Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5706 the Stop Sexual Assault and Harassment in Transportation Act to

protect transportation personnel and passengers from sexual assault and harassment.

The bill would require certain passenger transportation carriers, including passenger airlines, buses, passenger railroads, and transportation network companies (Uber or Lyft) to establish formal policies, trainings, and reporting structures to crack down on sexual assault and harassment.

The bill would also institute penalties for individuals who physically or sexually assault or threaten transportation personnel.

Public transportation is essential to the lives of millions of Americans. The threat of being sexually assaulted or harassed obstructs their ability to get to work, school or to pick up their kids from day care.

Passengers of public transportation live with a constant fear of being sexually victimized or threatened. Women especially have a higher chance of experiencing these sorts of encounters.

In Houston there have been several cases of men and women both passengers and employees of the Metropolitan Transit Authority, that have faced harassment and assault on public transport.

Public transportation should be the last place where Americans fear for their lives.

We must use our authority as Members of Congress to put in place a system that would help protect passengers from these obscene crimes, This bill would help protect the single mom in Houston trying to get to work on time, or the middle schooler in New York City using the subway to get to school.

I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5706 the Stop Sexual Assault and Harassment in Transportation Act.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6865 the Don Young Coast Guard Authorization Act to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard.

For the last 230 years, the Coast Guard has played a vital role in protecting the marine environment, guarding our nations extensive coastline, and has performed crucial life saving missions.

Over the years, I have had the opportunity to see the Coast Guard in action leading up to and following hurricanes like Ike and Harvey that impacted the Houston area.

I convey thanks and appreciation from Houstonians to the members of the Coast Guard for their service to our great Nation.

The history of the United States Coast Guard can be traced to the United States Revenue Cutter Service, which was founded on August 4, 1790, as part of the Department of the Treasury.

The Coast Guard has protected the United States throughout its long history and served proudly in every one of the Nation's conflicts.

The Coast Guard served as the nation's only armed force on the sea until Congress launched the Navy Department in 1798.

On January 28, 1915, the Revenue Cutter Service and the United States Life-Saving Service were merged to become the Coast Guard.

The U.S. Coast Guard conducts operations that ensure the safety of our nation's waterways and provides humanitarian assistance during national disasters.

The Coast Guard conducted critical search and rescue missions in response to Hurricane Harvey, which devasted my home district in Houston, Texas.

The Coast Guard's response included 2,600 active duty, reserve, civil servant, and auxiliary personnel: 50 rotary and fixed-wing aircraft, 75 shallow-water boats, and 29 coast guard cutters.

The efforts from the Coast Guard resulted in the rescue of over 11,000 people along the Texas and Louisiana cost during and after Hurricane Harvey.

During and in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey 51 members of the Coast Guard suffered catastrophic property loss and 124 others reported property damage in the impacted areas of Texas during Harvey.

This authorization will ensure that our country's devoted naval personnel have the means to effectively protect and defend our borders as well as expand our sea and land capabilities.

Authorizing funding for the Coast Guard is essential to sustaining our place in the international system as the world's most powerful naval force.

Donald Edwin Young was a dear colleague of mine. For the past 49 years, he represented Alaska's at-large congressional district and made a significant impact on his constituency,

I urge all my colleagues to support the Don Young Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2022.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5673, the Safeguarding Tomorrow through Ongoing Risk Mitigation Technical Corrections Act.

This bill revises provisions related to the hazard mitigation revolving loan fund program, by requiring capitalization grant recipients to supplement these two most recently published editions of relevant building codes, specifications, and standards.

The Safeguarding Tomorrow through Ongoing Risk Mitigation Act authorizes the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to enter into agreements with any state or Indian tribal government to make grants for the establishment of hazard mitigation revolving loan funds.

The funding would enable local governments that carry out projects to reduce disaster risks for homeowners, businesses, nonprofit organizations, and communities to decrease the loss of life and property, the cost of insurance claims, and federal disaster payments.

The Infrastructure Act of 2021 provides $500 million to the STORM Act, or $100 million per year for five years.

This new FEMA grant program finances water, wastewater, infrastructure, disaster recovery, community, and small business development projects.

This revolving loan fund can be utilized for projects intended to protect against wildfires, earthquakes, flooding, storm surges, chemical spills, seepage resulting from chemical spills and floods, and any other event deemed catastrophic by FEMA.

This legislation makes a huge impact on the nation's efforts to prevent and recover from natural disasters.

My community, the 18th Congressional District of Texas will benefit greatly from this bill.

Houston's Hurricane Harvey wreaked $125 billion in damage to the Houston area.

Houston's Third and Fifth Wards and in surrounding communities of Baytown and Gulfton, took the brunt of flooding damage due to Hurricane Harvey in 2017.

In February 2021, many of these same neighborhoods endured a much higher rate of power outages from Winter Storm Uri.

These low-interest loans will allow for cities and states to repay the loan, with savings from mitigation projects.

It also gives states the flexibility to prepare for oncoming disasters without paying high-interest rates.

They can invest in their communities--cutting red tape and they will no longer have to wait on the federal government.

For my district, and others living on the coast, it is not a matter of ``if'' a hurricane will strike our coast, it's a matter of ``when'' it will strike.

I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 5673 because hazards are going to happen and we must do everything we can to protect our people.

We need the Safeguarding Tomorrow through Ongoing Risk Mitigation Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak from both the heart and the Constitution.

The privilege of citizenship in the United States gives Americans the freedom to exert and to speak about what is in the depths of their heart while holding the Constitution that indicates: ``We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice''--the Constitution goes on to describe a myriad of justice issues in the Bill of Rights.

In addition to that, we have exhibits, symbols of freedom. I begin first with the Statue of Liberty standing tall in the New York Harbor. What you can see is the throng of humanity, fleeing Ukrainians, who now will probably amount to 6 million internally displaced persons and refugees in totality.

Amongst these individuals are separated families from their husbands, brothers, and cousins and others who are on the fight.

But it is important to describe why we are here: one man, Putin. One man. One man has established this level of intense brutality and violence, insensitivity, rage, and attack.

Mr. Putin's attack is on the babies of Ukraine. I will not give him any credence or respect that he is at war. He is in the midst of destruction and vile actions and attacked a hospital with pregnant women. He separated pregnant women from their babies who were born dead or mothers who gave birth and died and the baby died shortly thereafter.

The new revelation is that babies and women and children have been stolen by Russian soldiers and carted off to Russian territory. That is the vileness of this ludicrous Putin war.

Then we come to find out--which is in the public domain--that he may not be getting the right information, but let us not use that as an excuse.

It didn't matter what revelations he would get. He is a violent actor living in a dream world of reimagining the Soviet Union.

And so it is crucial for those of us who believe in peace that our administration determines the validity of any peace discussions because we would want to be part of ensuring that they are viable.

But, at the same time, to the dismay of many of us, the weapons should be given, the drones should be given, the war has to stop, and there is no end in sight.

And so the murderous attack, the destruction of cities, such as the ocean-based city, that have been destroyed, brought to their knees, individuals lost lives under the pile of rubbage, and particularly, the theater where 300 died where children were written on the outside.

Mr. Speaker, we must prepare now for refugees. And may I suggest that we must prepare for refugees coming from South and Central America that will include Haitians and Africans.

We are prepared to take in 125,000. Only 7,000 have been utilized. As some would say, including my late friend and colleague, Elijah Cummings, America is better than this. We know how to do this, and we must find the way to do it.

Standing at podiums and banging on the desk about we don't want these people, then you must not want those who are fleeing the bloody, violent actions of this horrific person.

I believe we should stand united as Americans, to capture the words: ``We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice''. . . . I want us to stand with the Ukrainian people, that nation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Marcy Kaptur for leading the Ukrainian Caucus and all of the Members, Republicans and Democrats.

But as I conclude, let me quickly say in 1 minute one issue that we should not forget in establishing justice: We must have oversight over the United States Supreme Court, and the texts of a spouse, as well, must be addressed, and we will address it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 6833, and I acknowledge Ms. Craig and Mrs. McBath. I tell my friends on the other side of the aisle that we can walk and chew gum at the same time, but right now people are dying because they are apportioning or putting in proportion their insulin that they need--not taking the full amount, but doing it proportionately. That is a death sentence.

Let me indicate: Native Americans, 14.7 percent diabetic; Hispanic, 12.5 percent; Black Americans, 11.7 percent. Many of them are on Medicare and many of them are on Medicaid. We can do both. I do rise to support this legislation--$35 in 2023, regardless of whether a beneficiary has reached the annual out-of-pocket spending; $35 beginning in 2024.

It is well-known that those who had diabetes suffered more with COVID-19. This is an important step. In the 18th Congressional District uninsured residents paid 23 times more for the brand of insulin, and we must begin to work on that. I join with my colleagues in making that the next step. I rise for this.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise to support the new response to marijuana, and to insist that we pass the MORE Act that came out of my subcommittee on the Judiciary Committee.

Public support for legalization of marijuana has surged in the past two decades. A total of 47 States have reformed their laws. We must reform the banking aspect of it. We need to open the door to research, therapeutic treatment for veterans, better banking and tax laws, and we need to help fuel the economic growth within the industry.

We need to do this by sending dollars out to help our respective communities bring down the cost of crime, be able to

help those who are in business. We must do this and spend Federal resources to end criminalization, build the economic engine, and to ensure that we are in step with 47 of our States.

Thousands of men and women have suffered needlessly from the Federal criminalization of marijuana with mandatory minimums, particularly Black and Brown. All these persons incarcerated need to be able to be constructive, but they are in there on the false war on drugs.

Mr. Speaker, I support both the insulin bill and the MORE Act, and I ask my colleagues to support the underlying rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the Rule governing House consideration of H.R. 3617, the ``Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act of 2021,'' or the ``MORE Act of 2021.''

The Rule that is being considered is carefully crafted and provides Members of the House an opportunity to address the existing conflict between federal and state laws regarding marijuana, or cannabis, and to provide reasonable solutions to resolve this conflict.

The bill is straightforward and responds to the need to leave the question of the legality of cannabis to the individual states while attempting to restore and reinvest in communities that have been ravaged by the War on Drugs.

Specifically, the bill decriminalizes cannabis on the federal level, provides a taxation structure for the sale of cannabis that will support a community reinvestment trust fund, and provides for expungement of convictions and arrests for federal cannabis offenses.

The Rule provides for debate and full consideration of the solutions and opportunities for cannabis reform offered by H.R. 3617 by the Congress.

The subject of the bill is public knowledge and well known by members of this body.

I have worked to provide sensible reforms to our criminal justice system.

