Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend for yielding.

I rise enthusiastically joining the President and joining our chairman in pushing the Honoring our PACT Act and just remind the underlying amendment by Mr. Bost, one-half of 1 percent, do we in this time, do our veterans, do our soldiers deserve half treatment?

I don't think so.

The Jackson Lee amendment adds to this legislation. It would add a report on the feasibility of modifying the individual longitudinal exposure record system used to register toxic exposure of military personnel to include members of the National Guard who are deployed in the United States in connection with a natural disaster without regard to duty status and may record information regarding a suspected exposure by the National Guard to toxic substances while they are in the midst of their rescues.

We know and we thank the House Veterans' Affairs Committee for recognizing and working with my staff that the National Guard is involved in toxic matters on home side. They collaborate with and support civilian authorities and traditional first responders, they are called in as a helpmate. They serve to strengthen and expand local disaster response while the emergency services of a State or locale may have robust plans to deal with unexpected, sometimes disasters strike that overwhelm their resources.

Let me just show you, Mr. Speaker, they are involved in the work. This is an important amendment, and I ask my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, Chairman McGovern, thank you for this opportunity to discuss briefly three Jackson Lee Amendment #13, to H.R. 3967, the Honoring our PACT Act.

The PACT Act provides much needed attention to the issue of toxic exposure of military service personnel when it occurs during deployment.

Jackson Lee Amendment #13 would add a report on the feasibility of modifying the Individual Longitudinal Exposure Record System used to register toxic exposure of military personnel, to include members of the National Guard who are deployed in the United States in connection with a natural disaster, without regard to duty status may record information regarding a suspected exposure by the National Guard to toxic substances during such deployment.

I thank the House Committee on Veterans Affairs for working with my staff on this Jackson Lee Amendment to H.R. 3967.

The National Guard collaborates with and supports civilian authorities and traditional first responders in their efforts to respond to emergencies and disasters.

They serve to strengthen and expand the local disaster response capacity.

While the emergency services of a state or locale may have robust plans to deal with the unexpected, sometimes disasters strike that overwhelm their resources and manpower.

During these times the National Guard can play a vital role in saving lives, stemming suffering and protecting property.

This amendment is important because of the conditions that can exist during manmade or natural disasters that may expose National Guard members to toxic substances.

National Guard service personnel provide vital services before, during and following disasters that require that they come into contact with flood waters, wildfires and other disasters that by their nature would breach containment, manufacturing, and storage facilities for toxic substances that would pose a risk to people.

I recall the flood waters of Hurricane Harvey and the hundreds of refineries, small and large chemical processing facilities, and storage facilities that were impacted by flood waters.

Some of these impacts included the risk of explosions due to the loss of containment caused by a loss of electricity or the encroachment of flood waters.

As was the case when two explosions shook the Arkema chemical facility that resulted in a fire because the temperature required to safely store chemicals was lost due to a power outage caused by Hurricane Harvey flooding.

Many chemical facilities are located in low-lying coastal areas and vulnerable to damage from hurricanes, flooding, and erosion, which are increasing with climate change.

Extreme weather can trigger industrial disasters, including explosions, fires, and major chemical releases, as well as chronic chemical leakage into air, water, and soil.

Researchers identified 872 highly hazardous chemical facilities within 50 miles of the hurricane-prone U.S. Gulf Coast.

Coastal areas are also densely populated and would be where National Guard would be deployed to evacuate and assist residents in advance of, during and following the landfall of a Hurricane.

There are approximately 4,374,000 people, 1,717 schools, and 98 medical facilities within 1.5 miles of the facilities according to the Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, which collected survey data.

The Jackson Lee amendment would provide a report to inform the Committee on Veterans Affairs of the importance of including toxic exposure data on National Guard personnel who are exposed to toxic substances when deployed in response to disasters.

In 2021, following Hurricane Ida's landfall in an analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) of the New Orleans area revealed that 138 industrial facilities in and around the city--some of which use electricity

to contain hazardous chemicals--were potentially without power, putting facility workers and nearby civilians at enormous risk.

Flood waters, smoke from wildfires, and earthquakes have impacts on facilities, businesses, and research facilities that are safe until they are compromised by the impact of a natural or manmade disaster.

I urge the Committee to make in order the Jackson Lee Amendment to

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I rise enthusiastically to support H. Res. 956 and as well to make mention of H. Res. 943 that was introduced by myself and Steve Cohen on February 25.

Let me salute this resolution that is bipartisan that immediately calls on a ceasefire by Putin. This is Putin's war. H. Res. 943 has been affirmed by its call for the shutting down of our airways to Russian carriers, and that has been done.

But the real point is that we are now standing firmly for democracy and the fight of individual grandmothers and young people and individual Ukrainians with their bare hands and with their weapons that have been given to fight for democracy. But the real question that we are also standing for, and thank you for the United Nations vote, is that Vladimir Putin is a war criminal who is killing children.

Mitka, a parliamentarian that I met at the OSCE of which we were a part of meeting in Lithuania and Vienna, talking to the soldiers that were on the border of Belarus and Lithuania--thank you to those soldiers that are now placed, almost 100,000 U.S. soldiers--is that Putin is killing without cause. He is killing grandmothers. He is killing children. Can we tolerate this bloodshed? No, we will not. And we will stand with this resolution to demand that democracy stands in the region and that we denounce his actions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 956, a resolution condemning the unprovoked aggression and invasion ordered by Vladimir Putin, the authoritarian head of the Russian Federation against the sovereign nation of Ukraine and supporting the right of the people of Ukraine to freely determine their future, including their country's relationship with other nations and international organizations, without interference, intimidation, or coercion by other countries.

I thank the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Congressman Meeks of New York, for introducing this bipartisan resolution and urge all Members to support it to show the solidarity of the people of the United States with the people of Ukraine.

Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution because it calls upon and commends the Biden Administration to honor and abide by the commitments undertaken by the United States pursuant to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, signed at Washington, District of Columbia, on April 4, 1949, and entered into force on August 24, 1949.

The resolution also commits this body to the promotion and protection of democratic values, transparent and accountable government institutions, and support for needed economic structural reforms in Ukraine, including in the fiscal, energy, pension, and banking sectors, among others.

The resolution also calls upon and commends the Biden Administration for assembling and working with an international coalition of the world's leading nations to ensure that all nations refuse to recognize the illegal invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation and to ensure that the Russian Federation is held accountable and sustain maximum economic damage from the imposition of sanctions as a consequence of its utter disregard for international law and norms.

I am particularly pleased that the Biden Administration has adopted the recommendation advanced in H. Res. 943, a resolution I introduced on February 25, 2002 condemning this unprovoked attack by the Russian Federation, to ban all Russian airlines, including Aeroflot, from entering the airspace of the United States or landing on its soil.

The United States is strongly committed to the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Ukraine.

The United States strongly supports efforts to assist Ukraine to defend its territory against military aggression by the Russian Federation and by separatist and paramilitary forces.

Ukraine was the second-most populous and powerful of the fifteen republics of the former and disintegrated Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the hub of the union's agricultural production, defense industries, and military arsenal.

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

Since 2013, the Russian Federation has undertaken a campaign of political, economic, and military aggression against Ukraine, including the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, a civilian airliner, by Russian-backed Ukrainian separatists using a Russian-made missile taking the lives of all 298 innocent persons on board.

In February 2014, the military of the Russia Federation, without merit or cause, invaded the eastern part of the free and independent country of Ukraine, including the Crimean Peninsula, and backed a separatist insurgency in the Donbass region in eastern Ukraine, where fighting has killed over 14,000 people.

The United States, a strategic ally of Ukraine, reacted swiftly to the Russian invasion, condemning the military action in strong and bipartisan fashion, and providing military, humanitarian, and non- military financial assistance to the determined but beleaguered nation of Ukraine, which since 2014 has totaled approximately $1.5 billion.

On September 14, 2014, the House of Representatives adopted H. Res. 726, a resolution supporting the right of the people of Ukraine to freely determine their future, including their country's relationship with other nations and international organizations, without interference, intimidation, or coercion by other countries, and committed itself to solidarity with the people of Ukraine.

Interference and unprovoked aggressions by the Russia Federation ordered and led by Vladimir Putin continued unabated, including the mobilization and stationing of 150,000 Russian troops surrounding Ukraine and armed forces positioned in Belarus to attack Ukraine from the north, including war planes and offensive missile systems, and the movement of Russian naval vessels in the Black Sea to Ukraine's south, including amphibious assault ships, missile cruisers, and submarines, and the positioning of blood and medical equipment into position on their border.

Vladimir Putin sought authorization from the Russian parliament to use military force outside of Russian territory by staging a fraudulent on-camera meeting of his Security Council to grandstand for the Russian public and by recognizing sovereign Ukrainian territory as so-called independent republics in clear violation, again, of international law, all of which was intended to set the stage for further pretexts and further provocations by Russia Federation to make further aggressions against Ukraine by military action.

Vladimir Putin rejected every good-faith effort the United States and its allies and partners made to address mutual security concerns through dialogue to avoid needless conflict and avert human suffering.

On February 23, 2022, the Russia Federation military, at the direction of Vladimir Putin, began a premeditated brutal assault on the people of Ukraine without provocation, without justification, without necessity, making outlandish, false, and baseless claims that Ukraine was about to invade and launch a war against Russia and that Ukraine was prepared to use chemical weapons, and that Ukraine had committed a genocide.

These actions were taken by Vladimir Putin at the very moment that the United Nations Security Council was meeting to stand up for Ukraine's sovereignty to stave off invasion, culminating in missile strikes on historic cities across Ukraine, followed by air raids and the invasion of Russian tanks and troops.

Mr. Speaker, through this resolution the United States strongly condemns and opposes the unprovoked invasion and egregious act of aggression against sovereign state of Ukraine by the Russian Federation, the most provocative and destabilizing act of foreign aggression since the 1938 invasion of the Sudetenland by the Third Reich led by Adolph Hitler.

I ask all members to join me in voting for H. Res. 956 to support the right of the people of Ukraine to freely determine their future, including their country's relationship with other nations and international organizations, without interference, intimidation, or coercion by other countries.

Madam Speaker, last evening the President of the United States was strong, and he was clear to stay away from divisive rhetoric. But do my friends on the other side of the aisle realize that anything that has not been accomplished is because they have been obstructionists?

The Wall Street Journal says that the President and his American Rescue Plan has led to less damage, and it is the biggest and best recovery, at least in the past 50 years. It has had the least economic impact in terms of long-term unemployment, weak label markers, inexperienced workers, evictions and foreclosures. President Biden's American Rescue Plan has led to less of that than any recovery in the last 50 years.

We know that in Ukraine it is a disaster. People are dying. It is Putin's war, but the President has brought NATO together.

And, yes, if we could pass Build Back Better, which they have obstructed, we would be able to have childcare for all of America.

So I wanted to just, for this one moment, get on the floor to say in all that they have said, why don't they take the call of the President? Let's unify and stand for the American people. Stop complaining, and let's get to work. President Biden called us to work as a strong America.

Madam Speaker, I rise with a very heavy heart and an overwhelming sense of sadness, anguish, and anger that should, however, be utilized to save lives.

I traveled with the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe with my colleagues, Congressmen Cohen, Hudson, Wilson, Aderholt, and Veasey. We started out, most of us, on Sunday with the intent to go into the Ukraine region, and we did, all with optimism that this war would not be, that we could engage in discussions with parliamentarians and heads of state and that Putin would listen to reason of the 21st century.

Upon arriving, we unfortunately heard the distorted, confused, and absolutely rejected message of the Soviet Union, and how the history suggests that countries like Ukraine were not independent, they were simply part of the old Soviet Union.

Madam Speaker, you are aware of the fact that generations now living in democratic countries like Lithuania have no knowledge of the old Soviet Union. Congratulations to leaders like Gorbachev and Yeltsin who believed that their duty was to bring Russia into the 21st century.

We remember the words of Ronald Reagan: Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall. How in the world can Putin now come to represent that he, riding in on a fancy horse, maybe even shirtless, is going to now dominate violently, bringing these countries to their knees and for them to reject what they have come to love, and that is democracy?

We continued in discussions--the Lithuanian Prime Minister, the Lithuanian President, the Lithuanian Foreign Minister, and many others--that country, right in the eye of the storm, right in the potential of being one of those victims, yet Lithuania is a member of NATO protected by Article 5. But we thought because of their fears and their concerns, because of their sensitivity of the reckless and uncontrolled posture of Putin, who knows where he would go, Estonia, Latvia, Moldova, countries that are standing separately.

He has already, as we were fully briefed, dominated and taken over-- it doesn't exist. I want the President of Belarus to understand that. I hope that he could stand up, but there were already 30,000 to 40,000 Russia troops in his country bordering on Lithuania.

Even with that, we wanted to, as we have heard, give peace a chance and continue to press for peace even to the point where we went to the meeting where Finland, Sweden, France, Great Britain, Russia, and Ukraine were all there. We went to sit down at the peace table to try and argue. We arrived on Wednesday, and as everyone knows, in the late hours, early morning, from Wednesday to Thursday, Putin designed his own war. No vote by the Russian people. He designed a purposeless, senseless, and immoral war.

I began to articulate how we should move quickly, financial sanctions that should immediately bring them to their knees, the SWIFT account being denied. On Friday and Saturday I asked for that. But I think the real issue is they should be brought to their knees. And then last Saturday I said that he should be charged as a war criminal. I am glad that the world criminal court, The Hague, is now opening an investigation on this desperate terrorizer, this killer.

We cannot tolerate this kind of behavior. He indicated to the world that this was an operational war: I am going to be selective, I am not going after civilians.

Madam Speaker, to the Nation and to the world: this is a face of a destroyed building reminiscent of World War II when civilian places were bombed and when thousands were lost. There is a person standing here. And this is dead children.

Mr. Putin is a killer and a terrorist. And these are terrorists that are in Ukraine. We ask the world to continue to stand united, NATO and others, to be able to bring Putin to his needs financially and economically and as well on the world stage. He should be tried as a criminal. We need this war to end in a cease-fire.

Madam Speaker, President Zelensky said: We are here.

We stand with him. Ukraine is here. Glory to Ukraine.

I rise in support of S. 321, the ``Six Triple Eight'' Congressional Gold Medal Act, which would award Congressional Gold Medals to the members of the Women's Army Corps who were assigned to the 6888th Central Postal Directory Battalion, known as the ``Six Triple Eight.''

S. 321, the ``Six Triple Eight'' Congressional Gold Medal Act, directs the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate to arrange for the award of a Congressional Gold Medal in honor of the women of the 6888th Central Postal Directory Battalion in recognition of their pioneering military service, devotion to duty, and contributions to increase the morale of personnel stationed in the European theater of operations during World War II.

On July 1, 1943, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into law legislation that established the Women's Army Corps (WAC) as a component of the Army.

First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt and Mary McLeod Bethune, the founder of the National Council of Negro Women, advocated for the admittance of African-American women into the newly formed WAC to serve as officers and enlisted personnel.

As a result of their efforts, the ``Six Triple Eight'' formed an all- Black battalion of the Women's Army Corps.

The 6888th had 855 Black women, both enlisted and officers, and was led by Major Charity Adams.

Most of the 6888th worked as postal clerks, but others were cooks, mechanics and held other support positions, making the 6888th a self- sufficient unit.

During World War II, there was a significant shortage of soldiers who were able to manage the postal service for the U.S. Army overseas.

The 6888th left the United States on February 3, 1945, sailing on Ile de France and arrived in Glasgow on February 12.

When the 6888th arrived in Birmingham on February 15, 1945, ``they saw letters stacked to the ceiling of the temporary post office, some letters had been in the offices for as long as two years.''

Army officials believed that undelivered mail was ``hurting morale.''

Early in the operation, a White general sent a White officer to ``tell them how to do it right,'' but Major Adams responded, ``Sir, over my dead body, sir!''

The battalion finished what was supposed to be a six-month task in three months in May 1945.

The women of the 6888th worked in three different shifts, seven days a week, processing and delivering mail--a morale booster--to the troops in Europe.

The 6888th was a segregated unit, sleeping and eating in different locations from the White, male soldiers.

European ``locals'' treated them better than other American soldiers did, which was the experience of most Black troops who served during WWI and WWII.

Once the backlog in Birmingham had been dealt with, the 6888th were shipped across the Channel to Le Havre in May 1945 and were sent to Rouen, where they dealt with another backlog of mail, with some letters being three years old.

In February 1946, the unit returned to the United States where it was disbanded at Fort Dix, New Jersey.

There was no public recognition for their service at the time.

On February 25, 2009, the battalion was honored at the Women in Military Service for America Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery.

Alyce Dixon and Mary Raglan, two former unit members were honored by President Barack Obama and first lady, Michelle Obama in 2009.

The extraordinary accomplishments of this unit are deserving of official congressional recognition and the United States is eternally grateful to the soldiers of the 6888th Central Postal Directory Battalion during World War II, which saved lives, boosted morale and made significant contributions to the defeat of the Axis powers.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation and urge all Members to vote for S. 321, the ``Six Triple Eight'' Congressional Gold Medal Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 854, the ``Methamphetamine Response Act of 2021'' which designates methamphetamine as an emerging drug threat (a new and growing trend in the use of an illicit drug or class of drug).

It also directs the Office of National Drug Control Policy to implement a methamphetamine response plan.

Methamphetamines are a highly addictive substance that can cause considerable health adversities which can sometimes result in death.

Meth not only changes how the brain works, but also speeds up the body's systems to dangerous, sometimes lethal, levels--increasing blood pressure and heart and respiratory rates.

People who repeatedly use meth may also experience anxiety, paranoia, aggression, hallucinations, and mood disturbances.

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the misuse of methamphetamine remains an extremely serious problem in the United States.

In some areas of the country, it poses an even greater threat than opioids, and it is the drug that most contributes to violent crime.

According to data from the 2017 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), over 14.7 million people (5.4 percent of the population) have tried methamphetamine at least once.

NSDUH also reports that almost 1.6 million people used methamphetamine in the year leading up to the survey, and it remains one of the most commonly misused stimulant drugs in the world.

According to a report commissioned by the CDC in 2018, the age- adjusted rate of drug overdose deaths involving methamphetamine in the United States more than tripled from 0.6 per 100,000 population in 2011 to 2.1 in 2016.

The rate increased on average by an astounding 29 percent per year.

Jane Carlisle Maxwell from the University of Texas found in 2021 that methamphetamine still outnumbers other drugs in the four drug reporting systems, and it continues to increase, a pattern consistent with that seen in other states.

Over the years, the proportion of methamphetamine items seized has changed.

In 2005, methamphetamine represented 21 percent of all items identified by DEA laboratories; in 2019, methamphetamine comprised 50 percent of all the items examined.

Methamphetamine admissions to treatment programs increased from 3 percent of all admissions in 1995 to 11 percent in 2007, dropped to 8 percent in 2009, and then rose to 22 percent of admissions in 2020.

The race-ethnic composition has changed in terms of Hispanic representation.

In 1995, 91 percent were White, 2 percent were Black, and 5 percent were Hispanic. Of the 2020 admissions, 90 percent were White, 7 percent were Black, and 18 percent were Hispanic.

Forty-one percent of the admissions were ages 26-35.

In 1994, 59 percent of the clients were male, as compared to 45 percent male in 2020.

Based on the results of Maxwell's previous research, females use methamphetamine for energy, to lose weight, and to counter depression.

There is a significant need to consider gender issues in methamphetamine treatment, which could certainly be taken into account by the Office of National Drug Control Policy in its response plan.

Additionally, the Office of National Drug Control Policy should make treatment for methamphetamine addictions the center of its response plan.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse has found that the most effective treatments for methamphetamine addiction at this point are behavioral therapies, such as cognitive-behavioral and contingency management interventions.

For example, the Matrix Model--a 16-week comprehensive behavioral treatment approach that combines behavioral therapy, family education, individual counseling, 12-step support, drug testing, and encouragement for non-drug-related activities--has been shown to be effective in reducing methamphetamine misuse.

Contingency management interventions, which provide tangible incentives in exchange for engaging in treatment and maintaining abstinence from methamphetamines, have also been shown to be effective.

Motivational Incentives for Enhancing Drug Abuse Recovery (MIEDAR), an incentive-based method for promoting cocaine and methamphetamine abstinence, has demonstrated efficacy among methamphetamine misusers through NIDA's National Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network.

It is, therefore, clear and obvious that treatment should be the center of ONDC's response plan, not incarceration.

Incarcerating those addicted to drugs has clearly not worked considering methamphetamine users continue to use throughout our country despite the present criminal penalties.

This bill is of the utmost importance to me considering the major threat methamphetamines pose in Houston.

The DEA via Operation Crystal Shield, an operation to ramp up enforcement to block the further distribution of methamphetamines into America's neighborhoods, has designated the city of Houston one of eight major transportation hubs for methamphetamines.

The flow of methamphetamines in Houston is significant, with major busts by authorities not being out of the ordinary.

Just two weeks ago, Click2Houston reported an umpire was arrested after authorities say he was in possession of drugs while working around children at a youth baseball tournament in the Houston area this week.

When authorities arrived at the scene, deputies say they found 2.7 grams of crystal meth inside the umpire's vehicle.

Additionally, in May 2021, authorities seized 1,789 pounds of methamphetamines in the north Houston area, as well as large quantities of other narcotics.

According to authorities, the street value of the seizure was approximately $3.4 million.

The city of Houston is under attack, and the belligerent parties are drug traffickers and their henchmen.

They alone are ruining the lives of countless Americans, but this bill creates a comprehensive response to ensure that no more lives are lost.

It is for that reason, Mr Speaker, that I am urging my colleagues to support the Methamphetamine Response Act of 2021.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1662, Supporting the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health and the Reagan-Udall Foundation for the Food and Drug Administration Act, to increase funding for the Reagan-Udall Foundation for the Food and Drug Administration and for the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health.

The Reagan-Udall Foundation for the Food and Drug Administration is an independent 501(c)(3) organization created by Congress ``to advance the mission of the FDA to modernize medical, veterinary, food, food ingredient, and cosmetic product development, accelerate innovation, and enhance product safety.''

The Foundation embodies FDA's vision of collaborative innovation to address regulatory science challenges of the 21st century and assist in the creation of new, applied scientific knowledge, tools, standards, and approaches the FDA needs to evaluate products more effectively, predictably, and efficiently, and thereby enhance the FDA's ability to protect and promote the health of the American public.

The Foundation serves as a crucial conduit between FDA and the public, providing a means for FDA to interact directly with stakeholders, including industry and consumers.

The Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH) has created hundreds of cross-discipline consortia and partnerships whose initiatives have generated new ideas, overcome obstacles and achieved groundbreaking biomedical research results.

The FNIH has created an environment where trust and the exchange of new ideas can thrive, resulting in scientific innovations.

The FNIH and its partners have successfully generated and implemented new research models that are lowering the cost and accelerating the progress of biomedical research nationwide and across the globe.

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution grants Members of Congress the powers and the authority to ``promote Science and useful Arts.''

As Members of Congress, it is our duty to award funding to these institutions, so they may continue their groundbreaking work in their respective fields.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation and urge all Members to vote for the S. 1662, Supporting the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health and the Reagan-Udall Foundation for the Food and Drug Administration Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding, and I thank, with deep appreciation, Congresswoman Bonnie Watson Coleman.

I am delighted to be an original cosponsor, and I thank the Committee on the Judiciary for really standing for these issues that are uniquely engaged in the Constitution and equality and justice but that would get no light of day had our chairman and our subcommittee chairpersons not thought that it was valuable and important.

Mr. Speaker, let me say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, I am very glad for their recitation of the civil rights laws. And they are right: They are extremely important in protecting the civil rights of those who have been infringed upon. But they are not perfect, and they are not perfect as evidenced by the continuous, stark discrimination regarding hairstyles, particularly with African-American women and others.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say, I realize that this is a tough business. But wear hairstyles such as what I wear and note the social media calling you monkeys over and over again.

So, it is not just the fact that you wear a style that could be called a crown; it is the advantage that others who want to racially divide--do you know who they do it to? Our children.

It is evident that there is a need for the CROWN Act because it prevents discrimination on the texture of hair or hairstyles commonly associated with a particular race or national origin in areas of the law where discrimination on the basis of race and national origin is already prohibited, but it is not precise. This law is precise.

Black people are disproportionately burdened by policies and practices in public places, including the workplace, that target, profile, or single them out.

But others are engaged as well. The CROWN study found that Black women's hair is more policed in the workplace, therefore contributing to a climate of group control. But I have seen cases as a member of the Committee on Homeland Security of Black women coming back from the Caribbean and their hair being searched, or they are being targeted as having something in that hair. That is insulting and offensive, and it is not constitutional as it relates to equal justice under the law.

The findings also say that 80 percent of Black women believe that they had to change their hairstyle. But, again, the young people who in the midst of their competition in the State of Texas, boys, girls, were required to, in an outrageous manner, cut their dreadlocks before they could compete. How heartbreaking that is. How destroyed those children were. And a young man had to go all the way to the Federal court because he refused to cut his dreadlocks. Why should he?

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful that the military saw the outrage some years ago. In 2014, Secretary Hagel indicated a review of military policy. The Marine Corps, in 2015, followed suit and issued a regulation to permit loc-and-twist hairstyles.

So it is, in fact, very crucial to know that it is Native Americans; it is men; it is women.

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to the chairman for the time. I thank him so very much.

Again, this is an outstanding tennis player. This is a young man. These are styles that are neat and certainly acceptable. This is a Native American. Again, a Black woman.

And here is the ultimate insult in my State. This young man, before he could compete, had to have his dreadlocks cut.

Mr. Speaker, the CROWN Act is imperative; it is needed; and I can assure you, it will not impact any medical attention that you need because the CROWN Act is about hair and hair does not impact your medical needs.

Mr. Speaker, we need the CROWN Act.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the committee on the Judiciary, Homeland Security, and on the Budget, and an original cosponsor of this important legislation, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2116, the ``Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act of 2021'' (``CROWN Act).

This necessary legislation explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis of hair texture or hairstyles commonly associated with a particular race or national origin in areas of the law where discrimination on the basis of race or national origin is already prohibited.

It has long been my position that discrimination based on hair texture and hairstyle is a form of impermissible race discrimination.

According to a 2019 report, known as the CROWN Study, which was conducted by the JOY Collective (CROWN Act Coalition, Dove/Unilever, National Urban League, Color of Change), Black people are ``disproportionately burdened by policies and practices in public places, including the workplace, that target, profile, or single them out for their natural hair styles--referring to the texture of hair that is not permed, dyed, relaxed, or chemically altered.

The CROWN Study found that Black women's hair is ``more policed in the workplace, thereby contributing to a climate of group control in the company culture and perceived professional barriers'' compared to non-Black women.

The study also found that ``Black women are more likely to have received formal grooming policies in the workplace, and to believe that there is a dissonance from her hair and other race's hair'' and that ``Black women's hairstyles were consistently rated lower or `less ready' for job performance.''

Among the study's other findings are that 80 percent of Black women believed that they had to change their hair from its natural state to ``fit in at the office,'' that they were 83 percent more likely to be judged harshly because of their looks.

The study indicated that Black women were 1.5 times more likely to be sent home from the

workplace because of their hair, and that they were 3.4 times more likely to be perceived as unprofessional compared to non-African- American women.

Eight years ago, the United States Army removed a grooming regulation prohibiting women servicemembers from wearing their hair in dreadlocks, a regulation that had a disproportionately adverse impact on Black women.

This decision was the result of a 2014 order by then-Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to review the military's policies regarding hairstyles popular with African-American women after complaints from members of Congress, myself included, that the policies unfairly targeted black women.

In 2015, the Marine Corps followed suit and issued regulations to permit lock and twist hairstyles.

The CROWN Study illustrates the prevalence of hair discrimination but numerous stories across the country put names and faces to the people behind those numbers.

In 2017, a Banana Republic employee was told by a manager that she was violating the company's dress code because her box braids were too ``urban'' and ``unkempt.''

A year later, in 2018, Andrew Johnson, a New Jersey high school student, was forced by a white referee to either have his dreadlocks cut or forfeit a wrestling match, leading him to have his hair cut in public by an athletic trainer immediately before the match.

That same year, an 11-year-old Black girl in Louisiana was asked to leave class at a private Roman Catholic school near New Orleans because her braided hair extensions violated the school's policies.

The next year, two African-American men in Texas alleged being denied employment by Six Flags because of their hairstyles--one had long braids and the other had dreadlocks.

And earlier this year, there were news reports of a Texas student who would not be allowed to walk at graduation because his dreadlocks were too long.

The CROWN Act prohibits discrimination in federally funded programs and activities based on an individual's hair texture or hairstyle if it is commonly associated with a particular race or national origin, including ``a hairstyle in which hair is tightly coiled or tightly curled, locs, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, and Afros.''

The legislation also provides that the prohibition will be enforced as if it was incorporated into Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in federally-funded programs, and that violations of Section 3(a) will be treated as if they were violations of Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I strongly support this legislation and urge all Members to join me in voting for the passage of H.R. 2116, the CROWN Act.

Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary, Homeland Security, and on the Budget, and an original cosponsor of this important legislation, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2116, the ``Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act of 2021'' (``CROWN Act).

This necessary legislation explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis of hair texture or hairstyles commonly associated with a particular race or national origin in areas of the law where discrimination on the basis of race or national origin is already prohibited.

It has long been my position that discrimination based on hair texture and hairstyle is a form of impermissible race discrimination.

According to a 2019 report, known as the CROWN Study, which was conducted by the JOY Collective (CROWN Act Coalition, Dove/Unilever, National Urban League, Color of Change), Black people are ``disproportionately burdened by policies and practices in public places, including the workplace, that target, profile, or single them out for their natural hair styles--referring to the texture of hair that is not permed, dyed, relaxed, or chemically altered.''

The CROWN Study found that Black women's hair is ``more policed in the workplace, thereby contributing to a climate of group control in the company culture and perceived professional barriers'' compared to non-Black women.

The study also found that ``Black women are more likely to have received formal grooming policies in the workplace, and to believe that there is a dissonance from her hair and other

race's hair'' and that ``Black women's hairstyles were consistently rated lower or `less ready' for job performance.''

Among the study's other findings are that 80 percent of Black women believed that they had to change their hair from its natural state to ``fit in at the office,'' that they were 83 percent more likely to be judged harshly because of their looks.

The study indicated that Black women were 1.5 times more likely to be sent home from the workplace because of their hair, and that they were 3.4 times more likely to be perceived as unprofessional compared to non-African-American women.

Eight years ago, the United States Army removed a grooming regulation prohibiting women servicemembers from wearing their hair in dreadlocks, a regulation that had a disproportionately adverse impact on Black women.

This decision was the result of a 2014 order by then-Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to review the military's policies regarding hairstyles popular with African-American women after complaints from members of Congress, myself included, that the policies unfairly targeted black women.

In 2015, the Marine Corps followed suit and issued regulations to permit lock and twist hairstyles.

The CROWN Study illustrates the prevalence of hair discrimination but numerous stories across the country put names and faces to the people behind those numbers.

In 2017, a Banana Republic employee was told by a manager that she was violating the company's dress code because her box braids were too ``urban'' and ``unkempt.''

A year later, in 2018, Andrew Johnson, a New Jersey high school student, was forced by a white referee to either have his dreadlocks cut or forfeit a wrestling match, leading him to have his hair cut in public by an athletic trainer immediately before the match.

That same year, an 11-year-old Black girl in Louisiana was asked to leave class at a private Roman Catholic school near New Orleans because her braided hair extensions violated the school's policies.

The next year, two African-American men in Texas alleged being denied employment by Six Flags because of their hairstyles--one had long braids and the other had dreadlocks.

And earlier this year, there were news reports of a Texas student who would not be allowed to walk at graduation because his dreadlocks were too long.

The CROWN Act prohibits discrimination in federally funded programs and activities based on an individual's hair texture or hairstyle if it is commonly associated with a particular race or national origin, including ``a hairstyle in which hair is tightly coiled or tightly curled, locs, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, and Afros.''

The legislation also provides that the prohibition will be enforced as if it was incorporated into Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in federally-funded programs, and that violations of Section 3(a) will be treated as if they were violations of Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I strongly support this legislation and urge all Members to join me in voting for the passage of H.R. 2116, the CROWN Act.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 55, the Emmett Till Antilynching Act, which amends title 18, section 249 of the United States Code to make lynching a hate crime under Federal law punishable by up to 30 years imprisonment.

But before I go any further, let me acknowledge Congressman Bobby Rush who has been steadfast in the years that I have known him pushing day after day because Mamie Till and Emmett came from Chicago, from Illinois, going down to Mississippi, as Black children typically did, to see relatives in Mississippi, in Georgia, in Florida, in Texas, and in Alabama. He went down in 1955.

I thank Congressman Rush for his leadership and persistence. We tried to get this in the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, but I think we are where we want to be, a freestanding bill.

In 1989 a civil rights memorial was dedicated in Montgomery, Alabama, the birthplace of the modern civil rights movement, one of the efforts of Bryan Stevenson, to memorialize these individuals who were hanged. It honors the lives and memories of 40 martyrs who were slain during the movement from 1954 to 1968, including Emmett Till. We know that many more people lost their lives to racial violence during that era. As we were studying H.R. 40, the Reparations Commission, we determined 4,000--and most of those who were lynched were African Americans--the killers of 13 of the 40 martyrs whose names were inscribed on the memorial had not been prosecuted or convicted, and it is dedicated to those martyrs.

In 10 of the 40 deaths, defendants were either acquitted by all-White juries or served only token prison sentences. We also know there are many cases that still cry out for justice that involve hanging in particular of African Americans. These unsolved crimes represent a continuing stain on our Nation's honor and mock its commitment to equal justice under the law. The legislation before us is intended to help remove that stain once and for all.

The 40 victims selected for inclusion in the civil rights memorial fit at least one of three criteria: they were murdered because they were active in the civil rights movement; they were killed by organized hate crimes as acts of terror aimed at intimidating Black and civil rights activists; and their death, like the death of Emmett Till, helped to galvanize a movement by demonstrating the brutality faced by African Americans in the South.

That young boy aged 13 was hanged. These individuals were hanged. Several were White; 33 were Black. They were students, farmers, ministers, truck drivers, a homemaker, and a Nobel laureate. But, Madam Speaker, there are many, many other victims besides the 40 who were remembered in the memorial. The Southern Poverty Law Center reports through its research that approximately 75 other people died violently between 1952 and 1968 under circumstances suggesting that they were victims of racial violence. For most of them, the reason their names were not added to the memorial is because they were not enough; because the killings of African Americans were often covered up or not seriously investigated. There is little to doubt that many slayings were never recorded by authorities.

The crux of the matter is that lynching, even up to today, 2022, was not a Federal crime, and the heinous and evil act of lynching another human being was not a Federal crime that could be prosecuted. These are the ways that we can address this question by a Federal antilynching bill once and for all, making it a crime to lynch anyone in the United States.

So let me thank Mamie Till for being a courageous and wonderful civil rights activist driven by the heinous and horrible killing and hanging of a 13-year-old boy.

This is both mother and son in a much nicer time, and this is a mother who is expressing pain at the funeral of her child. And this, of course, is a photograph of what a 13-year-old, handsome, little boy looked like after he was beaten, lynched, dragged, and thrown in the water. This has to stop.

Now with this legislation we will finally have an antilynching legislation that makes illegal the idea of lynching.

Let me say that this idea of lynching is not an old act. 1981 was one of the most recent acts of lynching a fellow human being. So it is extremely important that we have this law that once and forever says that if it is not in the Constitution in terms of the exact language, it is tied to the Constitution, the 13th Amendment, which is the prohibition of slavery, the 14th Amendment which is due process. And I can assure our colleagues that we have not completed the thoughts of both of those amendments without having H.R. 55 which helps to ensure that justice is rendered and that lynching forever is stopped and that we realize that it is both a devastating and deadly act. But it is the ultimate indignity of taking another human being and hanging them like a piece of whatever one would like to imagine, like meat in a meat locker.

Let us stop that now. Let America stand as a place of human rights and a place of dignity.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 55.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 55, the ``Emmett Till Antilynching Act,'' which amends the Title 18, Section 249 of the United States Code to make lynching a hate crime under federal law punishable by up to 30 years imprisonment.

Madam Speaker, in 1989, the Civil Rights Memorial was dedicated in Montgomery, Alabama, the birthplace of the modern Civil Rights Movement.

The Memorial honors the lives and memories of 40 martyrs who were slain during the movement from 1954 to 1968, including Emmett Till.

But we know that many more people lost their lives to racial violence during that era.

In fact, at the time the Memorial was dedicated, the killers of 13 of the 40 martyrs whose names are inscribed on the Memorial had not been prosecuted or convicted.

In 10 of the 40 deaths, defendants were either acquitted by allwhite juries or served only token prison sentences.

We also know there are many cases that still cry out for justice.

These unsolved crimes represent a continuing stain on our nation's honor and mock its commitment to equal justice under law.

The legislation before us is intended to help us remove that stain once and for all.

The 40 victims selected for inclusion in the Civil Rights Memorial fit at least one of three criteria: (1) they were murdered because they were active in the civil rights movement; (2) they were killed by organized hate groups as acts of terror aimed at intimidating blacks and civil rights activists; or, (3) their deaths, like the death of Emmett Till, helped to galvanize the movement by demonstrating the brutality faced by African Americans in the South.

The 40 persons who fit the selection criteria ranged in age from 11 to 66.

Seven were white, and 33 were black.

They were students, farmers, ministers, truck drivers, a homemaker and a Nobel laureate.

But Madam Speaker, there are many, many other victims besides the 40 who are remembered on the Memorial.

The Southern Poverty Law Center reports that its research uncovered approximately 75 other people who died violently between 1952 and 1968 under circumstances suggesting that they were victims of racial violence.

For most of them the reason their names were not added to the Memorial is because not enough was known about the details surrounding their deaths.

Sadly, the reason so little is known about these cases is because they were not fully investigated or, in some cases, law enforcement officials were involved in the killings or subsequent cover-ups.

And because the killings of African Americans were often covered up or not seriously investigated, there is little reason to doubt that many slayings were never even recorded by the authorities.

The reason justice had not been served was the callous indifference, and often the criminal collusion, of many white law enforcement officials in the segregated South.

There simply was no justice for African Americans during the civil rights era.

The whole criminal justice system--from the police to the prosecutors, to the juries, and to the judges--was perverted by racial bigotry.

African Americans were routinely beaten, bombed and shot with impunity.

Sometimes, the killers picked their victims on a whim.

Sometimes, they targeted them for their activism.

In other cases, prominent white citizens were involved, and no consequences flowed.

Herbert Lee of Liberty, Mississippi, for example, was shot in the head by a state legislator in broad daylight in 1961.

It is, of course, fitting and proper that this legislation bears the name of Emmett Till, whose slaying in 1955 and his mother's decision to have an open casket at his funeral stirred the nation's conscience and galvanized a generation of Americans to join the fight for equality.

Sadly, hundreds of them were killed in that struggle, and many of the killers, like those of Emmett himself, were never successfully prosecuted.

Madam Speaker, over the past half century, the United States has made tremendous progress in overcoming the badges and vestiges of slavery.

But this progress has been purchased at great cost.

Examples of unsolved cases include the 1968 ``Orangeburg Massacre'' at South Carolina State University where state police shot and killed three student protesters; the 1967 shooting death of Carrie Brumfield, whose body was found on a rural Louisiana road; the 1957 murder of Willie Joe Sanford, whose body was fished out of a creek in Hawkinsville, Georgia; the 1946 killing of a black couple, including a pregnant woman, who was pulled out of a car in Monroe, Georgia, and dragged down a wagon trail before being shot in front of 200 people.

Solving cases like these is part of the great unfinished work I of America.

Madam Speaker, 53 years ago, Medgar Evers was murdered in Jackson, Mississippi; justice would not be done in his case for more than twenty years.

But that day was foretold because the evening before the death of Medgar Evers, on June 11, 1963, President John F. Kennedy addressed the nation from the Oval Office on the state of race relations and civil rights in America.

In his historic speech to the nation President Kennedy said:

``We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution.

``One hundred years of delay have passed since President Lincoln freed the slaves, yet their heirs, their grandsons, are not fully free. They are not yet freed from the bonds of injustice. They are not yet freed from social and economic oppression. And this Nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free.''

H.R. 55 will help ensure that justice is received by victims of lynching and in doing so, this legislation will help this Nation fulfill its hopes and justify its boast that in America all persons live in freedom.

Madam Speaker, I strongly support this legislation and urge all Members to join me in voting for its passage.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the House and the Committee on Homeland Security, and as Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, and a member of the Equality Caucus, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3485, the Global Respect Act of 2021.

I strongly support H.R. 3485 the Global Respect Act, which would mandate the listing of, and visa restrictions on foreign persons responsible for or complicit in human rights violations against lesbian, gay, bisexual,

transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI+) persons.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) people around the world continue to face discrimination, violence, and bigotry.

Sixty-eight countries criminalize same-sex sexual relations, which means that more than one-third of United Nations Member States criminalize consenting, adult, same-sex sexual relations.

In up to nine countries, same-sex sexual relations may be punishable by death, and so-called anti-LGBTQ+ ``propaganda'' laws inhibit LGBTQ+ advocacy in at least three countries.

While many countries have made tremendous strides in embracing equality for LGBTQI+ community members, other countries remain stagnant or, worse, are undertaking steps to further marginalize or harm LGBTQI+ community members.

That is why I support H.R. 3485, a bi-partisan bill, which requires the Administration to provide Congress with a list of foreign individuals found responsible for human rights violations against LGBTQI+ persons abroad, and equally important, mandates that individuals included on this list are ineligible for visas to, or entry into, the United States.

The U.S. Department of State's annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices has documented hostility toward LGBTQ+ citizens in every region of the world.

These violations include murder, rape, torture, death threats, extortion, imprisonment, and loss of employment and access to health care, as well as restrictions on freedoms of assembly, press, and speech.

The Global Respect Act would provide a means to prevent individuals who violate the human rights of LGBTQ+ people from entry into the United States.

The Global Respect Act also would require the Executive Branch to biannually send Congress a list of foreign persons responsible for, complicit in, or who have incited extrajudicial killing, torture, or other gross violations of human rights based on actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.

As I stated, there is teeth in the legislation because it requires the denial or revocation of visas to individuals placed on the list, with waivers only for national security or to allow attendance at the United Nations;

Finally, the legislation requires the annual State Department Report on Human Rights to include a section on LGBTQ+ international human rights, as well as an annual report to Congress on the status of the law's effectiveness; and requires the Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor to designate a staffer responsible for tracking violence, criminalization, and restrictions on the enjoyment of fundamental freedoms in foreign countries based on actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation and urge all Members to join me in voting for H.R. 3485, the Global Respect Act.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in strong support of H.R. 3485, the Global Respect Act of 2021, which mandates a listing of and visa restrictions on foreign persons responsible for or complicit in human rights violations against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI) persons.

It is very difficult for these individuals to suffer what they suffer. This community, of course, faces discrimination, violence, and bigotry all over the world. Sixty-eight countries criminalize same-sex sexual relations, which means that more than one-third of the United Nations' member states criminalize consenting adult and same-sex sexual relations. It includes nation-states in Africa. In up to nine countries, same-sex sexual relations may be punishable by death, and so-called anti-LGBTQ-plus propaganda laws inhibit LGBTQ-plus advocacy in at least three countries.

Let me thank Mr. Cicilline and the leadership for putting this bill forward. This is a bipartisan bill with a list of foreign individuals found responsible for human rights violations against this community.

I am supporting this bill because it has teeth because it requires denial of and limitations on visas. Let me ask the Senate to pass Global Respect Act, H.R. 3485.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me acknowledge just a stunning and very pivotal and important Black history message that our whip has given. He really is our historian, and I certainly want to pay tribute and give credence to the great work that he has established here for us.

Mr. Speaker, it was so powerful to be able to reorder critical race theory to critical race fact. I just want to reinforce that everyone knows, and it has been for decades, that critical race theory is an aspect of graduate teaching, master's, Ph.D.s, and in law schools. The basis of it is the seeming infusion of racism in society by way of laws and other actions.

Black history has always been, and the founder of Black history always wanted it to be, an opportunity for healing and bringing us together by understanding. I think the whip has laid out a stupendous story, a better understanding of Charles Drew and a better understanding of the light bulb.

Why wouldn't boys and girls from all walks of life want to understand how we are better together than we are separate?

I just want to take a moment to take up a different theme that speaks to the issue of Black history. I want to talk about the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. As well, I want to make sure that we highlight some aspects of Black history.

Mr. Speaker, let me, first of all, indicate that Black history is an important element of who we are. I am just going to call off the kinds of names that I hope will be welcomed in any classroom: President Barack Obama, 44th President of the United States, the first African- American President; Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall; U.S. Senator Blanche Kelso Bruce; U.S. Congresswoman Barbara Jordan; U.S. Congressman Mickey Leland; Dr. Guion Stewart Bluford; Mae C. Jemison--people that I knew because, living in Houston, they were astronauts that went out of Johnson Space Center-- Dr. McNair, whose life was lost in the service of this Nation as an astronaut.

Why wouldn't we want to talk about such beloved personalities who overcame obstacles to do great things? Activists and intellectual authors and artists like Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, these were individuals in the era of post-slavery and post- Reconstruction, in many instances, who still laid the groundwork for us.

James Baldwin, Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, Maya Angelou, Toni Morrison, and Gwendolyn Brooks, just to name a few of the countless number of well-known and unsung heroes.

James Baldwin, of course, an author; Toni Morrison, an author; and Gwendolyn Brooks. Obviously, Toni being maligned because of not being understood. Harriet Tubman, an unbelievable story with the Underground Railroad. Rosa Parks, who sat down along with others. Maya Angelou, poet laureate.

I also want to put into the Record names of historical figures, some of whom have passed, from my own community: Reverend F.N. Williams, Sr.; Dr. S.J. Gilbert, Sr.; Reverend Crawford W. Kimble; Reverend E. Stanley Branch; Reverend William A. Lawson, emeritus; Reverend Johnnie Jeffery ``J.J.'' Roberson; Mr. John Bland; Ms. Ruby Moseley; Ms. Dorothy Hubbard; Ms. Doris Hubbard--all of them infused liberty and liberation into our community--Acres Homes; Third Ward; Fifth Ward; South Park; Sunnyside; Willie Bell Boone; Ms. Holly Hogrobrooks, one of the first student protesters at Weingarten's; Mr. Deloyd Parker, who founded SHAPE, a pivotal agency in our community; Ms. Lenora ``Doll'' Carter; and Mr. Gerald Womack. At 16 years old, Gerald Womack opened his own real estate company, and he is one of the most generous humanitarians and businessmen living in our community today.

I only call these names out to align myself with the issue of facts. Why wouldn't we want to know the facts of each of our communities? Why wouldn't we want to know those who descended from those who came on Pilgrims' pride? Why wouldn't we want to

know those who are the legacies of the indigenous people, Native Americans, and many different Tribes, many of whom, of course, married African Americans as slaves or in the post-slave era?

Why wouldn't we want to know that history? I am stunned that we would not want to do so.

I believe it is important to not only know history that is pleasant but that we can call off wonderful people in our community who, in spite of the challenges and tribulations, became great leaders. But I also want to bring to the attention--because I have such an affection and love for this book taught to me by not only the whip, who appreciates this book called the Constitution, but Barbara Jordan reminded me to always carry it, for ladies, in their purses.

George Washington called the Constitution ``the guide, which I will never abandon.'' He is absolutely right.

``The Declaration of Independence was the promise; the Constitution was the fulfillment.'' A Republican judge, Warren Burger, said that. It couldn't be more true.

That seems to be taken sideways today because you can wrap the Constitution in the history of Black America, Mr. Speaker. So I rise for us to discuss today both the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. As I cherish the Constitution, I can assure you that I cherish those amendments.

I think we should remind America that we are the only population--we don't do it angrily--that were held in bondage for a period of time, longer than two centuries, 246 years longer than the Nation is old--we will meet that timeframe probably this July--but for a long time, longer than the Nation was old.

We know that President Lincoln had many reasons. He frankly thought he could bring the Union together if he could crush the rebellion in the South by freeing the slaves. In 1862, President Lincoln came to believe--and by the way, I and my friends, all of us call ourselves Lincolnesque. We look to the other party as the party of Lincoln, those wonderful stories that we learned in school, and we just knew this tall man called Abe Lincoln.

He was humble, not rich, but rich in spirit and courage. He believed firmly that emancipating the enslaved people in the South would help the Union crush the Confederate rebellion in the Civil War and win the Civil War.

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation which took effect in 1863 announced that all persons held as slaves within any State shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.

Wouldn't that be a good lesson to understand, whether you are in first grade or whether you are in fourth grade or whether you are in middle school?

The largesse and the values embedded in the Constitution to create a more perfect Union, here we are in the 1800s trying to proclaim that value. That is a value. That is a fact. But as we know, the Emancipation Proclamation itself did not end slavery in the United States, as it only applied to the 11 Confederate States then at war against the Union and only to the portion of those States not already under Union control.

To make it permanent, it would have to be a constitutional amendment. So in 1864, the U.S. Senate passed a proposed amendment banning slavery with the necessary two-thirds majority, but it faltered in the House of Representatives. So when Congress reconvened in 1864, the emboldened Republicans put the proposed amendment up for a vote again, and Lincoln threw himself into the legislative process, inviting individual Representatives to his office to discuss the amendment and putting it forward.

Isn't that like sweet music?

The Republicans, the Lincoln Republicans, got going. Lincoln was committed to the passage of the 13th Amendment, telling his allies to see what is before you to focus on the most important thing, that this amendment protects the slaves now born and in the United States but settles the question for all time for the millions yet to be born.

What an emotional and moving set of words. How emotional for the world to see how small it was at that time of this new experiment that left the shores of Europe.

What is this thing called the United States of America?

Can they actually govern? Can they lead?

Can they live? Is democracy real?

It is a democratic republic wrapped up in the history of slaves, Black history, the history of African Americans.

The allies got busy and got working, and he reportedly told them: I leave it to you to determine how it shall be done but remember that I am President of the United States, clothed with immense power, and I expect you to procure these votes.

That gives a sense of democracy that he didn't go in and drag people out. He actually told his allies: Let's try to get it done. I have got the power, but let's try to get votes.

We have seen that happen with some sadness to lack of success, but we stand on this floor in tribute to a man who wanted to see voting rights continue and continue and continue.

So on January 31st, 1865, the House of Representatives passed the proposed amendment with a vote of 119-56, just over the required two- thirds, and the following day Lincoln approved a joint resolution of Congress submitting it to the States for ratification.

That is a beautiful story. That is a fact. That is Black history. This is American history. I think that is the point that I want to make, that Black history is American history. It is no less and no more.

There should be no doubt in trying to teach American history that has the wonderful tinge of Black history.

Yesterday, February 8, 2022, honored the 15th Amendment--which I will speak somewhat about--to the United States Constitution which outlaws discrimination in voting on the basis of race, color, and previous conditions of servitude, therefore, advancing suffrage for African Americans.

This was the last and most difficult and hard-fought of all the Reconstruction congressional constitutional amendments to confer citizenship upon the formerly enslaved. The intention of this amendment was to codify permanently the right to vote for all freed men. Immediately the impact of this amendment proved transformative as freed men--women still were not allowed to vote--exercised the right to vote and in coalition elected several hundred African Americans to office.

How powerful this history is. How factual this history is. How coming together this history was, that you had, by birthright citizenship, the right to vote no matter whether or not you were previously enslaved or the color of your skin or previous condition. That is history.

So why do we talk about history today?

I said it was in the name of our dear, late friend and the many people who Whip Clyburn spoke to, but we do it because--although the 13th and 14th Amendments, the 14th giving due process rights--1921, this is a picture that we saw: captured Negroes on the way to the convention hall during the Tulsa race riot.

The freed slaves actually did everything that America said they shall do. They built this community on land given to them. They had hotels and hospitals. They had schools, and they had marching bands. Yet, unfortunately, it triggered a dislike.

Maybe this should be a continuation of an understanding and grades that would appreciate the fact that there were those who stood, had economic development and did all that citizens were expected to do, integrated into society but happened to be some freed slaves and some the descendants of enslaved Africans.

The Tulsa race riots were 1921. So the question of race continues. It started in the origins of slavery and slaves coming to the United States, but it continued.

But true history, Mr. Speaker, is a recognition that the facts won't hurt you, that they give you strength and allow you to continue to grow. But I think that is what I think this little book represents.

Quickly, I want to show a more potent picture, for that is what happened in America for 246 years.

Again, the anguish and anger are not the approach that we want to leave with our fellow Americans. It is the appreciation of the significance of Black history and the significance of a presence of a people in this country. And

the fact that this Constitution wanted to get rid of that, that is a good thing. That is the goodness of America. That story should be told.

So when we talk about the many Members of Congress who have come to accept the healing powers of a bill that studies slavery and establishes a commission to deal with its repair and restoration and results like H.R. 40, 33 years filed in this Congress, what happens is that we have the facts, we have the approach, and the approach is healing.

So as I close my remarks, let me say that we are a continuing work in progress. I am so grateful to the whip for allowing me this moment to remind us that our special history is this book.

So when we hear a Brian Flores lawsuit about our friends in the NFL and the numbers that are so awkward--I won't pursue that now.

But what I will say is: Can we work together? Because issues still exist. Can we teach our children the goodness of the history of a people? And then, can we take the next step to work with institutions who have not yet fulfilled the beginning of this book that says we organize to create a more perfect Union, and the 13th and 14th Amendment which rids of us of all discrimination?

Mr. Speaker, I hope we can do that for this month, and I hope we can do that forever.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of this body and the Committee on the Judiciary, I am pleased to join my colleagues in this Special Order marking the anniversary of the passage on December 6, 1865 of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution and celebrating the passage of the 14th and 15th Amendments, known as the Civil Rights Amendments.

I thank my colleague, Congressman Butterfield, for anchoring this important Special Order and am remembering our late colleague, John Lewis, a great and beloved man, who risked and gave his life to make real the promise of those amendments.

The 13th Amendment, the first of the three great Civil War Amendments, was passed in 1865 and abolished slavery.

The 14th Amendment conferred citizenship on the newly emancipated slaves, and the 15th Amendment prohibited abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Taken together, these amendments were intended and have the effect of making former slaves, and their descendants, full and equal members of the political community known as the United States of America.

By 1861, when the Civil War broke out, more than 4 million people (nearly all of them of African descent) were enslaved in 15 southern and border states.

By 1862, President Abraham Lincoln came to believe firmly that emancipating enslaved people in the South would help the Union crush the Confederate rebellion and win the Civil War.

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, which took effect in 1863, announced that all enslaved people held in the states ``then in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.''

But the Emancipation Proclamation in itself did not end slavery in the United States, as it only applied to the 11 Confederate states then at war against the Union, and only to the portion of those states not already under Union control.

To make emancipation permanent would take a constitutional amendment abolishing the institution of slavery itself.

In April 1864, the U.S. Senate passed a proposed amendment banning slavery with the necessary two-thirds majority but it faltered in the House of Representatives, as more and more Democrats refused to support it.

When Congress reconvened in December 1864, the emboldened Republicans put the proposed amendment up for vote again and Lincoln threw himself in the legislative process, inviting individual representatives to his office to discuss the amendment and putting pressure on border-state Unionists (who had previously opposed it) to change their position.

Lincoln was committed to the passage of the 13th Amendment, telling his allies to ``see what is before you, to focus on the most important thing; that this Amendment protects the slaves now born and in the United States, but settles the question for all time for the millions yet to be born.''

He authorized his allies to entice House members with plum positions and other inducements, reportedly telling them: ``I leave it to you to determine how it shall be done; but remember that I am President of the United States, clothed with immense power, and I expect you to procure those votes.''

On January 31, 1865, the House of Representatives passed the proposed amendment with a vote of 119-56, just over the required two-thirds majority, and the following day, Lincoln approved a joint resolution of Congress submitting it to the state legislatures for ratification.

Mr. Speaker, the United States is the world's only superpower and boasts the largest economy in the history of the world and for many years was the world's indispensable nation and the example that all aspiring democracies wished to emulate.

But at the same time, this nation has also been home to many searing instances of social unrest resulting from racial injustices, as we witnessed this year on the streets of big cities and small towns in urban and rural communities.

We saw Americans, by the millions across the country, coming from all races and ages, engaging in what the late John Lewis called ``good trouble'' by protesting and demanding an end to the systemic racial inequality in our criminal justice system that too often victimizes and disproportionately treats black Americans worse, ceteris paribus, when it comes to suspicion, apprehension, arrest, detention, trial, sentencing, and incarceration.

While the brutal deaths of George Floyd in Minneapolis and Breonna Taylor in Louisville shocked the conscience of the nation, most black Americans will tell you what they experienced is not new, but has been occurring for generations, if not centuries.

What is critically important to understand is that the instances of brutal and unfair treatment the nation has witnessed this year cannot be attributed to the proverbial few ``bad apples in the bushel'' but is instead the foreseeable consequence of systemic racism and racial inequality in the system.

Not just the criminal justice system, but the health care system, the economic system, and the educational system to name the most glaring examples.

To find our way out of this dark time, we need to understand how it came to be.

That is why in January 2019, I introduced H.R. 40, which establishes a commission to examine slavery and discrimination in the colonies and the United States from 1619 to the present and recommend appropriate remedies.

Among other requirements, the commission shall identify the role of federal and state governments in supporting the institution of slavery; forms of discrimination in the public and private sectors against freed slaves and their descendants; and lingering negative effects of slavery on living African-Americans and society.

Official slavery ended with the Civil War and ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment.

But unofficial slavery was continued with the new institution of sharecrop farming, a criminal justice system that would press convicts into work once done by slaves, and labor policies that dictated income for work done based upon skin color.

And, of course, all of this was reinforced by the systematic disenfranchisement of black Americans, the ``discrete and insular minority'' excluded from ``those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect'' them, to quote Chief Justice Hughes' famous Carolene Products Footnote 4.

For these reasons, the history of the United States is intertwined with the history of enslaved Africans in the Americas.

There is blood and there are tears, but there is also redemption and reconciliation.

But to get there, we must have the complete truth and lay our history bare.

It is the light that sheds the way to the more perfect union all Americans want.

The Commission created and empowered by H.R. 40 is a necessary first step in that effort to get to truth and reconciliation about the Original Sin of American Slavery that is necessary to light the way to the beloved community we all seek.

Finally, I join all my colleagues in pointing out that the most fitting and proper means of paying tribute to the beloved John Lewis's extraordinary life is for the Senate to immediately take up and pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, landmark legislation to protect the precious right to vote for all persons and to ensure that our democracy has the tools needed to remain strong.

Mr. Speaker, this February we recognize and celebrate the 40th commemoration of Black History Month.

This month we celebrate the contributions of African Americans to the history of our great nation, and pay tribute to trailblazers, pioneers, heroes, and leaders like the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama; Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall; U.S. Senator Blanche Kelso Bruce; U.S. Congresswoman Barbara Jordan; U.S. Congressman Mickey Leland; Astronauts Dr. Guion Stewart Bluford, Jr., and Mae C. Jemison; activists, intellectuals, authors, and artists like Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, James Baldwin, Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, Maya Angelou, Toni Morrison, and Gwendolyn Brooks just to name a few of the countless number of well-

known and unsung heroes whose contributions have helped our nation become a more perfect union.

The history of the United States has been marked by the great contributions of African American activists, leaders, writers, and artists.

As a member of Congress, I know that I stand on the shoulders of giants whose struggles and triumphs made it possible for me to stand here today and continue the fight for equality, justice, and progress for all, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

The greatest of these giants to me are Mrs. Ivalita ``Ivy'' Jackson, a vocational nurse, and Mr. Ezra A. Jackson, one of the first African- Americans to succeed in the comic book publishing business.

They were my beloved parents and they taught me the value of education, hard work, discipline, perseverance, and caring for others.

And I am continually inspired by Dr. Elwyn Lee, my husband and the first tenured African American law professor at the University of Houston.

Mr. Speaker, I particularly wish to acknowledge the contributions of African American veterans in defending from foreign aggressors and who by their courageous examples helped transform our nation from a segregated society to a nation committed to the never ending challenge of perfecting our union.

A few years ago about this time, I was honored to join my colleagues, the late Congressman John Lewis and former Congressman Charles Rangel, a Korean War veteran, in paying tribute to surviving members of the Tuskegee Airmen and the 555th Parachute Infantry, the famed ``Triple Nickels'' at a moving ceremony sponsored by the U.S. Army commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The success of the Tuskegee Airmen in escorting bombers during World War II--achieving one of the lowest loss records of all the escort fighter groups, and being in constant demand for their services by the allied bomber units--is a record unmatched by any other fighter group.

So impressive and astounding were the feats of the Tuskegee Airmen that in 1948, it helped persuade President Harry Truman to issue his famous Executive Order No. 9981, which directed equality of treatment and opportunity in all of the United States Armed Forces and led to the end of racial segregation in the U.S. military forces.

It is a source of enormous and enduring pride that my father-in-law, Phillip Ferguson Lee, was one of the Tuskegee Airmen.

Clearly, what began as an experiment to determine whether ``colored'' soldiers' were capable of operating expensive and complex combat aircraft ended as an unqualified success based on the experience of the Tuskegee Airmen, whose record included 261 aircraft destroyed, 148 aircraft damaged, 15,553 combat sorties and 1,578 missions over Italy and North Africa.

They also destroyed or damaged over 950 units of ground transportation and escorted more than 200 bombing missions. They proved that ``the antidote to racism is excellence in performance,'' as retired Lt. Col. Herbert Carter once remarked.

Mr. Speaker, Black History Month is also a time to remember many pioneering women like U.S. Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm; activists Harriet Tubman and Rosa Parks; astronaut Mae C. Jemison; mathematicians like Katherine G. Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan and Mary Jackson; authors Maya Angelou, Toni Morrison, and Gwendolyn Brooks; all of whom have each in their own way, whether through courageous activism, cultural or intellectual contributions, or artistic creativity, forged social and political change, and forever changed our great Nation for the better.

It is also fitting, Mr. Speaker, that in addition to those national leaders whose contributions have made our nation better, we honor also those who have and are making a difference in their local communities.

In my home city of Houston, there are numerous great men and women. They are great because they have heeded the counsel of Dr. King who said: ``Everybody can be great because anybody can serve. You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love.''

By that measure, I wish to pay tribute to some of the great men and women of Houston some of whom who have passed:

Rev. F.N. Williams, Sr.

Rev. Dr. S.J. Gilbert, Sr.

Rev. Crawford W. Kimble

Rev. Eldridge Stanley Branch

Rev. William A. Lawson

Rev. Johnnie Jeffery ``J.J.'' Robeson

Mr. John Bland

Ms. Ruby Moseley

Ms. Dorothy Hubbard

Ms. Doris Hubbard

Ms. Willie Bell Boone

Ms. Holly HogoBrooks

Mr. Deloyd Parker

Ms. Lenora ``Doll'' Carter

Mr. Gerald Womack

As we celebrate Black History Month, let us pay tribute to those who have come before us, and pay forward to future generations by addressing what is the number one issue for African American families, and all American families today: preserving the American promise of economic opportunity for all.

Our immediate focus must be job creation, and enacting legislation that will foster and lay the foundation for today's and tomorrow's generation of groundbreaking activists, leaders, scientists, writers and artists to continue contributing to the greatness of America.

We must continue to preserve the American Dream for all.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here in celebration of the heroic and historic acts of African Americans and their indispensable contributions to this great Nation.

It is through our work in creating possibilities for today and future generations that we best honor the accomplishments and legacy of our predecessors.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chair and the ranking member for this amazing legislation.

To my good friend from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio, I remember that bill year after year after year because the post office was given the death penalty. That is what happened in the dark of night.

I worked for the post office. Yes, I remember sorting the mail in those old days. But what I most remember is the 1 million new delivery points every year that the post office adds. While others are making a lot of money, they go to the rural areas.

I also remember the letter carriers, the rural postmasters, and all the hardworking men and women who were coming to us week after week, day after day, and said: We are dying out here, and we need to be able to have our healthcare taken care of.

But guess what? The post office had to prepay it. No one else had ever had to do that. It was one of the highest liabilities. Along with that, they were required to fund their pension liabilities at a much higher level than the rest of the Federal Government.

To conserve cash, they hadn't been paying since 2012. Can you imagine, they stopped paying their bills since 2012 because they didn't have any money?

By more closely integrating Medicare, USPS estimates it can save $22.6 billion over 10 years. What a smart thing to do.

Then, of course, the Postal Service Reform Act would eliminate the requirement of the prepaid retirement. And, then, it would require USPS to develop a public-facing online dashboard.

Again, the idea is to save the post office for the American people, save it for the workers, and save it because it is patriotic to do so. I congratulate you.

Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the House and the Committee on Homeland Security, and as Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, and a member of the Equality Caucus, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3076, the Postal Service Reform Act of 2022.

Passage of this legislation is urgently needed because USPS incurred its fourteenth consecutive net annual loss in 2020, and even if USPS continues to default on mandated payments, it would likely run out of cash to fund its operations prior to 2024.

Madam Speaker, USPS funds the universal mail service it provides to nearly 159 million delivery points solely through the sale of postage.

USPS adds one million new delivery points every year, even as mail volume continues to fall.

This means USPS must deliver less and less mail to more and more places.

In addition, several congressional mandates imposed when mail volume was at its peak put USPS on the road to insolvency.

USPS is required to pre-fund the health care costs of its employees, regardless of whether they actually serve until retirement.

USPS is also required to fund its pension liabilities at a much higher level than the rest of the federal government.

To conserve cash, USPS has defaulted on retiree health care payments since 2012.

That is why the key reforms in the Postal Service Reform Act of 2021 are so important.

First, the Postal Service Reform Act of 2021 would require future Postal Service retirees, who have been paying into Medicare their entire careers, to enroll in Medicare.

Currently, roughly a quarter of postal retirees do not enroll in Medicare even though they are eligible, which means USPS is stuck paying far higher premiums than any other public or private sector employer.

By more closely integrating Medicare, USPS estimates it could save approximately $22.6 billion over 10 years.

Second, the Postal Service Reform Act of 2021 would eliminate the requirement that USPS pre-fund retiree health benefits for all current and retired employees for 75 years in the future.

No private company or other federal government entity is required to comply with such a burdensome requirement and its elimination is estimated to drastically reduce its prefunding liability and allow USPS to save roughly $27 billion over 10 years.

Third, USPS Reform Act of 2021 would require USPS to develop a public-facing, online dashboard with national and local level service performance data updated each week to provide additional transparency and promote compliance with on-time delivery of mail.

Fourth, the Postal Service Reform Act of 2021 would require USPS to deliver both mail and packages at least six days per week across an integrated network.

Finally, the Postal Service Reform Act of 2021 would allow USPS to enter into agreements with State, local, and tribal governments to provide non-commercial property and services that provide enhanced value, do not detract from core postal services, and provide a reasonable contribution to Postal Service institutional costs.

In addition, the legislation contains several provisions that will improve the effectiveness of the Postal Service, including:

The expansion of special rates for local newspaper distribution to promote local news organizations;

A Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) review of cost attribution guidelines for different Postal Service products to ensure pricing accuracy and better accounting;

Increased funding autonomy and control for the Postal Regulatory Commission to increase its budgetary resources commensurate with its mission of regulating the Postal Service, and to shield the PRC from government shutdowns;

A study on operational inefficiencies in Postal Service flats and magazine processing;

Regular congressional reporting on Postal Service operations and financial performance to enable accountability of stated cost savings, revenue, and infrastructure investment goals;

Adjustments to the considerations USPS must make when deciding which mode of transportation to use to deliver mail in order to ensure greater consistency and reliability; and

The consolidation of the PRC's small Inspector General Office into the more robust Postal Service Office of Inspector General.

Madam Speaker, the Postal Service's unmatched network and Universal Service Obligation serves 159 million homes and businesses every day, processing and delivering an average of 430 million pieces of mail and packages per day.

In fact, USPS often delivers seven days a week due to demand and necessity.

This has been especially true during the Covid-19 pandemic as American homes, businesses and private shippers have relied on the Postal Service to meet their needs in these extraordinary times.

Madam Speaker, I strongly support this legislation and urge all Members to join me in voting for H.R. 3076, the Postal Service Reform Act of 2021.

Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the House and the Committee on Homeland Security, and as Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, and a member of the Equality Caucus, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3076, the Postal Service Reform Act of 2022.

Passage of this legislation is urgently needed because USPS incurred its fourteenth consecutive net annual loss in 2020, and even if USPS continues to default on mandated payments, it would likely run out of cash to fund its operations prior to 2024.

Madam Speaker, USPS funds the universal mail service it provides to nearly 159 million delivery points solely through the sale of postage.

USPS adds one million new delivery points every year, even as mail volume continues to fall.

This means USPS must deliver less and less mail to more and more places.

In addition, several congressional mandates imposed when mail volume was at its peak put USPS on the road to insolvency.

USPS is required to pre-fund the health care costs of its employees, regardless of whether they actually serve until retirement.

USPS is also required to fund its pension liabilities at a much higher level than the rest of the federal government.

To conserve cash, USPS has defaulted on retiree health care payments since 2012.

That is why the key reforms in the Postal Service Reform Act of 2021 are so important.

First, the Postal Service Reform Act of 2021 would require future Postal Service retirees, who have been paying into Medicare their entire careers, to enroll in Medicare.

Currently, roughly a quarter of postal retirees do not enroll in Medicare even though they are eligible, which means USPS is stuck paying far higher premiums than any other public or private sector employer.

By more closely integrating Medicare, USPS estimates it could save approximately $22.6 billion over 10 years.

Second, the Postal Service Reform Act of 2021 would eliminate the requirement that USPS pre-fund retiree health benefits for all current and retired employees for 75 years in the future.

No private company or other federal government entity is required to comply with such a burdensome requirement and its elimination is estimated to drastically reduce its prefunding liability and allow USPS to save roughly $27 billion over 10 years.

Third, USPS Reform Act of 2021 would require USPS to develop a public-facing, online dashboard with national and local level service performance data updated each week to provide additional transparency and promote compliance with on-time delivery of mail.

Fourth, the Postal Service Reform Act of 2021 would require USPS to deliver both mail and packages at least six days per week across an integrated network.

Finally, the Postal Service Reform Act of 2021 would allow USPS to enter into agreements with State, local, and tribal governments to provide non-commercial property and services that provide enhanced value, do not detract from core postal services, and provide a reasonable contribution to Postal Service institutional costs.

In addition, the legislation contains several provisions that will improve the effectiveness of the Postal Service, including:

1. The expansion of special rates for local newspaper distribution to promote local news organizations;

2. A Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) review of cost attribution guidelines for different Postal Service products to ensure pricing accuracy and better accounting;

3. Increased funding autonomy and control for the Postal Regulatory Commission to increase its budgetary resources commensurate with its mission of regulating the Postal Service, and to shield the PRC from government shutdowns;

4. A study on operational inefficiencies in Postal Service flats and magazine processing;

5. Regular congressional reporting on Postal Service operations and financial performance to enable accountability of stated cost savings, revenue, and infrastructure investment goals;

6. Adjustments to the considerations USPS must make when deciding which mode of transportation to use to deliver mail in order to ensure greater consistency and reliability; and

7. The consolidation of the PRC's small Inspector General Office into the more robust Postal Service Office of Inspector General.

Madam Speaker, the Postal Service's unmatched network and Universal Service Obligation serves 159 million homes and businesses every day, processing and delivering an average of 430 million pieces of mail and packages per day.

In fact, USPS often delivers seven days a week due to demand and necessity.

This has been especially true during the Covid-19 pandemic as American homes, businesses and private shippers have relied on the Postal Service to meet their needs in these extraordinary times.

Madam Speaker, I strongly support this legislation and urge all Members to join me in voting for H.R. 3076, the Postal Service Reform Act of 2021.

Mr. Speaker, many of our jurisdictional committees have oversight over the major league sports teams, from baseball to basketball to football.

As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I have been engaged with my committee in the oversight of the National Football League. In fact, I remember more than a decade ago we were the first committee to deal with brain concussions and the lack of response by the NFL to the players.

Today, I rise for the lack of response to racism and racial discrimination in the NFL. I take note of the lawsuit filed by Coach Brian Flores and would hope that the words, ``it is without merit'' will not stand.

I believe it is important, with the number of minority players versus the number of coaches to that in terms of statistics, that we address the seeming appearance of racial discrimination in the NFL. I think it is important to reassess the Rooney rule to give a criteria for how coaches are selected, so mistakes like the coach from Boston sending the wrong notice that ``you have been hired'' to someone else would not happen.

To Mr. Goodell and the owners, let's work together, let's get the teams to look like America.

Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for his leadership, and I thank my distinguished friend from Illinois, Congresswoman Bustos for her constant determination.

It is wonderful that H.R. 4445 is restoring freedom and justice to women. It is a bipartisan piece of legislation that will not allow any pre-dispute arbitration agreement or pre-dispute joint action waiver to be valid or enforceable with respect to a case which is filed under Federal, Tribal, or State law and relates to a sexual assault dispute or sexual harassment dispute.

I am glad to hear friends on the other side, as this is a bipartisan bill, acknowledge the fact that this is an absolute injustice; an injustice that befalls a certain segment of the population, and that is women.

One of the cases that is most stark is the one of Stefani Bambace. