforts to identify and remediate illicit cross-border tunnels built and utilized by transnational criminal organizations and smugglers on the southwest border, is crucial.

Mr. Speaker, I particularly support the Secretary's direction to issue a strategic plan that addresses resource needs, including technology and staffing needs. What is needed is a million dollars in funding for fiscal years 2023 and 2024 to acquire material to remediate illicit cross-border tunnels.

I have said that they have regular, good living conditions in these tunnels because they are so extensive. This material includes specialized concrete with enough viscosity to efficiently fill tunnels with fewer insertion points.

We need to combine our efforts as we deal with the scourge of the violent cartels: bloody, guns, intimidating people, and, of course, bringing in illegal entities, some that are human life, into the United States.

The southern border is quite different from the northern border, and we must provide the technology for those who are there.

But as I make that point, Mr. Speaker, I do believe as well that we are never going to get anywhere as Americans, we are never going to win the fight on immigration, on migration, or refugees if we continue to stand in our individual corners. We have to face it. People view this as a beacon of light. You can try to snuff that out, you can try to turn the light off, and you can try to tell them to go back, but they are entrenched with legacy history passed down that this is the place to seek opportunity and refuge.

So I support the legislation. I thank the gentleman from Texas for his hard work. I believe this is an important element to bipartisan commitment to securing our borders in the right way, and I thank him for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, the chairman, and the ranking member of the full committee.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1218, the ``Data Mapping to Save Moms' Lives Act'' which directs the Federal Communications Commission to identify areas of the country where poor maternal health rates overlap with deficiencies in broadband access that are needed to effectively deploy telehealth services.

In the United States, black women are 2 to 6 times more likely to die from complications of pregnancy than white women, depending on where they live.

Dating back to maternity mortality analysis from 1979 to 1992, the overall pregnancy-related mortality ratio was 25.1 deaths per 100,000 for black women, 10.3 for Hispanic women, and 6.0 for non-Hispanic white women.

During 2011-2015, the pregnancy-related mortality ratios were--

42.8 deaths per 100,000 live births for black non-Hispanic women;

32.5 deaths per 100,000 live births for American Indian/Alaskan Native non-Hispanic women;

14.2 deaths per 100,000 live births for Asian/Pacific Islander non- Hispanic women;

13.0 deaths per 100,000 live births for white non-Hispanic women; and

11.4 deaths per 100,000 live births for Hispanic women.

Madam Speaker, Black women in the United States experience unacceptably poor maternal health outcomes, including disproportionately high rates of death related to pregnancy or childbirth.

Both societal and health system factors contribute to high rates of poor health outcomes and maternal mortality for Black women, who are more likely to experience barriers to obtaining quality care and often face racial discrimination throughout their lives.

Health inequity stems from economic inequality and its contributing factors including sexism and racism. To that point, Black women are typically paid just 63 cents for every dollar paid to white, non- Hispanic men.

Median wages for Black women in the United States are $36,227 per year, which is $21,698 less than the median wages for white, non- Hispanic men.

These lost wages mean Black women and their families have less money to support themselves and their families and may have to choose between essential resources like housing, childcare, food, and health care.

These trade-offs are evident in Black women's health outcomes and use of medical care.

Compared to white women, Black women are more likely to be uninsured, face greater financial barriers to care when they need it and are less likely to access prenatal care.

Black women experience higher rates of many preventable disease and chronic health conditions including diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease.

When Black women choose to become pregnant, these health conditions influence both maternal and infant health outcomes.

To improve Black women's maternal health, we need a multi-faceted approach that addresses Black women's health across the lifespan, improves access to quality care, addresses social determinants of health and provides greater economic security. Comprehensive data on maternal health is certainly a part of that approach.

Black women are three to four times more likely to experience a pregnancy-related death than white women.

Black women are more likely to experience preventable maternal death compared with white women.

Black women's heightened risk of pregnancy-related death spans income and education levels.

Black women experience more maternal health complications than white women. Black women are more likely to experience complications throughout the course of their pregnancies than white women.

Black women are three times more likely to have fibroids (benign tumors that grow in the uterus and can cause postpartum hemorrhaging) than white women, and the fibroids occur at younger ages and grow more quickly for Black women.

Black women display signs of preeclampsia earlier in pregnancy than white women. This condition, which involves high blood pressure during pregnancy, can lead to severe complications including death if improperly treated.

Black women experience physical ``weathering,'' meaning their bodies age faster than white women's due to exposure to chronic stress linked to socioeconomic disadvantage and discrimination over the life course, thus making pregnancy riskier at an earlier age.

Primarily Black-serving hospitals provide lower quality maternity care, where seventy-five percent of Black women give birth.

Those same hospitals also have higher rates of maternal complications than other hospitals. They also perform worse on 12 of 15 birth outcomes, including elective deliveries, non-elective cesarean births and maternal mortality.

Many Black women have a difficult time accessing the reproductive health care that meets their needs. Access to reproductive health care, which helps women plan their families, improves health outcomes for women and children.

Black women experience higher rates of unintended pregnancies than all other racial groups, in part because of disparities in access to quality contraceptive care and counseling.

Many Black women lack access to quality contraceptive care and counseling.

For example, in a recent analysis of California women enrolled in Medicaid, Black women were less likely than white or Latina women to receive postpartum contraception, and when they did receive it, they were less likely to receive a highly effective method.

Black women's access to abortion is limited, and they may be more likely to experience the ill effects of abortion restrictions--such as delayed care, increased costs or lack of access to care.

Black and Hispanic adults in the United States remain less likely than White adults to say they own a traditional computer or have high- speed internet at home, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted Jan. 25 to Feb. 8, 2021.

In addition, only 40 percent of Black adults report having broadband access in their homes. This figure is another testament to the inhibitions black women face in getting the care they need, which this act aims to resolve.

It is for that reason Madam Speaker I support the ``Data Mapping to Save Moms' Lives Act.''

Comprehensive data on maternal health will play a role in saving the lives of pregnant black women, so I am proud to support this Act.

Though there is still much work to be done, this bill is a good first step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to support this potentially life-saving piece of legislation.

For far too long black women have disproportionately suffered lower maternal health rates and outcomes. The passage of this Act finally provides us a route to remediation.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2501, the ``Spectrum Coordination Act'' which requires the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Federal Communications Commission to update the Memorandum of Understanding on Spectrum Coordination to improve the process for resolving frequency allocation disputes in shared or adjacent spectrum bands and ensure the efficient use or sharing of spectrum.

The memorandum of understanding formalizes the cooperative relationship between the two agencies to ensure that spectrum policy decisions promote efficient use of spectrum consistent with both the economic interests and national security of the Nation.

Spectrum encompasses a variety of communications, from extremely low frequencies which are used by military submarines to communicate with one another, to extremely high frequencies which allow all of us to use Wi-Fi in our homes and at work.

Spectrum is also critical for air travel, one of the most important industries in the United States and the world. It provides pilots and air traffic controllers the ability to communicate from surface to air, ensuring passenger safety and scheduled arrival at their destinations.

In terms of domestic national security, spectrum is crucial in saving lives. Due to the devastating effects of climate change, we are seeing natural disasters that are more devastating than ever before. The effects of these disasters demand an equally significant response from our first responders, from local police all the way to FEMA.

Thanks to the manipulability of spectrum, we have created dedicated interoperable frequencies for first responders, allowing them to effectively communicate with their counterparts and save more lives.

Madam Speaker, properly designating jurisdiction of spectrum or radio wave oversight is critical in maintaining this country's economic prosperity and national security.

Our society is increasingly relying on technology, and therefore spectrum, every day.

We must update this memorandum to accurately assess and subsequently assign jurisdiction based on the technological advances we have made since the memorandum's last update in 2003.

Since 2003, the Internet has transitioned from a luxury to a commodity, smart phones are mandatory to be able to fully participate in society, and threats to national security have evolved in ways we never thought possible.

In addition, spectrum allocation will even be increasingly important in the distant future.

Astronomers use specialized devices to read radio waves emitted from outer space, allowing us to learn more about the universe and its origins. Just last week The South African Radio Astronomy Observatory released a new image of what it called astronomy's newest mystery: the Odd Radio Circle or ORC.

Astronomers have spotted only a handful of ORCs. They're huge, about a million light-years across which is 16 times bigger than our Milky Way galaxy. Despite this, the ORCs are hard to see. They're visible only at radio wavelengths.

Right now, we don't know what ORCs are or what causes them, but one day we will. The case could be made that when we do know more, it will be objectively critical knowledge because humans are explorers, and space is our next frontier.

Space is the next place we will go, and maybe not in this generation nor the one after that, but one day we will go. Humans will need all the information they can get while exploring the unknown, and all of it will be thanks to radio waves and those who read them and understood them. Their importance truly cannot be understated.

Madam Speaker, I firmly believe these factors make updating this memorandum of the utmost necessity, so I am proud to support the ``Spectrum Coordination Act'' and urge my colleagues to as well.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5657, the Medical Marijuana Research Act.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Controlled Substances Act to make marijuana accessible for use by qualified marijuana researchers for medical purposes, and for other purposes.

This bill establishes new, separate registration requirements to facilitate medical marijuana research.

It will remove the barriers on conducting cannabis research, by allowing scientists to access products from dispensaries that are legally authorized by state law.

Current barriers include the burdensome registration process, redundant protocol reviews, lack of adequate research material, and unnecessarily onerous security requirements.

The act will speed up the process for researchers to apply and get approved to study cannabis.

It will also set clear deadlines on federal agencies to act on their registration applications.

The bill also makes it easier for scientists to modify their research protocols without having to seek federal approval.

It would additionally require that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) license more growers.

With this requirement there would be no limit on the number of additional entities that can be registered to cultivate marijuana for research purposes.

For half a century, researchers have only been able to study marijuana grown at the University of Mississippi, because it is the only federally approved facility.

These researchers have complained that it is difficult to obtain the medical marijuana at the facility, and when they do obtain it, it is low quality.

The medical marijuana that researchers at the University of Mississippi have access to is often compared to industrial hemp, a botanical class of Cannabis sativa that is grown specifically for industrial and medical use.

There are many differences between hemp and marijuana such as:

Hemp is specifically bred to produce plants because of its strong durable fibers, whereas marijuana is bred specifically for its resin properties, which is used for recreational purposes.

Hemp is bred to have less than .03 percent THC. THC is the mood- altering compound in marijuana. Regular marijuana has 1 percent to 30 percent of THC.

The hemp plant produces a high level of CBD oil and low levels of THC resin. Marijuana has a low level of CBD oil, and high levels of THC resin.

In humans, the CBD oil produced by the hemp plant works on the inflammatory systems of the brain which is why some patients say they get relief after using it. Marijuana works on the part of the brain that regulates mood and hunger.

The cannabis that government-authorized institutions typically access is more like hemp than marijuana, and marijuana is what consumers use in the real world.

These researchers need to have access to marijuana and not facility- grown hemp to further our education around the drug.

With this bill, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. attorney general would be required to create a process for marijuana manufacturers and distributors to supply researchers with cannabis from dispensaries.

This will allow researchers to be able to study the recreational marijuana that is being used and sold from state-legal businesses, instead of having to use only government grown cannabis.

Ninety-nine percent of Americans live in a state that has legalized some form of cannabis, yet the federal law is still hindering researchers' ability to study all the full range of health benefits.

Providing researchers with the actual marijuana that consumers are purchasing is the only way to provide the most efficient and relevant results.

We need to stop making researchers jump through regulatory hoops in their efforts to study the medical potential of the plant.

Expanding the marijuana studies will help ensure that Americans have adequate access to these potentially life changing medicines and treatments.

There are about 4 million registered cannabis patients in the United States, and likely millions more are self-medicating.

The United States leads the world in biomedical research yet research on cannabis, a drug that many of our citizens benefit from and are already using, lags far behind.

Limiting the resources for this research will leave patients, health care professionals, and policy makers without the evidence needed to make sound decisions about the use of marijuana.

I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 5657 because providing the resources for this research could make the difference in millions of lives.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1916, the Ensuring Lasting Smiles Act.

The purpose of this bill is to provide health insurance benefits for outpatient and inpatient items and services related to the diagnosis and treatment of congenital anomalies and birth defects.

This bill requires private health insurance plans to cover the diagnosis and treatment of birth defects, congenital disorders, or congenital malformations, conditions developed prenatally and may be identified before or at birth, or later in life.

The coverage must include services and items that functionally improve, repair, or restore any body part that is medically necessary for normal bodily functions or appearance, as determined by the treating physician.

This bill protects patients against increased insurance premiums by clearly specifying that coverage for these treatments may be subjected only to the same limits that apply to other injuries or sicknesses without imposing any greater financial responsibilities on the patient or family.

This legislation would also close an insurance coverage loophole for people born with congenital anomalies who need complex oral restorative care.

It would ensure that health plans cover medically necessary services related to a patient's anomaly or birth defect, including any serious dental and oral-related procedures that are necessary to maintaining health and overall function.

Insurance companies usually cover the preliminary procedures to treat congenital anomalies, but often deny and delay follow-up reconstructive procedures.

Denial or delay of these reconstructive procedures could lead to long-term physical and psychological injuries.

Insurance companies claim these follow up procedures are only cosmetic in nature, which then places a significant burden on patients and their families.

It is relatively rare for a child with a congenital deformity or developmental anomaly to undergo just one procedure that corrects all the associated health implications the first time.

On average, these children can expect anywhere from three to five surgical procedures and many more treatments before achieving structural normalcy and function in the affected body parts.

These families are then forced to pay huge out-of-pocket costs for treatment coverage or, in worst case scenarios, terminate treatment.

For example, people born with ectodermal dysplasia's are often unable to properly develop teeth.

Their teeth may be missing, completely absent, have defective enamel or be shaped differently.

If the teeth are not repaired or replaced, these individuals could have chewing, swallowing, digestive, speech and self-esteem issues.

Someone born with ectodermal dysplasia spends a significant amount of money on necessary medical and dental care throughout their lifetime.

This amount of money can become so excessive that families may have no option other than selling their cars, remortgaging their homes, and foregoing a college education to afford medically necessary dental care.

Far more families simply go without care because they can't afford it.

Dental care is also subject to a double-standard, while some individuals who lose their teeth due to an accident receive dental benefits under the existing statutes, those who are missing teeth due to ectodermal dysplasias, a medical condition they were born with, do not receive these same dental benefits.

The Ensuring Lasting Smiles Act would fix this.

This bill would help more families than those affected by the ectodermal dysplasias. It would cover a broad range of congenital anomalies.

Many people born with congenital anomalies suffer from severe oral defects such as:

Cleft lip or palate

Hypodontia

Enamel hypoplasia

Skeletal defects like craniosynostosis

Vision defects like congenital cataracts or aphakia

Hearing defects like microtia

Other loss of bodily functions

According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), one in 33 babies in the United States is born with a congenital anomaly.

Of those 120,000 children born annually with birth defects, approximately 40,000 require reconstructive surgery.

Medical professionals and surgeons are fortunately able to correct many of these problems, however some insurance companies deny access to care by labeling the procedures as ``cosmetic'' or ``non-functional'' in nature.

Too many children born with congenital anomalies are denied coverage despite the long-term harm of such conditions.

The Ensuring Lasting Smiles Act would address delays and denials in coverage and guarantee that children suffering from birth defects and anomalies get the treatment they need.

I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 1916 because this law guarantees the payment of health insurance benefits for necessary medical care and treatment due to any congenital anomaly.

These families deserve to see the day when they no longer have to fight for coverage of medically necessary treatments and their children and loved ones receive the treatments they desperately need and deserve.

Madam Speaker, today, I sat in the Senate Judiciary Committee as a historic vote was taken.

Since the appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor, only four women have ascended to the United States Supreme Court.

In particular, longer than any other demographic group, African- American women have been subjected to coercive laws, yet they have been excluded from the political and judicial positions to impact those laws.

I am glad that President Biden saw fit to nominate one of the most-- and probably the most--qualified judge ever to be nominated to the United States Supreme Court--not my words; the words of many others.

So this day that Dr. King died, we know that the dreamer may have been killed, but the dream still lives.

They voted today. Eleven Democrats voted yes. Unfortunately, 11 Republicans voted no.

I hope, as this goes to the floor, we will stand as Americans, and Democrats and Republicans will ascend to the United States Supreme Court this African-American woman, more qualified than ever, again, to take a rightful place on the United States Supreme Court. I pray that that will happen.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the lead sponsor, Chairman Nadler, for problem solving, along with Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Cohen, Congresswoman Lee, and all of those who galvanized all of us. I was pleased to be able to lead this through the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee.

The war on drugs simply failed, and I am glad that one interpretation that has just been evidenced by my good friend on the other side of the aisle will have little weight and little basis because what we are doing here is solving a problem.

Let me just indicate from the Health Affairs Culture of Health, a Black person is still nearly four times more likely to be arrested for cannabis possession than a White person.

To summarize this bill, it deals with Federal decriminalization, taxation, and expungement. It does not stop the DA, the Department of Justice, the FBI or anyone else from doing their job. The bill would remove cannabis from the list or schedule of federally controlled substances.

This means that, going forward, individuals can no longer be prosecuted federally for marijuana offenses. This does not mean that marijuana would now be legal throughout the United States. The bill would simply remove the Federal Government from the business of prosecuting marijuana cases, which would leave the question of legality to individual States. Forty-seven States already have some form of legal use of marijuana.

Let me share, my friends, the points that they are going to make. The bill was designed to help individuals who have been caught up in the criminal justice system for possessing more small amounts of marijuana for personal use. It was not designed to help drug traffickers.

By the way, the President has given over a billion dollars to Ukraine as one of the steadfast leaders and has galvanized NATO and our allies, and not one of us needs to challenge the President or any one of us in our fight to help Ukraine.

Let me make it very clear about crime. Read the President's budget. He has a massive piece in there to reduce crime. It is everywhere, including rural America, where Republicans say they are, but I don't look at it that way. It is Americans, we stand together. This bill is about America.

The expungement provisions are limited to nonviolent marijuana possession convictions that have loaded up our Federal prisons. If an individual has other criminal convictions in addition to a covered nonviolent offense,

marijuana offense, the bill already includes a stated exemption for drug kingpins, meaning anyone who received an increased sentence for being a leader or organizer of drug trafficking will not qualify for expungement.

Once this bill is passed, it would enable individuals to possess and use marijuana for personal use. Marijuana will be regulated as a commodity, but let me tell you what else will happen. We will be able to research, the scientists will be able to study what is happening to our young people, our juveniles if that is the case. We have a definitive position in there about helping those who may become addicted. We do not overlook those who might as well be using it, so let us go forward with this bill. I ask support for the bill.

This bill was designed to help individuals who have been caught up in the criminal justice system for possessing small amounts of marijuana for personal use. It was not designed to help drug traffickers.

The expungement provisions are limited to nonviolent marijuana possession convictions only. If an individual has other criminal convictions in addition to a covered nonviolent marijuana offense, those other convictions will not be expunged. The bill already includes a stated exemption for ``drug kingpins,'' meaning anyone who received an increased sentence for being a leader or organizer of drug trafficking will not qualify for an expungement.

Once passed, this bill would enable individuals to possess and use marijuana for a personal use. Marijuana will be a regulated commodity like alcohol and the transportation, distribution, or selling of marijuana without complying with federal regulations will continue to be illegal. For example, an individual will not be able to transport marijuana across the border without complying with import regulations and appropriate tax requirements.

The bill already includes a requirement that a study be conducted to understand the societal impacts of decriminalizing marijuana, including the impact on juveniles, education, transportation, veterans, employment, and many others.

Because marijuana will now be considered a commodity or good to be sold and purchased, like alcohol and even cigarettes, the MORE Act preserves the FDA's ability to issue regulations to address the regulation, safety, manufacturing, product quality, marketing, labeling, and sale of products containing cannabis or cannabis derived compounds.

Cannabis will be regulated along the same lines as alcohol and cigarettes, which have age requirements for consumption, sale, and purchase.

Regulation of cannabis protects children and minors because the black market and street dealers are not required to ask for the age or ID of their customers, unlike permitted and regulated sellers.

Driving while impaired is illegal in the United States. The MORE Act does not change this fact.

Impaired driving occurs when someone operates a vehicle while impaired by a substance like marijuana, or any other drug, including prescribed and over-the-counter medicines, or alcohol. Law enforcement officers are trained to detect impairment of drivers by substances other than alcohol through field sobriety tests.

Many states have supported the establishment of Drug Recognition and Classification programs within their State and local police, and the training of special Drug Recognition Experts, which are law enforcement officers trained to identify drug-impaired driving using a 12-step, standardized evaluation that includes behavioral tests and physical assessments to determine impairment among seven categories of drug classification.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3617, the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act of 2021, or the MORE Act of 2021.

I am pleased to support this long-overdue measure and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the MORE Act, which is an important step in our continuing efforts to reform the criminal justice system, and I commend our Chairman for introducing this bill once again.

To summarize, the provisions of the MORE Act fall into three main categories--federal decriminalization, taxation, and expungement.

First, the bill would remove marijuana, or cannabis, from the list-- or schedule--of Federally controlled substances. This means that, going forward, individuals could no longer be prosecuted, federally, for marijuana offenses. This does not mean that marijuana would now be legal throughout the United States--the bill would simply remove the Federal government from the business of prosecuting marijuana cases and would leave the question of legality to the individual States.

Those states choosing to decriminalize can do so, without ongoing interference from the Federal government, and those states that choose to continue to make marijuana illegal can continue to do so, as well.

Second, the bill would establish a taxation structure to collect a sales tax on marijuana, which, over the course of five years would increase from five to eight percent. The funds collected from this tax would be used to establish a trust fund to reinvest in communities ravaged by the War on Drugs, particularly communities of color.

The trust fund would be used for rehabilitation and reentry programs in the Department of Justice and for programs in the Small Business Administration to ensure that participants in the burgeoning marijuana market are diverse and provide opportunities for entrepreneurship in communities that have been adversely impacted by the War on Drugs.

Finally, the bill would expunge and seal Federal marijuana arrests and convictions and resentence offenders, as appropriate--a much-needed measure of this bill to attempt to undo some of the damage done to black and brown communities by decades of unjust enforcement.

Thousands of men and women have suffered needlessly from the federal criminalization of marijuana, particularly in communities of color, and have borne the burden of collateral consequences that have damaged our society across generations, such as the denial of affordable housing, educational opportunities, and employment.

The laws enacted for the purpose of perpetuating the ``War on Drugs'' have led America to imprison more people than any other country.

Expunging and sealing the arrest and conviction records of people affected by the cannabis laws would remove barriers that helped create a permanent second-class status for millions of Americans.

Our outdated federal laws and policies unwisely require scarce law enforcement resources to be expended on cannabis offenses while conflicting with many states' laws regarding cannabis.

Cannabis does not fit the definition of a Schedule One drug and federal law must be updated to reflect this reality--just as most states have already begun to do.

Public support for legalization has surged.

Thirty-seven states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam have adopted laws allowing legal access to cannabis. And eighteen states, the District of Columbia, and the Northern Mariana Islands have adopted laws for legalizing cannabis for adult recreational use.

A total of 47 States have reformed their laws in one form or another pertaining to cannabis, despite its continued Federal criminalization.

The State legal-cannabis industry already employs almost a quarter of a million people, and the federal government needs to get out of the way of state-level decision making.

We need to open the door to research, therapeutic treatment for veterans, better banking and tax laws, and we need to help fuel economic growth within the industry.

We need to do all of this without continuing to spend federal resources on criminalization and unjust incarceration for marijuana offenses. Congress needs to pass the MORE Act.

That is why I support passage of this bill today and ask my colleagues to do so, as well.

I thank our Chairman Jerry Nadler, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, and Congressman Earl Blumenauer for their commitment to this potentially life-changing bill.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record Health Affairs' ``Culture of Health,'' which shows the importance of cannabis liberalization policy, and a letter from all of these individuals, religious groups, and the Center for American Progress.

[From HealthAffairs, July 2021]

Cannabis Liberalization in the US: The Policy Landscape

The cannabis--or marijuana--policy landscape has shifted

rapidly in past decades, with increasing numbers of states

decriminalizing cannabis possession and legalizing its

medical and recreational uses. Yet under federal law,

cannabis remains prohibited because of the potential for drug

misuse and negative health consequences. This disconnect

between federal and state law has allowed a for-profit

commercial industry to flourish in many states, absent

consistent regulation to ensure product safety. Increasing

cannabis accessibility in the states thus raises important

public health concerns while expanding certain therapeutic

opportunities. A second Health Affairs Health Policy Brief

accompanying this one explores the health effects of cannabis

legalization. It is also important to understand the

framework of policies governing legal cannabis markets, as

each policy category likely has differential impacts on

health benefits and harms associated with canna-bis use and

inconsistencies across jurisdictions have important

population health implications.

Federal Cannabis Policy

The US federal government began taxing cannabis production

and sales by enacting the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 only

after most states had prohibited the substance. In 1970, this

law was replaced by the Controlled Substances Act, which

designates marijuana as a Schedule I substance considered to

have high abuse potential and no accepted medical use. Under

federal law, the production, sale. possession. and

distribution of cannabis can carry fines and prison time.

During the Obama administration, the federal government

relaxed its enforcement of cannabis-related crimes. In a

series of executive actions, culminating in the 2013 Cole

memorandum, the Department of Justice deprioritized

prosecution of federal cannabis crimes in states where these

activities were legal and robustly regulated. First passed in

2014, the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment prohibited the use of

federal funds to prosecute medical cannabis-related

activities permissible under state law.

Other recent federal actions have further facilitated

access to cannabis plant derivatives. although these differ

from the botanical products and simple extracts that tend to

dominate state cannabis markets. The Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) approved several synthetic

tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) products in 1985 and 2016. each of

which was placed on a higher controlled substance schedule

than cannabis. The 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp, a substance

extracted from the cannabis plant that contains only 0.3

percent THC. Also in 2018. the Drug Enforcement

Administration designated FDA-approved cannabis-derived

cannabidiol (CBD) products containing no more than 0.1

percent THC as Schedule V substances.

Under this authority, the FDA approved the first CBD

product, Epidiolex, to treat childhood seizures.

Evolution of the State Policy Landscape

Public support for the legalization of cannabis use in the

US rose from 12 percent to 66 percent between 1969 and 2019.

Concurrently, states liberalized their approaches to cannabis

markets. Four central policy categories have evolved:

prohibition, decriminalization, medical legalization, and

recreational (also known as adult use) legalization.

Decriminalization regimes were generally adopted first (in

the 1970s-1980s, with a resurgence in the 2010s).

Decriminalization laws were later complemented by medical

legalization or replaced by recreational legalization.

Exhibit 1 shows the current status of these four policies,

and exhibit 2 depicts state adoption of legalization policies

for medical and recreational cannabis since 1996.

Prohibition

States began prohibiting cannabis cultivation,

distribution, and possession in the early twentieth century.

By 1937, every state had some form of cannabis legislation,

often motivated by concerns (largely unsubstantiated by

scientific evidence at the time) that cannabis products were

psychologically addictive, produced insanity, and motivated

crime. Although liberalization policies have largely replaced

prohibitions, two states--Idaho and Kansas--still ban

cannabis in all forms and assign criminal penalties for the

possession of even small amounts. Another ten states permit

the use of ``low-THC, high-CBD'' products but maintain

prohibitions and criminal penalties for all other cannabis

activities (included in the ``prohibition'' category in

exhibit 1).

Decriminalization

Decriminalization is the repeal of criminal penalties

associated with cannabis possession for personal use and

casual exchange (that is, not sales). ``Depenalization''

policies that lower these penalties without removing them do

not qualify as decriminalization regimes. Decriminalization

also differs from the nonenforcement policies adopted in

several US cities, where enforcement of low-level cannabis-

involved offenses is deprioritized. Decriminalization falls

short

of legalization because it still prohibits and criminally

penalizes cannabis cultivation, production, and sales and

maintains civil penalties for possessing cannabis. Since the

1970s, states have increasingly adopted decriminalization

policies. By 2020, sixteen states had such a policy (exhibit

1). The laws vary along several dimensions, including the

levels of civil fines, penalties for repeat offenses, and

threshold amounts of cannabis that are exempt from criminal

penalties.

Medical Cannabis Legalization

Medical cannabis laws typically permit patients with

``qualifying conditions'' certified by a medical professional

to purchase cannabis at dispensaries operating within the

state. Medical cannabis laws differ from low-THC and high-CBD

laws, which only legalize the supply and use of cannabis

products with low THC content. The most common qualifying

condition for which medical users can be certified is chronic

pain, although states regularly add conditions to their

lists. Since California passed the first medical cannabis law

in 1996, the number of jurisdictions adopting such programs

has grown steadily (exhibit 2). Today, more than two-thirds

of Americans live in one of the thirty-six states and four

territories that have approved medical cannabis use (exhibit

1).

The first medical cannabis laws passed (1996-2000) were

vague and defined medical use broadly. Although laws passed

between 2000 and 2009 offered more regulatory guidance over

the legal supply chain, laws passed or modified in more

recent years (2009-17) feature more comprehensive regulatory

programs that prioritize product safety. Still, the vast

majority of participants in medical cannabis programs are in

what are considered ``nonmedicalized programs,'' which lack

components consistent with evidence-based medicine and

pharmaceutical regulation (for example, testing and labeling)

and are largely divorced from medical practice. Ways in which

current laws differ from each other include the qualifying

conditions approved, channels of access {dispensaries,

collective versus home cultivation, and so on), registration

card renewal requirements, and use by patients from other

states.

Recreational Cannabis Legalization

Recreational cannabis laws remove the criminal and civil

penalties associated with supply or possession of the

substance by adults ages twenty-one and older. These laws

typically allow individuals to grow four to six cannabis

plants and limit possession and purchase to one to two

ounces; most also impose at least a 10 percent retail excise

tax on sales. Most states with recreational laws prohibit the

use of cannabis while operating a motor vehicle, although

four states have specific per se THC limits while driving.

Legalization of recreational use is a relatively new

phenomenon. In 2012, Colorado and Washington were the first

jurisdictions globally to allow adult cultivation and

possession of cannabis. In 2020, fifteen states and

Washington, DC, had laws that legalize adult cannabis supply

and possession in some form (exhibit 1), resulting in more

than one-third of the US population having legal access to

the substance. With the exception of Illinois and Vermont,

all laws passed through 2020 have advanced via ballot

measures rather than through the legislature.

States have choices in their recreational cannabis

regulatory regimes. Most states have opted for a commercial

model, wherein private industry is allowed to produce,

supply, and sell cannabis subject to regulation at the state

and sometimes local levels. Washington, D.C., uniquely does

not allow for commercial production or retail sale but,

rather, permits only small amounts of cannabis for personal

possession, use, and cultivation. Although Vermont originally

prohibited commercial sale, the state authorized the

establishment of a commercial retail market in October 2020.

Factors that can vary within commercial regimes include how

producers and suppliers are regulated, the types of products

that may be distributed, taxes, prices, marketing

restrictions, and ways in which products can be used or

personally cultivated.

States that enacted recreational legalization laws saw

declines in adult cannabis-related arrests, although racial

disparities in those arrests persist. Some cannabis

policies, including the 2021 New Mexico, New York, and

Virginia legalization initiatives, incorporate reforms to

address harms experienced by communities

disproportionately affected by cannabis criminalization.

Some laws include provisions to expunge or pardon

cannabis-related minor offenses Other states have

initiated programs to increase minority participation in

the legal market. Some jurisdictions have earmarked tax

revenue generated from cannabis sales to support

socioeconomically disadvantaged communities.

Policy Challenges And Opportunities

Limited national regulation of cannabis, the persistent

divide between national and state policy, and the growth of

state cannabis markets present numerous challenges for

population health, in part because the safety of many

cannabis products is uncertain and varies from state to

state. A dearth of federal regulation around cannabis

products has resulted in an unevenly regulated for-profit

industry that generates high profits and maintains

substantial control over marketing, promotion, and products

supplied.

Cannabis's Schedule I designation under federal law poses

additional challenges. It hinders the research into the

safety and adverse effects of cannabis-based products that

would be required for FDA approval. It also restricts

cannabis supplied for clinical trials to that which comes

from federal sources, which fails to reflect the potency and

type of products actually marketed in the states, although

the Drug Enforcement Administration is poised to approve

several manufacturers' applications to cultivate marijuana

for research needs. Institutions for higher education may be

reluctant to allow cannabis to be used in research on their

campuses for fear of losing federal funding. Cannabis

consumers remain uncertain over the stability of their supply

chain and risks that they may be prosecuted under federal law

or become ineligible for federal benefits. Finally, cannabis

cultivators and distributors face barriers accessing

financial services, given that the banking industry is

subject to federal laws, resulting in an inability to design

investment and growth strategies that could enhance the

legitimacy of the industry and safety of the products.

The lack of comprehensive, consistent oversight of cannabis

products and the disconnect between federal and state policy

suggest a number of important considerations for policy

makers.

Enhanced Federal Oversight of Product Safety and Development

Several options exist to improve federal oversight of

cannabis markets and products and to better align national

and state policies. Modifying cannabis's classification in

the Controlled Substances Act would facilitate enhanced

product safety research at the federal and state levels,

relax consumer and industry fears of criminal prosecution,

and facilitate legitimate financial transactions for cannabis

companies. It also would provide federal policy makers with

additional regulatory controls, such as premarketing

approval, which is currently unavailable for substances

designated as Schedule I, and would acknowledge cannabis's

medical benefits This modification could be accomplished by

amending the Controlled Substances Act to remove cannabis

from Schedule I and moving it to a higher schedule;

descheduling cannabis altogether, but having it meet the

threshold for FDA oversight, similar to nicotine and tobacco

products; or creating a new schedule for cannabis that

distinguishes it from other Schedule I substances. The

Medical Marijuana Research Act recently approved by the US

House of Representatives promotes cannabis research by

allowing scientists to access cannabis from state-level

dispensaries. Federal policy makers could also further

facilitate state regulation of cannabis supply by passing

legislation that restricts federal prosecutorial interference

with state cannabis markets.

Notwithstanding the above changes, the FDA already

possesses some regulatory powers to enhance the safety of

cannabis products. Under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of

1938 and Section 351 of the Public Health Service Act as

affirmed in the 2018 Farm Bill, the FDA can regulate

cannabis-containing and cannabis-derived compounds. Under

this authority, the FDA has taken particular interest in

overseeing the science and safety of CBD products. Of concern

are health claims made by some cannabis product manufacturers

and the introduction of foods containing THC or CBD into

interstate commerce--both of which are areas under FDA

jurisdiction. The agency could take more aggressive action

than issuing warning letters to questionable (CBD-related

commercial practices and could extend the rigor of its

investigations into THC products. For example, it could limit

the allowable THC content, which is concerningly high in many

cannabis products and is capable of inducing dependence or

cannabis use disorder.

State Strategies for Overseeing Cannabis Product Safety

Without changes in the federal regulatory architecture or

enhanced FDA oversight, states that move forward with

legalization must carefully consider how to safely oversee

cannabis markets.

Medical and recreational legalization have encouraged a

proliferation of product forms. Data from early

recreationally legalized states suggest that although the

flower of the plant still accounts for the largest proportion

of the market, heterogeneous extracts for inhalation are the

fastest-growing market segment. Cannabis products vary not

only in form but also in the potency of THC, CBD, and other

cannabinoids, as well as in the types and amounts of

pesticides and other impurities. Cannabis food and drink

products pose unique regulatory challenges. The health risks

associated with edibles, including for minors, likely result

from minimal consistency across products relating to potency,

inaccurate labeling, and the fact that many edibles contain

multiple servings of the advised THC dose. Further, users may

fail to appreciate the delayed effects of ingestion compared

with inhalation.

State legalization provides an opportunity for enhanced

regulatory oversight that can improve the safety of legal

cannabis products and limit the health risks and other risks

associated with the illegal marketplace. Policy makers can

consider ways to align legal cannabis markets with public

health strategies gleaned from tobacco and alcohol, such as

minimizing youth advertising exposure, restricting sale and

marketing locations, and requiring childproof packaging.

Frameworks could also consider medical and recreational

legalization regimes that adopt safety standards, for

instance, by limiting the concentration of THC

in products to levels not associated with dependence.

Standards for Medical Training

Despite the increasing prevalence of cannabis use in states

with and without legalization, many physicians do not receive

training on the potential health benefits and harms of

medical and recreational cannabis. To address this gap,

states could mandate that state-licensed physicians complete

continuing medical education credits on medical cannabis use

before certifying patients for medical cannabis registration.

Medical schools and residency programs could also design

coursework on the biochemical effects, clinical relevance,

and legal evolution of cannabis policy. These education

activities could be regularly updated with emerging evidence

on the health effects of cannabis. Outreach could extend to

patients and the public to inform them of the evidence-based

therapeutic uses of cannabis. All such training would be

better informed by enhanced research, as discussed above.

Considerations for Criminal Justice and Racial Equity

As cannabis liberalization progresses throughout the

country, states must address the collateral consequences of

cannabis-related criminal justice contact. Although states

with legalization and, to a lesser degree, decriminalization

regimes have experienced overall declines in arrests for

cannabis across racial groups, disparities in arrests across

races remain notable. Although cannabis-related arrests

decreased by 18 percent during the past decade, a Black

person is still nearly four times more likely to be arrested

for cannabis possession than a White person.

Cannabis policy reforms that aim to address criminal

justice and social disparities warrant consideration.

Cumbersome and expensive expungement processes, significant

entry obstacles associated with the legal market, and

declines in price that in turn reduce funds earmarked for

community programs threaten initiatives that address harms

produced by cannabis criminalization. As states begin to

implement social equity measures, they should carefully

assess which communities have been disproportionately harmed

by cannabis prohibition; how to encourage equitable,

sustainable participation in the cannabis industry--including

training and business support; and how earmarked cannabis

revenue will be disseminated to equity-enhancing initiatives.

Conclusion

Cannabis policy liberalization provides opportunities for

therapeutic benefit but also presents the potential for

health harms, the full consequences of which remain unknown,

given the nascency of the research and inconsistency in

findings (see the accompanying Health Affairs Health Policy

Brief) For policy makers considering reforms, policy choices

extend beyond blunt categories of prohibition,

decriminalization, medical legalization, and recreational

legalization and involve decisions related to the panoply of

regulatory provisions that govern legal and illegal cannabis.

The specifics of how to implement and enforce cannabis policy

and regulation are important to health, and researchers

should endeavor to evaluate these nuances as well as the

broader policy categories. Some states have included within

their legalization initiatives provisions requiring policy

evaluation. For example, Washington State earmarked cannabis

tax revenue to fund a continuous cannabis research program.

Other states, including Vermont and New York, reviewed the

potential impacts of regulating a recreational cannabis

supply chain before policy reform. More efforts such as these

will help to unpack the independent and comparative health

harms and benefits of various cannabis policy regimes and

regulatory approaches.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his thoughtful amendment, and I thank him for helping to further enhance this bill.

For clarity's sake, let me be very clear. This bill decriminalizes possession on the Federal level. All State laws and all State law enforcement are able to do their job. But let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, the President has put in an enormous amount of money for reducing crime in his budget.

This legislation is extremely important for those of us who recognize the key responsibilities on the Nation's highways. That is a Federal responsibility, and the gentleman has offered an important amendment to give $10 million to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to find the technology to enhance safety on highways.

The bill also includes a requirement that a study should be conducted to understand the societal impacts of decriminalizing marijuana, including the impact on juveniles, education, transportation, veterans, employment, and many others.

The gentleman's amendment, Mr. Gottheimer's, enhances this bill and makes it a direct response to the concerns that Americans may have.

Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment and the underlying bill, and I thank the gentleman for clarifying this important responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, it is incredulous when good ideas come to the floor that should draw bipartisan support--one cannot look, in the old country, they say, a gift horse in the mouth.

I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for recognizing that what we do in Washington, what we do for the people of this Nation, is to make sure we give them good facts. It will be good facts if his amendment is assessing a very important place in our lives, the workplace, or another very important place in our lives, schools.

This legislation, as I indicated, the underlying legislation just decriminalizes possession. It gives people another lifeline. It takes the criminalization away from this mounting incarceration of people of color.

I support the gentleman's amendment and say it is reasonable and good law. Let us support that amendment and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5547, the Care is an Economic Development Strategy Act or the CEDS Act, which requires grant applicants for certain public works and economic development projects to describe how they will increase the accessibility of affordable, quality, care-based services.

These services include childcare, early childhood education, disability and long-term care, and elder care.

This legislation increases the accessibility of affordable, quality, care-based services, and will expand quality childcare and support the dire needs of single parent homes.

The CEDS Act will amend the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, which provides grants for public works and development facilities, and the planning and coordination needed to alleviate conditions of substantial and persistent unemployment and underemployment in economically distressed areas and regions.

By amending this law, this bill would require recipients of certain grants to develop a comprehensive economic development strategy that directly or indirectly increases the accessibility of affordable, quality care-based services, and for other purposes.

The economic development strategy will ensure that all funds are being dispersed to programs that need them and will utilize the funding to provide quality care-based services.

The COVID-19 pandemic has unveiled and emphasized how vital care- based access is to ensure that we have a functioning economy.

According to the Family Caregiver Alliance, annually, about 8,357,100 people receive support from the 5 main long-term care services.

These include: Home health agencies 4,742,500; Nursing homes 1,383,700; Hospices 1,244,500; Residential care communities 713,300; Adult day service centers 273,200.

The number of individuals using paid long-term care services in any setting will likely double from 13 million using services in 2000, to 27 million people by 2050.

This estimate is impacted by steep growth in the population of older people who tend to need an increasing amount of care.

Among the disabled and elder population in the world, about two- thirds rely solely on family members to provide care, which often results in conflicts with their professional careers.

These conflicts often limit their ability to work outside the home and provide for their families.

For many parents, especially single mothers, a lack of childcare reduces workforce participation and prevents upward economic mobility.

Fifty-seven percent of working families spent more than $10,000 on childcare in 2020.

Twenty-seven percent of families have difficulty accessing childcare because of high demand and low supply of available childcare providers who have not yet reached capacity.

On average, Americans with children spend at least 10 percent of their household income on childcare.

Fifty-eight percent of working parents rely on childcare centers which equates to about 6.38 million parents across the nation.

This bill is a stepping stone towards economic stability and allows hardworking American parents to return to their jobs.

We must continue working alongside parents, employers, and childcare advocates to secure an economy that helps working parents thrive.

For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5547.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5343, the ``FEMA Caseworker Accountability Act.''

This bill directs FEMA to report to Congress on case management personnel turnover.

Specifically, FEMA must report on the turnover rate for their case management personnel, the average and median length of employment for such personnel, the steps that FEMA is taking or plans to take to lower the turnover rate, and other specified points.

Madam Speaker, FEMA's importance cannot be overstated. They have invaluable abilities to plan, coordinate, and execute very complex strategies to fulfill the disaster response and mitigation needs of local and state governments through collaboration and cooperation among a broad range of federal government agencies.

Following the havoc inflicted by Hurricane Harvey, I experienced firsthand the power of FEMA's skill, care, and rapid execution.

The nine-county Houston metro area that was impacted by Hurricane Harvey covers 9,444 square miles, an area larger than five states, including New Hampshire, New Jersey and Connecticut.

Harris County covers 1,778 square miles, enough space to fit New York City, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, Seattle, Austin and Dallas, with room still to spare.

Over 41,500 square miles of land mass were impacted by Hurricane Harvey and the subsequent flooding that covered an area larger than the States of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont combined.

Hurricane Harvey dropped 21 trillion gallons of rainfall on Texas and Louisiana, most of it on the Houston Metroplex.

Harvey dropped 51.88 inches of rain near Cedar Bayou, the highest total ever recorded for a single U.S. weather event.

At its peak on September 1, 2017, one-third of Houston was underwater.

At the peak on August 31, there were 34,575 evacuees in shelters across Texas.

Hurricane Harvey is the largest housing disaster to strike the U.S. in our nation's history, damaging 203,000 homes, of which 12,700 were destroyed.

Months after Hurricane Harvey, in February 2018, an estimated 10,098 families were still residing in hotel rooms, in over 1,500 hotels. Thousands of others whose homes were severely damaged were living with family or friends.

It was also the second costliest disaster ever recorded in the United States, with an estimated $125 billion dollars in damages.

In its wake, 889,425 people registered for assistance with the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

There were scores of families, including small children and the elderly, living in mold-infested or gutted-out homes.

When this once-in-a-lifetime disaster struck my district, FEMA did their jobs exceedingly well, for which I am incredibly grateful.

However, there is always room for improvement in federal agencies, and FEMA is no exception.

A high rate of caseworker turnover is the last thing that vulnerable families need. In my district, the recovery from Hurricane Harvey is ongoing, which can be seen in the caved-in roofs, torn-up streets; and shuttered buildings across my district.

Those problems do not linger singularly because of caseworker turnover, but it is certainly a significant reason. If no one is working on closing these cases, or they are being managed by only a few overwhelmed individuals, that's a problem which needs fixing.

Therefore, passing this legislation will set us on a path to fix that problem, Madam Speaker, which is why I strongly support this legislation and urge my colleagues to support it as well.

H.R. 5343 will play a critical role in FEMA's post-disaster response operations, and I look forward to reviewing Administrator Criswell's future report and implementing its recommendations.