Our outdated federal laws and policies unwisely require the expenditure of scarce law enforcement resources 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.

Thirty-seven states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam have adopted laws allowing medical use of cannabis.

Eighteen states, the District of Columbia, and the Northern Mariana Islands have adopted laws for legalizing cannabis for adult recreational use.

As public support for the legalization of marijuana has surged in the past two decades, a total of 47 States have reformed their laws in one form or another pertaining to cannabis, despite its federal criminalization.

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 this without continuing to spend federal resources on criminalization and unjust incarceration for marijuana offenses.

Thousands of men and women have suffered needlessly from the federal criminalization of marijuana, particularly in black and brown communities.

These individuals have borne the burden of collateral consequences that have damaged our society across generations--such as the denial of affordable housing, educational opportunities, employment, and the right to vote.

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

The Rule allows the House to address these historical wrongs by voting on H.R. 3617.

I thank the Committee on the Judiciary, on which I serve, for the work it has done to bring H.R. 3617 to the floor for a vote.

I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in support of the Rule and the underlying bill H.R. 3617.

Mr. Speaker, I rise also to speak in strong support of the Rule governing House consideration of H.R. 6833, the Affordable Insulin Now Act.

The Rule that is being considered is well crafted and provides Members of the House an opportunity to address an urgent need of constituents who require life saving insulin.

The bill is simple and gets to the urgent need to limit cost-sharing for insulin under private health insurance and the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Specifically, the bill caps cost-sharing under private health insurance for a month's supply of selected insulin products at $35 or 25 percent of a plan's negotiated price (after any price concessions), whichever is less, beginning in 2023.

The bill caps cost-sharing under the Medicare prescription drug benefit for insulin products at: $35 in 2023 regardless of whether a beneficiary has reached the annual out-of-pocket spending threshold, and $35 beginning in 2024 for those who have not yet reached this threshold.

The Rule provides for debate and full consideration of the benefits offered by H.R. 6833 by the Congress.

The subject of the bill is public knowledge and well known by members of this body.

I have worked closely with the healthcare community that serve Houstonians to ensure that programs are receiving the appropriate level of federal support.

One of the most difficult challenges are the hurdles to healthcare created by lack of health insurance such as a lack of access to necessary medications due to the high costs of many prescription drugs.

Diabetes is a life-threatening disease that disproportionately affects communities of color.

Diabetes is associated with serious health problems, including heart disease and stroke, kidney failure, and blindness.

There are 15,000 Medicare beneficiaries in the Eighteenth Congressional District who have been diagnosed with diabetes.

These individuals are my constituents and I know that on average, each of them pays 4.8 times the cost of similar medication in Australia, 3.6 times the cost in the United Kingdom, and 2.6 times the cost in Canada.

Additionally, in the Eighteenth Congressional District, 26.7 percent of residents are uninsured.

For example, an uninsured resident of this congressional district pays 23 times more for this brand of insulin than their counterparts in Australia, 15 times more than they would in the United Kingdom, and 13 times more than they would in Canada.

The consequences of these staggering costs are not benign.

Many patients often speak of having to make heart-wrenching decisions about what to buy with the commonly fixed incomes attendant to seniors.

Many medical professionals indicate that the high prices for prescription drugs are a function of a lack of competition, and authorizing Medicare to create a program to negotiate drug prices may be an estimable way to lower the cost of prescription drugs.

All told this reflects a disturbing trend: in our country, the cost of branded drugs tends to go up, whereas in other countries, the costs tend to go down.

Before insulin the prognosis for diabetics was bleak.

Over the past two decades, manufacturers have systematically and dramatically raised the prices of their insulin products by more than tenfold--often in lockstep.

In 2017, diabetes contributed to the death of 277,000 Americans--and was the primary death for 85,000 of those individuals.

That same year diagnosed diabetes cost the United States an estimated $327 billion--including $237 billion in direct medical costs and $90 billion in productivity losses.

Diabetes drugs, including insulin and oral medications that regulate blood sugar levels, play a critical role in helping people with diabetes manage their condition and reduce the risk of diabetes-related health complications.

Although insulin is the most well-known diabetes medication, diabetes patients are often prescribed other oral drugs to use in place of or alongside insulin.

Many of these non-insulin products used to regulate blood sugar levels are brand drugs that lack generic alternatives.

In recent years, the high prices of diabetes drugs have placed a tremendous strain on diabetes patients as well as the federal government, which provides diabetes medications to more than 43 million Medicare beneficiaries.

Because Medicare lacks the authority to negotiate directly with drug manufacturers, Medicare beneficiaries pay significantly more for their drugs than patients abroad.

Patients who are uninsured or underinsured and must pay for their drugs out of pocket bear an even greater cost burden.

The Rule allows the House to address this urgent need by voting on

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in strong support of H.R. 6833, the Affordable Insulin Now Act. The bill is simple and gets to the urgent need to limit cost-sharing for insulin under private health insurance and the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Specifically, the bill caps cost-sharing under private health insurance for a month's supply of selected insulin products at $35 or 25 percent of a plan's negotiated price (after any price concessions), whichever is less, beginning in 2023.

The bill caps cost-sharing under the Medicare prescription drug benefit for insulin products at:

$35 in 2023 regardless of whether a beneficiary has reached the annual out-of-pocket spending threshold, and

$35 beginning in 2024 for those who have not yet reached this threshold.

The subject of the bill is public knowledge and well known by members of this body.

I have worked closely with the healthcare community that serve Houstonians to ensure that programs are receiving the appropriate level of federal support.

One of the most difficult challenges are the hurdles to healthcare created by lack of health insurance such as a lack of access to necessary medications due to the high costs of many prescription drugs.

Diabetes is a life-threatening disease that disproportionately affects communities of color.

Diabetes is associated with serious health problems, including heart disease and stroke, kidney failure, and blindness.

There are 15,000 Medicare beneficiaries in the Eighteenth Congressional District who have been diagnosed with diabetes.

These individuals are my constituents and I know that on average, each of them pays 4.8 times the cost of similar medication in Australia, 3.6 times the cost in the United Kingdom, and 2.6 times the cost in Canada.

Additionally, in the Eighteenth Congressional District, 26.7 percent of residents are uninsured.

For example, an uninsured resident of this congressional district pays 23 times more for this brand of insulin than their counterparts in Australia, 15 times more than they would in the United Kingdom, and 13 times more than they would in Canada.

The consequences of these staggering costs are not benign.

Many patients often speak of having to make heartwrenching decisions about what to buy with the commonly fixed incomes attendant to seniors.

Many medical professionals indicate that the high prices for prescription drugs are a function of a lack of competition, and authorizing Medicare to create a program to negotiate drug prices may be an estimable way to lower the cost of prescription drugs.

All told this reflects a disturbing trend: in our country, the cost of branded drugs tends to go up, whereas in other countries, the costs tend to go down.

Before insulin the prognosis for diabetics was bleak.

Over the past two decades, manufacturers have systematically and dramatically raised the prices of their insulin products by more than tenfold--often in lockstep.

In 2017, diabetes contributed to the death of 277,000 Americans and was the primary death for 85,000 of those individuals

That same year diagnosed diabetes cost the United States an estimated $327 billion--including $237 billion in direct medical costs and $90 billion in productivity losses.

Diabetes drugs, including insulin and oral medications that regulate blood sugar levels, play a critical role in helping people with diabetes manage their condition and reduce the risk of diabetes-related health complications.

Although insulin is the most well-known diabetes medication, diabetes patients are often prescribed other oral drugs to use in place of or alongside insulin.

Many of these non-insulin products used to regulate blood sugar levels are brand drugs that lack generic alternatives.

In recent years, the high prices of diabetes drugs have placed a tremendous strain on diabetes patients as well as the federal government, which provides diabetes medications to more than 43 million Medicare beneficiaries.

Because Medicare lacks the authority to negotiate directly with drug manufacturers, Medicare beneficiaries pay significantly more for their drugs than patients abroad.

Patients who are uninsured or underinsured and must pay for their drugs out of pocket bear an even greater cost burden.

I thank the committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and Labor for the work they have done to bring H.R. 6833, the Affordable Insulin Now Act to the floor for a vote.

I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in support of H.R. 6833.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Michigan for her leadership, along with my colleague from Texas, Congresswoman Johnson, who chairs the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, and the many, many committees that have worked on the COMPETES Act.

As an alum of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee and a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I could not be more ecstatic for America, for Houstonians, for Texans. To really take the words of President Biden that were said to us in his comment on the COMPETES Act: It is transformational investment in our industrial base as well as research and development. It will help drive not only the American economy, but the global economy. It will, in fact, bring more manufacturing jobs back, and, yes, we will use the terminology, it will reimagine not only the Midwest, but it will reimagine the Southwest, the East, the West, the North, and the South. It will reimagine opportunities for young people.

And the chips we have been waiting for, as indicated by the gentlewoman from Michigan, I know we will have the opportunity to really join in in a bipartisan way in conference for something that nobody disagrees with. In addition, this ugly thing called the supply chain that for a moment clogged the system, raised the prices, which still have not been stabilized, but we will have the opportunity to address that question as well by unclogging the seaways, by investing with the infrastructure bill in ports, and getting products where they need to go.

Let me also suggest that we will be able to build other companies, smaller companies. Small businesses will improve or be able to result in more investment. At the same time, this bipartisan legislation will create opportunities for the next generation and the next generation.

I hope as well that minority businesses, minority scientists, historically Black colleges will have the opportunity to be part of the COMPETES Act, which I know that they will. This idea that we have a distance between us as Republicans and Democrats has to be closed.

This is an American bill. This is a bill to say to China: We are not going to take, sitting down, the unfair competition that you exert on many of the inventions that actually are made right here in the United States. Take the age-old internet and what China has done in many instances.

Madam Speaker, I rise to support the COMPETES Act and it going to conference, and at the same time recognize that any issue dealing with China and the chips dealing with semiconductors will be addressed in conference, and, as well, we will get the job done. It is transformational and we can do no less than to invest in the great mountain of research and development in this Nation.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the COMPETES Act ultimately, and to work with conference as we go forward on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the dean of this House, Congressman Don Young, and to remember him from a perspective of far-reaching diversity and love of the institution.

I offer my deepest sympathy to his wife, his family, his extended family, and all of the people of Alaska and all of the people of the Nation.

Everyone who has offered a word of salute to Congressman Young emphasizes his 49 years, but most of all, his love of getting the job done--getting something done.

And, of course, when I was having the privilege of being in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I could always be reminded of that voice ``regular order.'' And often you wanted to just do what Don Young said: Regular order. Gavel it down. But, again, he did so because of a respect for this institution.

I thank him for all of the introductions to Alaska that he made and, really, all of the work for the Alaskan people. No matter who they were, where they lived, in far reaches or inner cities, Don Young represented the State so ably.

I am grateful to have spent just a small amount of time--two decades--with Don Young in the House. And he will be remembered, and we will be reminded of what love of the institution truly means; unselfish commitment, and the commitment to work and get the job done.

Mr. Speaker, I salute the late Congressman Don Young. I thank him for teaching us how to get the job done.

Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary, Homeland Security, and the Budget, it is my pleasure to join Congresswoman Lizzie Fletcher and the Pro-Choice Caucus for this Special Order with my colleagues, to commemorate the women who have been prominent figures in achieving reproductive rights.

One of my greatest joys as a member of Congress is the opportunity to work on behalf of women to ensure that every voice is heard when discussing equality and women's rights.

I was inspired by many of the women who led the movement for women's equality and reproductive rights. When I was a young woman, their passion and purpose were instilled within me, and their indomitable spirit continues to light the way.

Before I share a few thoughts about two of the women who led the movement and were role models for me, I must emphasize how vital their lessons and their work continue to be.

This is a critical time to discuss women's reproductive rights because they are under attack in many states. Women in my home state of Texas have been stripped of their reproductive rights due to the revolting abortion ban that was enacted last September.

Restrictions on abortion disproportionately harm low-income women 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 accessing 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.

But the erosion of our rights in Texas and elsewhere makes clear how important the movement was in the 1970s. We owe a great debt to the women who paved the way for the reproductive rights that many women in this country enjoy today.

Shirley Anita Chisholm was a trailblazer throughout her career. In 1968, Shirley Chisholm ran for Congress in New York's 12th district. With her victory, she became the first African American woman ever elected to the United States House of Representatives.

Congresswoman Chisholm was a pioneer in the fight for reproductive rights. In a one-minute speech to the House, Congresswoman Chisholm explained that ``by forcing a young girl to have an unwanted child, we are assigning her to society's trash heap. She will be cut off from avenues of opportunity.''

In her 1970 book Unbought and Unbossed, Chisholm argued that ``access to legal abortion was an issue of economic and racial injustice, as poor African-American and Hispanic women were the most likely to be victims of unsafe ``back alley'' abortions while wealthy white women were much more likely to receive abortions from licensed doctors, even when the procedure was still illegal.''

Her efforts and advocacy led her to be named the honorary co- president of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws in 1969. Chisholm also co-founded the National Organization for Women, an organization that I hold dear to my heart.

I believe all women must be recognized for their achievements, but today I would like to pay special tribute to the strength and resilience of my hero and mentor, Barbara Jordan.

She was resolute and fearless in her pursuit of justice and equality.

Barbara Jordan was a prominent public figure, civil rights advocate, woman's rights advocate, and leading presence in Democratic Party politics for four decades.

Barbara Jordan was a ground-breaking ``national icon'': the first African American woman elected to the Texas Senate (1966); the first woman to represent Texas in the U.S. Congress (1972); and the first African American woman to deliver the keynote address at a Democratic National Convention (1976).

I was very fortunate to have known Congresswoman Jordan, and I had the honor and pleasure of thanking her for laying a path for me to follow when I decided to seek a career in public service.

Barbara Jordan grew up in Houston's Fifth Ward, graduated from Wheatley High School, and attended Texas Southern University.

Through the grace of God, a personal commitment to excellence, and hard work, she became someone who we all take pride in calling a Houstonian, and who is beloved nationwide.

Congresswoman Jordan's nonstop advocacy for women's rights and equality helped propagate the idea that women deserve to be given equal rights to men, and that women need to stand up to the male-dominated world, and assert our own leadership.

In a speech titled A Fundamental Right, by Congresswoman Jordan at the Planned Parenthood Federation of America's conference in 1990, she exclaimed that a ``fundamental right must not be subjected to a callous calculation of political winners and losers.''

She explained that many politicians were deliberately politicizing the debate about the fundamental right to privacy and reproductive health.

We still need leaders like Barbara Jordan and Shirley Chisholm to stand up and fight on behalf of women for reproductive rights and the full range of reforms that would create gender equity. It is because of women like them that we have made it this far, but the fight is not over yet.

The politicization surrounding abortion continues today and has led to new extremes that have eroded the progress that has been made up to now.

Just this year, Oklahoma, Idaho, and South Carolina have effectively banned the procedure, putting thousands of women's lives at risk.

It is a central part of our job as Members of Congress to advocate and fight for women. I am so honored and proud to be here today surrounded by so many outstanding and dedicated women who are dedicated to this cause.

I will continue to fight for reproductive rights for all women and gender equity for women everywhere.

Madam Speaker, in a building that conspicuously marked its exterior with the word ``children,'' the brutal Putin bombed without stopping this safe house in Mariupol. Obviously, it was completely destroyed. There were 300 people dead and little children sitting around the dead bodies of their parents.

The whole city has been leveled. The whole country has been attacked by a brutal dictator. Of course, we know the peace talks are going on, I encourage that. As well, I believe that the allies should continue to give weapons and there should be some process for giving them fighter jets.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Secretary of Homeland Security for recognizing that we will have to receive Ukrainian refugees, Haitian refugees, and, yes, refugees from the border. We are, in fact, a humane country. We have the ability to be able to assure the world that we will be a refuge and, as well, protect the American people.

That is what we do: we protect the American people, provide them jobs, give them safety, but, as well, we are a refuge for the world.

Madam Speaker, I thank the Secretary for his work. Let's let Ukraine win this, either in peace or in war.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2954, the Securing a Strong Retirement Act of 2021, which will make various changes with respect to employer-sponsored retirement plans, including providing for the automatic enrollment of employees in certain plans and increasing the age at which participants are required to begin receiving mandatory distributions.

This legislation expands opportunities for Americans to increase their retirement savings, improves workers' long-term financial wellbeing, and builds on the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement (SECURE) Act of 2019.

The purpose of this legislation is to expand automatic enrollment, simplify many retirement plan rules, and strengthen small businesses' ability to offer workplace retirement plans.

Among other things, H.R. 2954 would:

Expand automatic enrollment of workers in employer-sponsored retirement saving plans.

Employees would be automatically enrolled in plans such as 401(k)s and 403(b)s unless they opt out.

The initial automatic enrollment amount is at least 3 percent but no more than 10 percent. And then each year that amount is increased by 1 percent until it reaches 10 percent.

The age at which seniors must take required minimum distributions (RMDs) from their retirement savings accounts would be raised from 72 to 73. The bill subsequently would raise the age to 74 starting in 2029 and to 75 starting in 2032.

Reduce the penalty for failure to take RMDs to 25 percent from 50 percent. If this failure is corrected in a timely manner, as defined by the bill, the penalty would be further reduced to 10 percent.

Increase the limits on so-called catch-up contributions for employees ages 62 to 64. In 2021, these workers were allowed to contribute up to $6,500 to their retirement savings plans beyond the otherwise applicable limits. This bill would increase that amount to $10,000 and index it to inflation.

The catch-up contribution limit for individual retirement accounts would be indexed to inflation. Currently, savers ages 50 and up may contribute an additional $1,000 annually to their IRAs, but that limit isn't indexed to inflation.

Allow employers to match a worker's student loan payment by making an equivalent contribution to that worker's retirement savings plan.

This provision is intended to help workers who can't afford to save for retirement because of high student-loan debt, which causes them to miss out on their employers' matching contributions to retirement savings plans.

Today's workplace is more generationally diverse than ever.

Older employees are working longer, and millennials make up roughly a third of the American workforce. This bill helps both older and younger workers.

For younger workers, this can help jump start the saving process earlier by making employer matches available for those who are also paying off student loans.

For older workers nearing retirement, they would have more time to save, due to the increased catch-up contribution limits and delayed required minimum distributions (RMD).

By automatically enrolling every working person in a plan, with the option to opt out, we begin to solve the biggest reasons people don't save for retirement.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the three biggest reasons people do not save for retirement are: not having a plan at work (74 percent of non-savers), being self-employed (14 percent) and not being included in a workplace plan (12 percent).

These proposed changes are beneficial to Americans of all ages, helping them reach their savings goals and provide more flexibility upon retirement.

Though there are many paths to retirement, it's critical to be financially prepared, especially as people are living longer.

For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 2954 because we need to ensure that every American can benefit from the best retirement plan for them.

Madam Speaker, I rise to applaud two legislative initiatives that passed this week. One in particular was the COVID-19 American History Project Act.

With over almost a million Americans who died from COVID-19, the historic stories, the stories of tragedy and joy of the many hardworking medical professionals, like those in my particular congressional district, like Dr. Peter Hotez, who discovered an unbelievable vaccine that is now being used in developing nations, Dr. Joseph Varon, Dr. Joe Gathe, and many, many others; hospitals far and wide; nurses and medical professionals, who had to take care of people who were lying in hospital hallways; and families who lost one and two and three and four. We must tell the COVID-19 story.

It is an American story. We must tell of the heroes. We must tell of those we lost. We must say thank you.

But one thing we must do, as the chair of the bipartisan COVID-19 Task Force, we must never, never repeat this again. We must be prepared, and we should be ready to save lives. There is nothing wrong with testing and vaccinating.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 2629) to establish cybercrime reporting mechanisms, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on S. 2629.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2629, the Better Cybercrime Metrics Act. This legislation improves our understanding and tracking of cybercrime so that we can do more to prevent it.

A 2018 Gallup Poll found that 1 in 4 Americans had been a victim of cybercrime. And I might say that it has exponentially grown during the pandemic. From stolen financial information, to system-wide shutdowns, to ransomware attacks, these crimes harm our families, our businesses, and our government.

The Council of Economic Advisers estimates that malicious cyber activities cost our economy as much as $109 billion in 2016, and experts believe these costs are growing. The COVID-19 pandemic has increased opportunities for cybercrime with increases in remote work and the time people are spending online. Hackers also took advantage of our recovery efforts, stealing identities to file fake unemployment claims or fraudulent loan applications. And again, in the midst of other innocent Americans not being able to secure those dollars, and not being able to secure unemployment claims because of the fake process that clouded this system.

Many of the victims of these scams only learned that they were attacked when they went to file genuine claims and were told had already been submitted using their names or businesses.

Sadly, cybercriminals often target older Americans. In 2020, people over 60 accounted for the most complaints of any age group as collected by the FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center. People over 60 also had the greatest losses, with over $966 billion lost to cybercrime in 2020.

We must do more to protect Americans from cybercrime, and that starts with a better understanding of what it is and how it occurs. The Better Cybercrime Metrics Act will gather experts in law enforcement, business, and technology to create a taxonomy of cybercrime so we can define it and classify it in a uniform way.

This legislation also adds cybercrime to two important law enforcement tools used to track crimes: The National Incident-Based Reporting System and the National Crime Victimization Survey. Together, these provisions will ensure that law enforcement has a complete picture of when and where cybercrime occurs and who is harmed by it.

Finally, this bill directs the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study on reporting mechanisms for cybercrime and the disparities in cybercrime data relative to other types of crime data. Together, this legislation will put in place the tools to clearly define and classify cybercrime, to track cybercrime, and to better understand this serious threat.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very serious threat. And in addition to the monetary damages, people have been personally and psychologically impacted by losses, by lack of employability, by being rejected, for some of these claims having to be delayed when the individual who needs it is desperate and experiencing a desperate economic condition, to find that they have been, in essence, gamed by a cybercriminal. We must stop this.

And as I said earlier, one of the most vulnerable populations are individuals over 60. And really when you find those in their seventies, eighties, nineties, who have lived their lives, supported this Nation, and become victims of cybercrime, it is something that compels you to really want to stop this threat.

I commend Senators Brian Schatz and Thom Tillis for their work on this bipartisan legislation. I also thank Representative Abigail Spanberger for her leadership on the House companion to this bill. I was proud to stand with her in introducing the House companion, along with our Republican colleagues, Representative Blake Moore and Representative Andrew Garbarino.

We must give law enforcement the tools to keep pace with new technology and to get a step ahead of the threats faced by our ever- evolving world. This bill takes an important step in that effort, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Memorandum Excerpt

To: Members of the House Judiciary Committee

From: The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, Committee on

the Judiciary

Re: Markup of H.R. 4977, the ``Better Cybercrime Metrics

Act''; H.R. 55, the ``Emmett Till Antilynching Act'';

H.R. 5338, the ``Radiation Exposure Compensation Act

Amendments of 2021''; and H.R. 5796, the ``Patents for

Humanity Act of 2021''

Date: Tuesday, December 7, 2021

On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. in 2141

Rayburn House Office Building, the House Judiciary Committee

will mark up the following measures: H.R. 3359, the

``Homicide Victims' Families' Rights Act of 2021''; H.R.

4977, the ``Better Cybercrime Metrics Act''; H.R. 55, the

``Emmett Till Antilynching Act''; H.R. 5338, the ``Radiation

Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2021''; and H.R.

5796, the ``Patents for Humanity Act of 2021''.

II. H.R. 4977, the ``Better Cybercrime Metrics Act''

H.R. 4977, the ``Better Cybercrime Metrics Act'' would

improve the U.S. government's understanding, measurement, and

tracking of cybercrime. The bill would direct the Department

of Justice to work with the National Academy of Sciences, in

consultation with relevant stakeholders, to develop a

taxonomy of cybercrime that could be used by law enforcement

to ensure that the National Incident-Based Reporting System

(NIBRS), or any successor system, include cybercrime reports

from federal, state, and local officials. It also directs the

Bureau of Justice Statistics to include questions relating to

cybercrime in the National Crime Victimization Survey. The

bill also directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO)

to report on the effectiveness of current cybercrime

reporting mechanisms and highlight disparities in reporting

data between cybercrime data and other types of crime data.

This bipartisan bill was introduced on August 6, 2021 by

Representative Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) and currently has 18

cosponsors. An identical Senate companion, S. 2629 (Schatz-

HI, Tillis-NC, Cornyn-TX, Durbin-IL), was marked up by the

Senate Judiciary Committee on November 18 and favorably

reported on a unanimous voice vote. The Chairman will offer

an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 4977.

A. General Background

Cybercrime continues to be a significant threat to

businesses, governments, and individual Americans. Cybercrime

includes a broad range of conduct including phishing,

ransomware, identity theft, and data breaches.\1\ A recent

survey found one in five Americans have been victims of

ransomware.\2\ The COVID-19 pandemic created new

opportunities for cybercrime, including COVID-related

phishing and malware, with 35.9% of the world's COVID-19

cyber threats occurring in the United States.\3\ Cyber

attackers mainly rely on phishing attacks, which is the most

common attack as measured by the number of victims.\4\

Attackers also use online tools for extortion, data breaches,

identity theft, extracting ransoms, email compromise schemes,

impersonating charities and government actors, and other

schemes.\5\ Researchers attribute the rise in attacks to the

increase in remote work and the lower security protections at

one's home compared to an office.\6\

Cybercrime is costly and harms individuals, government

entities, and businesses across a broad range of industries.

The average data breach in 2020 cost companies $3.83 million

dollars.\7\ Email compromise schemes, in which email accounts

are compromised to conduct unauthorized transfers of funds,

accounted for over $1.8 billion in losses in 2020.\8\ In the

first six months of 2021, six ransomware organizations hacked

292 organizations and stole $45 million dollars.\9\

Organizations that experienced cybercrime this year include

the Colonial Pipeline, the Steamship Authority of

Massachusetts, JBS Foods, and the Washington D.C.

Metropolitan Police Department.\10\ As shown by the gas

shortage due to the Colonial Pipeline breach, these attacks

can shut down critical infrastructure, create shortages,

increase the cost of goods and services, and cost

organizations money from both operational shutdowns and

paying ransoms to hackers.\11\ Likewise, the December 2020,

SolarWinds attack targeted SolarWinds' 300,000 customers and

endangered the cybersecurity of many federal government

agencies, including the Department of Defense, as well as 425

of the U.S. Fortune 500 companies.\12\ Cybercrime harms

businesses across all industries, but it had a particular

effect on companies responding to the COVID-19 pandemic by

disrupting COVID-19 supply chains and the government's

efforts to address the spreading virus.\13\

Bad actors gravitate to cyber-attacks because of the

anonymity the internet provides and the low chances of

getting caught. The detection and prosecution rate of cyber

criminals in the United States is .05%.\14\ Given the

difficulty in tracing and prosecuting these crimes, it is

important to further study and track them so that we can work

to prevent cybercrime. H.R. 4977, the Better Cybercrime

Metrics Act will provide law enforcement with the tools to

uniformly classify and track cybercrime, furthering the

government's understanding of this serious problem and

building the foundation for improved cybercrime prevention

efforts.

B. Section-by-Section Analysis for the Amendment in the Nature of a

Substitute

Section 1. Short Title. Section 1 sets forth the short

title of the bill as the ``Better Cybercrime Metrics Act.''

Section 2. Cybercrime Taxonomy. Section 2 requires, within

90 days of the passage of the Act, the DOJ and the National

Academy of Sciences to develop a taxonomy that can be used by

law enforcement to categorize and track cybercrime, and

requires that the taxonomy be presented to Congress. The bill

authorizes $1,000,000 to carry out this section.

Section 3. Cybercrime Reporting. Section 3 requires, not

later than 2 years after the passage of the Act, the DOJ to

establish a category in the National Incident-Based Reporting

System to enable the collection of cybercrime and cyber-

enabled crime reports from Federal, State, and local

officials, incorporating the taxonomy developed under Section

2 as appropriate.

Section 4. National Crime Victimization Survey. Section 4

requires cybercrime to be added to the National Crime

Victimization Survey. The bill authorizes $2,000,000 to carry

out this section.

Section 5. GAO Study on Cybercrime Metrics. Section 5

directs the GAO to do a study on the current reporting

mechanisms of cybercrime and the disparities in data between

(A) data relating to cybercrime and cyber-enabled crime; and

(B) other types of crime data.

Endnotes

\1\ Fed. Bureau of Investigation, Internet Crime Complaint

Ctr., Internet Crime Report 2020 19 (2021) https:// www.ic3.gov/Media/PDF/AnnualReport/2020_IC3Report.pdf.

\2\ Joe Franscella, Anomali Harris Poll: Ransomware Hits 1

in 5 Americans, Anomali (Aug. 16, 2019), https:// www.anomali.com/blog/anomali-harris-poll-ransomware-hits-1- in-5.

\3\ Trend Micro Research, Attacks from All Angles: 2021

Midyear Cybersecurity Report 23 (2021) https:// documents.trendmicro.com/assets/rpt/rpt-attacks-from-all- angles.pdf.

\4\ Fed. Bureau of Investigation, Internet Crime Complaint

Ctr., Internet Crime Report 2020 6 (2021) https:// www.ic3.gov/Media/PDF/AnnualReport/2020_IC3Report.pdf.

\5\ Id. at 19.

\6\ The 10 Biggest Ransomware Attacks of 2021, Touro

College Illinois (Nov. 12, 2021). https://illinois.touro.edu/ news/the-10-biggest-ransomware-attacks-of-2021.php.

\7\ Ken Brisco, Cost of a Data Breach: Behind the Numbers

of a Cvbersecurity Response Plan, Secureworks (Jul. 27,

2021), https://www.secureworks.com/blog/data-breach-response- planning-cyber-threat-intelligence.

\8\ Fed. Bureau of Investigation, Internet Crime Complaint

Ctr., Internet Crime Report 2020 10 (2021) https:// www.ic3.gov/Media/PDF/AnnualReport/2020_IC3Report.pdf.

\9\ Six Ransomware Gangs Claim 290+ New Victims in 2021,

Potentially Reaping $45 Million for the Hackers, eSentire.

https://www.esentire.com/resources/library/six-ransomware- gangs-claim-290-new-victims-in-2021-potentially-reaping-45- million-for-the-hackers (last visited Dec. 3. 2021).

\10\ The 10 Biggest Ransomware Attacks of 2021, Touro

College Illinois (Nov. 12, 2021), https://illinois.touro.edu/ news/the-10-biggest-ransomware-attacks-of-2021.php.

\11\ Id.

\12\ Jake Williams, What You Need to Know About the

SolarWinds Supply-Chain Attack, SANS Institute (Dec. 15,

2020) https://www.sans.org/blog/what-you-need-to-know-about- the-solarwinds-supply-chain-attack.

\13\ Jackie Drees, Cyberattacks on COVID-19 vaccine supply

chain much larger than initially thought, IBM says, Becker's

Hospital Review (Apr. 30, 2021) https:// www.beckershospitalreview.com/cybersecurity/cyberattacks-on- covid-19-vaccine-supply-chain-much-larger-than-initially- thought-ibm-savs.html.

\14\ Mieke Eoyang, Alison Peters, Ishan Mehta, Brandon

Gaskew, To Catch a Hacker: Toward a comprehensive strategy to

identify, pursue, and punish malicious cyber actors, Third

Way (Dec. 3, 2021) https://www.thirdway.org/report/to-catch- a-hacker-toward-a-comprehensive-strategy-to-identify-pursue- and-punish-malicious-cyber-actors.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Spanberger), who was astute enough to be able to offer the companion bill, and I thank her for her leadership and career leadership on these issues.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just take an opportunity to thank Congresswoman Spanberger for the knowledge she brings to this issue and to this legislation. We have already said that this is not a harmless crime.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record Cybercrime predictions for 2022: Deepfakes, cryptocurrencies, and misinformation, to further emphasize the lack of the harmlessness that it is. It is harmful. One sentence says it all: Fake news 2.0 and the return of misinformation campaigns. They cite in particular COVID-19. I think all of us can attest to the terrible damage that was done during the pandemic with the huge issues of the question of COVID and the vaccination. Fake vaccine passport certificates were on sale for $100 to $125, and the volume of advertising groups and group sizes publishing sellers and multiplied over and over again.

[From the Future, December 4, 2021]

Cybercrime Predictions for 2022: Deepfakes, Cryptocurrencies, and

Misinformation

(By Maya Horowitz)

While cybercriminals continue to leverage the impact of the

COVID-19 pandemic, they

will also find new opportunities to attack such as deepfakes,

cryptocurrency and mobile wallets.

In 2021, cyber criminals adapted their attack strategy to

exploit vaccination mandates, elections and the shift to

hybrid work, to target organizations' supply chains and

networks for them to achieve maximum disruption.

The sophistication and scale of cyberattacks will continue

to break records and we can expect a huge increase in the

number of ransomware and mobile attacks. Looking ahead,

organizations should remain aware of the risks and ensure

that they have the appropriate solutions in place to prevent

them without disrupting their normal business flow. To stay

ahead of threats, organizations must be proactive and leave

no part of their attack surface unprotected or unmonitored or

otherwise risk becoming the next victim of sophisticated,

targeted attacks.

Global cybercrime predictions for 2022

Fake news 2.0 and the return of misinformation campaigns

The claim of `fake news' surrounding contentious issues has

become a new attack vector over previous years without people

really understanding its full impact. Throughout 2021,

misinformation was spread about the COVID-19 pandemic and

vaccination information. The black market for fake vaccine

certificates expanded globally, now selling fakes from 29

countries. Fake `vaccine passport' certificates were on sale

for $100-120 and the volume of advertisement groups and group

sizes publishing sellers multiplied within the year. In 2022,

cyber groups will continue to leverage these types of fake

news campaigns to execute cybercrime through various phishing

attacks and scams.

In addition, prior to the 2020 US presidential election,

Check Point researchers spotted surges in malicious election-

related domains and the use of ``meme camouflage'' aimed at

shifting public opinion. In the run-up to the US midterm

elections in November 2022, we can expect to see these

activities in full effect and for misinformation campaigns to

return on social media.

Cyberattacks targeting supply chains

Supply chain attackers take advantage of a lack of

monitoring within an organization's environment. They can be

used to perform any type of cyberattack, such as data

breaches and malware infections.

The well known cybercrime--SolarWinds supply chain attack

stands out in 2021 due to its scale and influence, but other

sophisticated supply chain attacks have occurred such as

Codecov in April, and most recently, Kaseya. Kaseya provides

software for Managed Service Providers and the REvil

ransomware gang exploited the company to infect over 1,000

customers with ransomware. The group demanded a ransom of $70

million to provide decryption keys for all affected

customers.

Supply chain attacks will become more common and

governments will have to establish regulations to address

these attacks and protect networks. They will also look into

collaborating with the private sectors and internationally to

identify and target more threat groups operating on global

and regional scales. In 2022, expect to discover more about

the global impact of the infamous Sunburst attack.

The cyber `cold war' intensifies

The cyber way is intensifying, and taking place online as

more nation-state actors push Western governments to continue

to destabilize society. Improved infrastructure and

technological capabilities will enable terrorists groups and

political activists to further their cybercrime agendas and

carry out more sophisticated, widespread attacks.

Cyberattacks will increasingly be used as proxy conflicts to

destabilize activities globally.

Data breaches are larger scale and more costly

Going into 2022 we will see an increase in data breaches

that will be larger scale. These breaches will also have the

potential to cost organizations and governments more to

recover. In May 2021, a US insurance giant paid $40 million

in ransom to hackers. This was a record, and we can expect

ransom demanded by attackers to increase in 2022.

Technology cybersecurity predictions for 2022

Mobile malware attacks increase as more people use mobile

wallets and payment platforms:

In 2021, 46 percent of organizations had at least one

employee download a malicious mobile application. The move to

remote work for almost entire populations across the world

during the COVID-19 pandemic saw the mobile attack surface

expand dramatically, resulting in 97 percent of organizations

facing mobile threats from several attack vectors. As mobile

wallets and mobile payment platforms are used more

frequently, cybercrimes will evolve and adapt their

techniques to exploit the growing reliance on mobile devices.

Cryptocurrency becomes a focal point for cyberattacks

globally

When money becomes purely software, the cybersecurity

needed to protect us from hackers stealing and manipulating

bitcoins and altcoins is sure to change in unexpected ways.

As reports of stolen crypto wallets triggered by free

airdropped NFTs become more frequent, Check Point Research

(CPR) investigated OpenSea and proved it was possible to

steal crypto wallets of users by leveraging critical

security. In 2022, we can expect to see an increase in

cryptocurrency related attacks.

Attackers leverage vulnerabilities in microservices to launch

largescale attacks

The move to the cloud and DevOps will result in a new form

of cybercrime. With microservices becoming the leading method

for application development, and microservices architecture

being embraced by Cloud Service Providers (CSPs), attackers

are using vulnerabilities found in microservices to launch

their attacks. We can also expect to see large scale attacks

targeting CSPs.

Deepfake technology weaponized

Techniques for fake video or audio are now advanced enough

to be weaponized and used to create targeted content to

manipulate opinions, stock prices or worse. As in the case of

other mobile attacks that rely on social engineering, the

results of a phishing attacks can range from fraud to more

advanced espionage. For instance in one of the most

significant deepfake phishing attacks, a bank manager in the

United Arab Emirates fell victim to a threat actor's scam.

Hackers used AI voice cloning to trick the bank manager into

transferring $35 million. Threat actors will use deepfake

social engineering attacks to gain permissions and to access

sensitive data.

Penetration tools continue to grow

Globally in 2021, 1 out of every 61 organizations was being

impacted by ransomware each week. Cybercrime through

ransomware will continue to grow, despite the efforts of law

enforcement to limit this growth globally. Threat actors will

target companies that can afford paying ransom, and

ransomware attacks will become more sophisticated in 2022.

Hackers will increasingly use penetration tools to customize

attacks in real time and to live and work within victim

networks. Penetration tools are the engine behind the most

sophisticated ransomware attacks that took place in 2021. As

the popularity of this attack method grows, attackers will

use it to carry out data exfiltration and extortion attacks.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the article: ``Ho, Ho, Ho, Holiday Scams'' FBI Portland. During the 2020 holiday season, this article says this FBI Internet Compliance Center received more than 17,000 complaints regarding the nondelivery of goods resulting in losses of more than $53 billion.

[From FBI Portland, December 1, 2021]

Ho, Ho, Ho, Holiday Scams!

(By Beth Anne Steele)

If you're doing online shopping this holiday season, be on

the lookout for scammers trying to steal a deal, too!

During the 2020 holiday shopping season, the FBI Internet

Crime Complaint Center (IC3.gov) received more than 17,000

complaints regarding the non-delivery of goods, resulting in

losses of more than $53 million. The FBI anticipates this

number could increase during the 2021 holiday season due to

rumors of merchandise shortages and the ongoing pandemic.

``Oftentimes when we talk about cyber crimes, we are

referring to massive intrusions into financial institutions

or ransomware attacks against large providers. Smaller cyber

scams run by individuals or groups can be just as frustrating

and difficult for families this time of year when all you

want to do is provide the perfect gift for your family. The

best thing you can do to be a savvy shopper is to know what

scams are out there and take some basic precautions,'' says

Kieran L. Ramsey, special agent in charge of the FBI in

Oregon.

Here's a look at some of the more common scams:

Online Shopping Scams:

Scammers often offer too-good-to-be-true deals via phishing

emails, through social media posts, or through ads. Perhaps

you were trying to buy tickets to the next big concert or

sporting event and found just what you were looking for--at a

good deal--in an online marketplace? Those tickets could end

up being bogus. Or, perhaps, you think you just scored a

hard-to-find item like a new gaming system? Or a designer bag

at an extremely low price? If you actually get a delivery,

which is unlikely, the box may not contain the item you

ordered in the condition you thought it would arrive. In the

meantime, if you clicked on a link to access the deal. you

likely gave the fraudster access to download malware onto

your device, and you gave him personal financial information

and debit/credit card details.

Social Media Shopping Scams:

Consumers should beware of posts on social media sites that

appear to offer special deals, vouchers, or gift cards. Some

may appear as holiday promotions or contests. Others may

appear to be from known friends who have shared the link.

Often, these scams lead consumers to participate in an online

survey that is designed to steal personal information. If you

click an ad through a social media platform, do your due

diligence to check the legitimacy of the website before

providing credit card or personal information.

Gift Card Scams:

Gift cards are popular and a great time saver. but you need

to watch for sellers who say they can get you cards below-

market value. Also, be wary of buying any card in a

store if it looks like the security PIN on the back has been

uncovered and recovered. Your best bet is to buy digital gift

cards directly from the merchant online. Another twist on

this scam involves a person who receives a request to

purchase gift cards in bulk. Here's how it works: the victim

receives a spoofed email, a phone call, or a text from a

person who they believe is in authority (such as an executive

at the company). The fraudster tells the victim to purchase

multiple gift cards as gifts. The victim does so and then

passes the card numbers and PINs to the ``executive'' who

cashes out the value.

Charity Scams:

Charity fraud rises during the holiday season when people

want to make end-of-year tax deductible gifts or just wish to

contribute to a good cause. These seasonal scams can be more

difficult to stop because of their widespread reach, limited

duration and, when done online, minimal oversight. Bad actors

target victims through cold calls, email campaigns,

crowdfunding platforms, or fake social media accounts and

websites. Fraudsters make it easy for victims to give money

and to feel like they're making a difference. The scammer

will divert some or all the funds for personal use, and those

most in need will never see the donations.

Tips to Avoid Being Victimized:

Pay for items using a credit card dedicated for online

purchases, checking the card statement frequently, and never

saving payment information in online accounts.

Never make purchases using public Wi-Fi.

Beware of vendors that require payment with a gift card,

wire transfer, cash, or cryptocurrency.

Research the seller to ensure legitimacy. Check reviews and

do online searches for the name of the vendor and the words

``scam'' or ``fraud.''

Check the contact details listed on the website to ensure

the vendor is real and reachable by phone or email.

Confirm return and refund policies.

Be wary of online retailers who use a free email service

instead of a company email address.

Don't judge a company by its website. Flashy websites can

be set up and taken down quickly.

Do not click on links or provide personal or financial

information to an unsolicited email or social media post.

Secure credit card accounts, even rewards accounts, with

strong passwords or passphrases. Change passwords or

passphrases regularly.

Make charitable contributions directly, rather than through

an intermediary, and pay via credit card or check. Avoid cash

donations, if possible.

Only purchase gift cards directly from a trusted merchant.

Make sure anti-virus/malware software is up to date and

block pop-up windows.

What to Do if You Are a Victim:

If you are a victim of an online scam, the FBI recommends

taking the following actions:

Report the activity to the Internet Crime Complaint Center

at IC3.gov, regardless of dollar loss. Provide all relevant

information in the complaint.

Contact your financial institution immediately upon

discovering any fraudulent or suspicious activity and direct

them to stop or reverse the transactions.

Ask your financial institution to contact the corresponding

financial institution where the fraudulent or suspicious

transfer was sent.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the article: ``Without major changes, more Americans can be victims of online crime'' The Hill. ``When you turn on the TV or read the newspaper, it is hard to ignore headlines: `Colonial Pipeline a Victim of Massive Ransomware Attack.' `50 Million People Affected by T-Mobile Data Breach.' `Hackers Exploit SolarWinds to Spy on U.S. Government Agencies.' ''

[From The Hill, Aug. 30, 2021]

Without Major Changes, More Americans Could Be Victims of Online Crime

(By Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA))

When you turn on the TV or read the newspaper, it's hard to

ignore the headlines: ``Colonial Pipeline a Victim of Massive

Ransomware Attack.'' ``50 Million People Affected by T-Mobile

Data Breach.'' ``Hackers Exploit SolarWinds to Spy on U.S.

Government Agencies.''

These major attacks represent a serious threat to our

economy and our national security. After the Colonial

Pipeline attack impacted thousands of our neighbors in

Central Virginia, I was adamant about how our government must

vastly improve its efforts to undercut the activity of

hackers, protect critical infrastructure, and strengthen our

cybercrime prevention efforts.

But the story of cybercrime in 2021 goes far beyond these

news-making cyberattacks--it extends into our communities,

our neighborhoods, and our homes.

If you are a family banking online, a business managing

your employees' payroll information, or a senior accessing

federal benefits on the internet, you are no stranger to

thinking about how a cyber breach or attack could affect you.

Even worse, you might already be one of the millions of

Americans whose personal data has been compromised, money or

identity stolen, or safety put at risk.

In 2018, Gallup found that nearly one in four U.S.

households has been a victim of cybercrime--making it the

most common crime in America. To confront cybercriminals and

their enablers, we need to have a better understanding of

these incidents. However, many of these cases--a vast

majority of these crimes--are not properly reported or

tracked by law enforcement Often, they are not measured at

all.

By some estimates, the Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI) may only collect about one in 90 of all cybercrime

incidents in its Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3)

database. The lack of information about cyber and cyber-

enabled crime is divorced from what Americans are actually

facing on a day-to-day basis an increased risk of cybercrime.

What's more, these crimes are rising at an alarming rate.

Compounding this challenge is the fact that federal, state,

and local governments do not have a comprehensive, effective

system to measure cybercrime. In 2021--decades after the dawn

of the internet age--we remain woefully unprepared to prevent

or respond to the next generation of cyberattacks.

Accountability for these crimes--and protection against

them--can't fully take shape until we have a clear picture of

the current state of play. For this reason, we need to take

real steps to improve how we track, measure, analyze, and

prosecute cybercrime.

Earlier this month, I introduced the bipartisan Better

Cybercrime Metrics Act, which would allow our federal

government and law enforcement to better track and identify

cybercrime, prevent attacks, and go after perpetrators. This

bill would strengthen our understanding and our defenses

against the phishing attempts, extortion, ransomware, and

identity theft that are plaguing everyday Americans.

As a former federal law enforcement agent, I understand

that local and state police and sheriff's departments are

often strained for resources and time. And as a former CIA

case officer, I recognize the importance of gathering as much

information as possible about potential threats--so that we

can prevent attacks on American citizens and American

businesses.

If signed into law, the Better Cybercrime Metrics Act would

improve our cybercrime metrics, anticipate future trends, and

make sure law enforcement has the tools and resources they

need.

Our bill would require federal reporting on the

effectiveness of current cybercrime mechanisms and highlight

disparities in reporting data between cybercrime data and

other types of crime data.

Additionally, it would require the National Crime

Victimization Survey to ask questions related to cybercrime

in its surveys--and it would make sure that the FBI's

National Incident Based Reporting System include cybercrime

reports from federal, state, and local officials.

Notably, our bill would also require the U.S. Department of

Justice to contract with the National Academy of Sciences to

develop a standard taxonomy for cybercrime. These metrics

could be used by law enforcement across the board.

I was proud to introduce this legislation alongside my

colleagues U.S. Reps. Blake Moore (R-Utah), Andrew Garbarino

(R-N.Y.), and Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas). Clearly, there is

consensus for these reforms and protections across the

political spectrum.

In the Senate, a companion bill is being led by Sen. Brian

Schatz (D-Hawaii). Joining him are Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), John

Cornyn (R-Texas), and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). I am

proud to have their partnership on this important, bicameral

effort.

With this legislation and an improved understanding of the

threats ahead, we can prevent more Americans from becoming

targets--or victims--online.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the article titled: ``U.S. Military Has Acted Against Ransomware Groups, General Acknowledges.''

[From the New York Times, December 5, 2021]

U.S. Military Has Acted Against Ransomware Groups, General Acknowledges

(By Julian E. Barnes)

Simi Valley, Calif.--The U.S. military has taken actions

against ransomware groups as part of its surge against

organizations launching attacks against American companies,

the nation's top cyberwarrior said on Saturday, the first

public acknowledgment of offensive measures against such

organizations.

Gen. Paul M. Nakasone, the head of U.S. Cyber Command and

the director of the National Security Agency, said that nine

months ago, the government saw ransomware attacks as the

responsibility of law enforcement.

But the attacks on Colonial Pipeline and JBS beef plants

demonstrated that the criminal organizations behind them have

been ``impacting our critical infrastructure,'' General

Nakasone said.

In response, the government is taking a more aggressive,

better coordinated approach against this threat, abandoning

its previous hands-off stance. Cyber Command, the N.S.A. and

other agencies have poured resources into gathering

intelligence on the ransomware groups and sharing that better

understanding across the government and with international

partners.

``The first thing we have to do is to understand the

adversary and their insights better than we've ever

understood them before,'' General Nakasone said in an

interview on the sidelines of the Reagan National Defense

Forum, a gathering of national security officials.

General Nakasone would not describe the actions taken by

his commands, nor what ransomware groups were targeted. But

he said one of the goals was to ``impose costs,'' which is

the term military officials use to describe punitive

cyberoperations.

``Before, during and since, with a number of elements of

our government, we have taken actions and we have imposed

costs;'' General Nakasone said. ``That's an important piece

that we should always be mindful of.''

In September, Cyber Command diverted traffic around servers

being used by the Russia-based REvil ransomware group,

officials briefed on the operation have said. The operation

came after government hackers from an allied country

penetrated the servers, making it more difficult for the

group to collect ransoms. After REvil detected the U.S.

action, it shut down at least temporarily. That Cyber Command

operation was reported last month by The Washington Post.

Cyber Command and the N.S.A. also assisted the F.B.I. and

the Justice Department in their efforts to seize and recover

much of the cryptocurrency ransom paid by Colonial Pipeline.

The Bitcoin payment was originally demanded by the Russian

ransomware group known as DarkSide.

The first known operation against a ransomware group by

Cyber Command came before the 2020 election, when officials

feared a network of computers known as TrickBot could be used

to disrupt voting.

Government officials have disagreed about how effective the

stepped-up actions against ransomware groups have been.

National Security Council officials have said activities by

Russian groups have declined. The F.B.I. has been skeptical.

Some outside groups saw a lull but predicted the ransomware

groups would rebrand and come back in force.

Asked if the United States had gotten better at defending

itself from ransomware groups, General Nakasone said the

country was ``on an upward trajectory.'' But adversaries

modify their operations and continue to try to attack, he

said.

``We know much more about what our adversaries can and

might do to us. This is an area where vigilance is really

important,'' he said, adding that ``we can't take our eye off

it.''

Since taking over in May 2018, General Nakasone has worked

to increase the pace of cyberoperations, focusing first on

more robust defenses against foreign influence operations in

the 2018 and 2020 elections. He has said that his commands

have been able to draw broad lessons from those operations,

which were seen as successful, and others.

``Take a look at the broad perspective of adversaries that

we've gone after over a period of five-plus years: It's been

nation-states, it's been proxies, it's been criminals, it's

been a whole wide variety of folks that each require a

different strategy,'' he said. ``The fundamental piece that

makes us successful against any adversary are speed, agility

and unity of effort. You have to have those three.''

Last year's discovery of the SolarWinds hacking, in which

Russian intelligence agents implanted software in the supply

chain, giving them potential access to scores of government

networks and thousands of business networks, was made by a

private company and exposed flaws in America's domestic

cyberdefenses. The N.S.A's Cybersecurity Collaboration Center

was set up to improve information sharing between the

government and industry and to better detect future

intrusions, General Nakasone said, although industry

officials say more needs to be done to improve the flow of

intelligence.

General Nakasone said those kinds of attacks are likely to

continue, by ransomware groups and others.

``What we have seen over the past year and what private

industry has indicated is that we have seen a tremendous rise

in terms of implants and in terms of zero-day vulnerabilities

and ransomware,'' he said, referring to an unknown coding

flaw for which a patch does not exist. ``I think that's the

world in which we live today.''

Speaking on a panel at the Reagan Forum, General Nakasone

said the domain of cyberspace had changed radically over the

past 11 months with the rise of ransomware attacks and

operations like SolarWinds. He said it was likely in any

future military conflict that American critical

infrastructure would be targeted.

``Borders mean less as we look at our adversaries, and

whatever adversary that is, we should begin with the idea

that our critical infrastructure will be targeted:' he told

the panel.

Cyber Command has already begun building up its efforts to

defend the next election. Despite the work to expose Russian,

Chinese and Iranian efforts to meddle in American politics,

General Nakasone said in the interview that foreign malign

campaigns were likely to continue.

``I think that we should anticipate that in cyberspace,

where the barriers to entry are so low, our adversaries are

always going to be attempting to be involved;'' he said.

The recipe for success in defending the election, he said,

is to provide insight to the public about what adversaries

are trying to do, share information about vulnerabilities and

adversarial operations, and finally take action against

groups trying to interfere with voting.

While that might take the form of cyberoperations against

hackers, the response can be broader. Last month, the Justice

Department announced the indictment of two Iranian hackers

the government had identified as being behind an attempt to

influence the 2020 election.

``This really has to be a whole-of-government effort,''

General Nakasone said. ``This is why the diplomatic effort is

important. This is why being able to look at a number of

different levers within our government to be able to impact

these type of adversaries is critical for our success.''

The roll call goes on and on and on.

I thank my colleagues for their words of support for this bipartisan legislation. I believe the time is now. We are going to continue this journey. This is not the last legislative initiative, that is why we will be holding a hearing tomorrow with the representative from the FBI because this is a growing continuing project and problem. If I might use the terminology, we will have to re-image constantly.

This legislation is also supported by law enforcement groups and those with particular expertise in cybercrime, including the National Fraternal Order of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, and the National Association of Police Organizations, the National White Collar Crime Center, and the Cybercrime Support Network.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Senator Schatz, Senator Tillis, and as I indicated, our colleague, Representative Spanberger for their leadership on this bipartisan legislation. I am glad to have joined it and I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2629, the ``Better Cybercrime Metrics Act.''

This legislation improves our understanding and tracking of cybercrime so that we can do more to prevent it.

A 2018 Gallup poll found that one in four Americans has been a victim of cybercrime.

From stolen financial information, to systemwide shutdowns, to ransomware attacks, these crimes harm our families, our businesses, and our government.

The Council of Economic Advisers estimated that malicious cyber activities cost our economy as much as $109 billion in 2016, and experts believe these costs are growing.

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased opportunities for cybercrime, with increases in remote work and the time people spend online.

Hackers also took advantage of our recovery efforts, stealing identities to file fake unemployment claims or fraudulent loan applications.

Many of the victims of these scams only learned they were attacked when they went to file genuine claims and were told that one had already been submitted using their name or business.

Sadly, cyber criminals often target older Americans. In 2020, people over 60 accounted for the most complaints of any age group, as collected by the FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center.

People over 60 also had the greatest losses, with over $966 million lost to cybercrime in 2020.

We must do more to protect Americans from cybercrime, and that starts with a better understanding of what it is and how it occurs.

The Better Cybercrime Metrics Act will gather experts in law enforcement, business, and technology to create a taxonomy of cybercrime so that we can define it and classify it in a uniform way.

This legislation also adds cybercrime to two important law enforcement tools used to track crimes, the National Incident-Based Reporting System and the National Crime Victimization Survey.

Together these provisions will ensure that law enforcement has a complete picture of when and where cybercrime occurs, and who is harmed by it.

Finally, this bill directs the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study on reporting mechanisms for cybercrime, and the disparities in cybercrime data relative to other types of crime data.

Together this legislation will put in place the tools to clearly define and classify cybercrime, to track cybercrime, and to better understand this serious threat.

I commend Senators Brian Schatz and Thom Tillis for their work on this bipartisan legislation. I also thank Representative Abigail Spanberger for her leadership on the House companion to this bill. I was proud to stand with her in introducing the House companion, along with our Republican colleagues, Representative Blake Moore and Representative Andrew Garbarino.

We must give law enforcement the tools to keep apace with new technology and to get a step ahead of the threats faced by our ever- evolving world.

This bill takes an important step in that effort and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3359) to provide for a system for reviewing the case files of cold case murders at the instance of certain persons, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 3359, the Homicide Victims' Families' Rights Act of 2021, and urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation, which establishes a procedure for families of murder victims in cases investigated at the Federal level to continue to pursue justice for their murdered family member when the trail has gone cold. There is nothing more devastating for a family to live without answers in the midst of a violent death of their loved one.

This legislation gives a designated family member the right to request a review of their murdered loved one's case file after 3 years. Unfortunately, 4 out of 10 murder victims' families in this country never receive any closure in the loss of their family member.

FBI data shows the percentage of homicides cleared by an arrest or other means has declined significantly from 1965 to today, while the number of unsolved homicides grows by the thousands nationwide every year.

In 2019, four Texas cities cleared 40 percent or less of reported homicides, according to the FBI statistics. Low clearance rates lead to low confidence in law enforcement and reduce citizen cooperation, which led to even lower clearance rates. The backlog of cases and low clearance rates disproportionately affect murder victims who are poor, undereducated, unemployed, and Black, and without resources to pursue this with a private investigator or with an extended legal team. They are left to their own devices. Mr. Speaker, you know what that is, remorse, sadness, devastation, family breaks-ups, loss that can never be repaired.

Poor Black and Brown victims and their families tend to receive less attention to their cases from law enforcement than those of other socioeconomic backgrounds and racial groups, and their cases go unsolved. This, of course, however, impacts Americans across the board. The pain is deep without easing, without ceasing. This legislation is important. This disparate treatment is unacceptable as well. We can and we must provide justice for all victims and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I hope this legislation will set a new tone--eliminating disparate treatment--impacting vulnerable communities of poor Black and Brown families who never receive closure, while serving as a model for State, local, and Tribal governments where the vast majority of unsolved murders lie, and as well, help all Americans no matter what their condition and station in life and no matter where they live.

H.R. 3359 will require Federal law enforcement agencies to use fresh eyes--and I have seen this actually work--to complete a case file, review, and determine if a full reinvestigation could lead to new probative investigative leads.

This legislation will encourage equitable treatment of victims and their families by requiring that Federal law enforcement, including the victims' families in the case file review and reinvestigation process. That means notifying them and giving them hope; provide written certification to a designated family member if a final review is not necessary; update that family member throughout the case file review and full reinvestigation; and meet with and discuss the evidence with that family member if a full reinvestigation is not pursued.

There is nothing like closure. It has been shown that cold case investigations can be very effective by using agents and investigators who have never worked the cases before, and by deploying up-to-date investigative techniques. Cold case investigations help take violent criminals off the street and to bring closure.

Let me take note of the fact that the Judiciary Committee as a whole is very active in pursuing the issue of cold cases to the extent that this Department of Justice has established a unit that works on it. I would say, however, an infusion of energy and excitement and utilization of this effort would be welcomed because this is an important message and effort for our families.

In 2010, the FBI and a cold case detective began a joint reexamination of the death of Ellen Beason in 1985, whose remains were found south of Houston in an area called the killing fields. Almost 30 years later, the cold case detective requested x-rays of the body which showed that the woman's skull had been cracked on both sides from a forceful blow. Her body had never been x-rayed.

The main suspect in the murder was finally convicted of involuntary manslaughter in 2014. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison, and was named as the leading suspect in the murder of other women found in the killing fields, though he was never charged.

H.R. 3359 mandates that a law enforcement agency must conduct a full reinvestigation like the one that brought justice to Ellen Beason's family if probative investigative leads result from a full investigation. How necessary this is for mourning and very, very devastated families.

This bipartisan legislation represents an important step in fostering renewed hope for families and is supported by a broad array of advocates, including the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National Organization of Parents of Murdered Children, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.

Mr. Speaker, I am so grateful to Congressman Eric Swalwell, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, for his passion on this issue and his astute continued effort on this bipartisan bill that will bring light and hope to families of victims who seek justice for their loved ones.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill today, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell), the author and leader of this bill. I thank him so much for his very astute leadership.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Let me thank the gentleman from Oregon for his support of this legislation; and as well, again thank Mr. Swalwell for that commitment to helping families who are typically desperate for help in these cold cases.

Let me cite as a comparison that does not deal with the end of a case, but it does deal with the intervention of the Federal Government, the FBI, in particular, on a child predator case in a local neighborhood, where local law enforcement were doing their very best.

But when we were able to reach out to the FBI, although the case was not cold in its conclusion, it was cold in its investigation, its current investigation, and the FBI did bring new and fresh eyes to help us with that terrible case.

So when we have cases that are a cold case, the backlog of cold case murders continues to grow, and I think this legislation means a lot to these families. When they grow cold, this means that thousands of murderers evade prosecution and continue to walk the streets, able to commit more crimes and possibly more murders, while thousands of mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, sons, and daughters, have yet to find closure in the loss of their loved ones.

And let me just say, Mr. Speaker, I think you realize, that pain is so deep, and it never goes away. That is why this bill is so important. This legislation would result in more closed cases, justice for victims, closure for their families, and greater faith in law enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, again I want to indicate that this bill is important. I thank my colleagues for supporting this bill in a bipartisan manner, and I ask them to join me in supporting this bill today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 3359, the ``Homicide Victims' Families' Rights Act of 2021,'' and urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation, which establishes a procedure for families of murder victims, in cases investigated at the federal level, to continue to pursue justice for their murdered family member when the trail has gone cold.

This legislation gives a designated family member the right to request a review of their murdered loved one's case file after three years.

Unfortunately, four out of ten murder victims' families in this country never receive any closure in the loss of their family member.

FBI data shows the percentage of homicides cleared by an arrest or other means has declined significantly from 1965 to today while the number of unsolved homicides grows by the thousands nationwide every year.

In 2019, four Texas cities, including Houston, cleared 40 percent or less of reported homicides, according to FBI statistics.

Low clearance rates lead to low confidence in law enforcement and reduced citizen cooperation, which lead to even lower clearance rates.

The backlog of cases and low clearance rates disproportionately affect murder victims who are poor, undereducated, unemployed, and black.

Poor, black, and brown victims and their families tend to receive less attention to their cases from law enforcement than those of other socioeconomic backgrounds and racial groups and their cases go unsolved.

This disparate treatment is unacceptable. We can and we must provide justice for all victims and their families.

I hope this legislation will set a new tone--eliminating disparate treatment--impacting vulnerable communities of poor black and brown families who oftentimes never receive closure, while serving as a model for state, local, and tribal governments where the vast majority of unsolved murders lie.

H.R. 3359 will require federal law enforcement agencies, using ``fresh eyes,'' to complete a case file review and determine if a full reinvestigation could lead to new probative investigative leads.

This legislation will encourage equitable treatment of victims and their families by requiring that federal law enforcement: (1) include the victim's family in the case file review and reinvestigation process; (2) provide written certification to a designated family member if final review is not necessary; (3) update that family member throughout the case file review and full reinvestigation; and (4) meet with and discuss the evidence with that family member if a full reinvestigation is not pursued.

It has been shown that cold case investigations can be very effective. By using agents and investigators who have never worked the cases before and by deploying up-to-date investigative techniques, cold case investigations help take violent criminals off the street and bring closure to families.

In 2010, the FBI and a cold case detective began a joint reexamination of the death of Ellen Beason in 1985, whose remains were found south of Houston in an area called the ``Killing Fields.''

Almost thirty years later, the cold case detective requested x-rays of the body, which showed that the woman's skull had been cracked on both sides from a forceful blow. Her body had never been X-rayed.

The main suspect in the murder was finally convicted of involuntary manslaughter in 2014, sentenced to 20 years in prison, and named as the leading suspect in the murder of other women found in the Killing Fields, though he was never charged.

H.R. 3359 mandates that a law enforcement agency must conduct a full reinvestigation like the one that brought justice to Ellen Beason's

family, if probative investigative leads would result from a full reinvestigation.

This bipartisan legislation represents an important step in fostering renewed hope for families and is supported by a broad array of advocates, including the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National Organization of Parents of Murdered Children, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.

I thank Chairman Eric Swalwell for his astute effort on this bipartisan bill that will help families of victims seek justice for their loved ones.

The backlog of cold case murders continues to grow nationally. This means that thousands of murderers evade prosecution and continue to walk the streets, able to commit more crimes, and possibly more murders, while thousands of mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, sons, and daughters have yet to find closure in the loss of their loved ones.

That is why this bill is so important. This legislation would result in more closed cases, justice for victims, closure for their families, and greater faith in law enforcement.

I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this bill today.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1621) to amend section 3661 of title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the consideration of acquitted conduct at sentencing, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1621.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to support H.R. 1621, the Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act, which offers a solution to a long- identified problem within our criminal justice system.

This bill provides necessary reform to current Federal sentencing practice that allows judges to sentence defendants based on conduct for which a jury has found them not guilty.

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution provides that anyone accused of a crime shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public jury trial, while the Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

These provisions mean that the government is bound to move each and every element of an offense for which a defendant is charged beyond a reasonable doubt during a jury trial, or that defendant must admit each element of an offense to support a plea of guilty. Absent that, those offenses are not found guilty, if you will, to the individual.

Notwithstanding this constitutional obligation, Federal judges routinely nullify not guilty verdicts rendered by juries and sentence defendants to significantly higher penalties based on acquitted conduct.

In its current form, 18 U.S.C. 3661 prohibits any limitation of the conduct a judge may consider when sentencing a defendant, even when a jury has determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove the defendant committed the charged offense; it seems clearly a constitutional violation.

Additionally, under the concept of ``relevant conduct,'' the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines allow judges to consider a range of conduct, including dismissed charges, uncharged conduct, and acquitted conduct when imposing sentences. Again, might I say, seemingly a very unfair direction given without limitations, and certainly without adherence to the constitutional amendments.

The fact-finding made by judges at sentencing is based on a lower evidentiary standard than at trial--that is, by a preponderance of evidence--which many scholars defined as a 50 percent chance that a claim is true.

The reform proposed in this bill ensures that judges punish defendants on facts proven beyond a reasonable doubt, criminal standard, the higher evidentiary standard of proof required during a jury trial, which some scholars attach a value of 90 to 95 percent surety.

Justice Ginsberg, a moderate liberal who became more liberal in later years, joined Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia, a staunch conservative, in his dissent in Jones v. United States, lamenting the failure of the Court to determine if the Sixth Amendment is violated when judges impose sentences based solely on judge-found facts.

While the Sentencing Guidelines suggested prison sentences from 27 to 71 months for the three defendants in the case, the trial judge imposed--if you can believe it--overwhelming sentences of 180, 194, and 225 months, based on the conduct the prosecution failed to prove.

Justice Scalia's often-quoted dissent was issued more than 7 years ago. Yet nothing has been done about this unjust, undemocratic practice and, really, unconstitutional, which diminishes the sanctity of the jury trial, the standard of reasonable doubt, which any layman can tell you. When you ask them what the standard is for proving guilt or innocence in a criminal trial, everybody knows the words, ``with reasonable doubt.''

Can you imagine? That is not the case.

The public check on the government's power and the overall integrity of the criminal justice system must be maintained.

H.R. 1621 would restore fairness to jury trials by amending Section 3661 to ban consideration of acquitted conduct at sentencing unless the conduct is considered for mitigation purposes.

Though I wish we were doing more to advance substantive criminal justice reform, I am happy to support this bipartisan bill that addresses an acute need while restoring the basic propositions of due process and the right to a trial by jury.

I want to express enthusiastic support and appreciation to Representative Steve Cohen, chair of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, for his commitment to justice and for taking the lead on this significant, bipartisan bill, along with Representative Kelly Armstrong.

A broad coalition of advocates support this measure, including--R Street Institute, the ACLU, The Innocence Project, Brennan Center for Justice, the American Bar Association, Families Against Mandatory Minimums, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and the Federal Public and Community Defenders.

It is for that reason I hope that the Senate will take up this bill and pass the House version as soon as possible.

I ask my colleagues to support this bill and to continue working on additional measures to make our justice system more equitable and more transparent. I look forward to coming to the floor with those initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), the author of this legislation; the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties of the Committee on the Judiciary; and a strong advocate for justice.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Oregon for supporting this legislation. He cited a number of judges and courts who added their support to this important legislation.

Mr. Cohen's eloquence was in the efforts he has made to help those who have suffered injustice.

We thank Congressman Armstrong for his work as well. The fact that they are speaking in tandem speaks loudly on this floor.

As I close, I include in the Record the dissenting opinion of Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Ginsburg, with simple comments from their opinion:

``On petitioners' appeal, the D.C. Circuit held that even if their sentences would have been substantively unreasonable but for judge- found facts, their Sixth Amendment rights were not violated.''

That was found by the D.C. Circuit.

``We should grant certiorari to put an end to the unbroken string of cases disregarding the Sixth Amendment.''

So, you are more than affirmed that the Sixth Amendment in these cases is patently disregarded.

I include in the Record the Supreme Court dissent on the Jones v. United States case.

I will say that the failure to address this issue for so many years has contributed to the epidemics of overincarceration and mass incarceration, weakened the finality that a jury trial is meant to provide, and undermined overall public confidence in our justice system.

I really think this legislation has exposed some incredulous behavior because most people believe that you are sentenced on the reasonable doubt convictions as opposed to additional sidebar conversations that may come to the judge's attention in terms of other offenses.

Today, we consider a simple, narrowly tailored bill that builds on our bipartisan effort to create a fair justice system. This bill will make sure that defendants are punished only for the conduct that prosecutors are able to prove at trial, consistent with the constitutional guarantees of due process and the right to a trial by jury of their peers, and consistent with the principles on which country was founded.

Before I close, I join with my colleague from Tennessee's remarks and indicate the deepest sympathy to the family of the dean, Congressman Don Young. He is a voice--and I speak in the present. His presence was larger than life. He spoke to everyone. His booming voice is something that I am certainly going to find a great loss, as well as his love and passion for not only his family and his great State but also for this institution.

I don't know if we will ever find an institutionalist such as Don, but we can certainly follow in his footsteps and his desire for order when he cited the words ``regular order.''

We were blessed by having him here, and may he rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1621, the ``Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act of 2021, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1621.

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

Opening Statement

Mr. Speaker. I am proud to support of H.R. 1621, the ``Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act,'' which offers a solution to a long-identified problem within our criminal justice system.

This bill provides necessary reform to current federal sentencing practice that allows judges to sentence defendants based on conduct for which a jury found them not guilty.

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution provides that anyone accused of a crime shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public jury trial, while the Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Together these provisions mean that the Government is bound to prove each and every element of an offense for which a defendant is charged beyond a reasonable doubt during a jury trial, or that a defendant must admit each element of an offense to support a plea of guilty.

Notwithstanding this constitutional obligation, federal judges routinely nullify not guilty verdicts rendered by juries and sentence defendants to significantly higher penalties based on acquitted conduct.

In its current form, 18 USC Sec. 3661 prohibits any limitation of the conduct a judge may consider when sentencing a defendant, even when a jury has determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove the defendant committed the charged offense.

Additionally, under the concept of ``relevant conduct,'' the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines allow judges to consider a range of conduct, including dismissed charges, uncharged conduct, and acquitted conduct when imposing sentences.

The fact-finding made by judges at sentencing is based on a lower evidentiary standard than at trial--that is by a preponderance of the law--which many scholars define as a 50% chance that a claim is true.

The reform proposed in this bill ensures that judges punish defendants based on facts proven beyond a reasonable doubt--the higher evidentiary standard of proof required during jury trials, which some scholars attach a value of 90 to 95% surety.

Justice Ginsburg moderate-liberal who became more liberal in later years, joined Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia, a staunch conservative, in his dissent in Jones v. United States, lamenting the failure of the Court to determine if the Sixth Amendment is violated when judges impose sentences based solely on judge-found facts.

While the Sentencing Guidelines suggested prison sentences from 27 to 71 months for the three defendants in the case, the trial judge imposed sentences of 180, 194, and 225 months, based on conduct the prosecution failed to prove.

Justice Scalia's often-quoted dissent was issued more than seven years ago.

Yet nothing has been done about this unjust, undemocratic practice, which diminishes the sanctity of the jury trial, the public check on the government's power, and the overall integrity of the criminal justice system.

H.R. 1621 would restore fairness to jury trials by amending Section 3661 to ban consideration of acquitted conduct at sentencing unless the conduct is considered for mitigation purposes.

Though I wish we were doing more to advance substantive criminal justice reform, I support this bipartisan bill that addresses an acute need while restoring the basic propositions of due process and the right to trial by jury.

I thank our colleague, Representative Steve Cohen, for his commitment to justice and for taking the lead on this significant, bipartisan bill alongside Representative Kelly Armstrong.

A broad coalition of advocates support this measure, including R Street Institute, the ACLU, The Innocence Project, Brennan Center for Justice, the American Bar Association, Families Against Mandatory Minimums, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and Federal Public & Community Defenders.

It is my hope that the Senate will take up and pass the House version of this bill soon.

I ask my colleagues to support this bill and to continue working together on additional measures to make our justice system more equitable and more transparent.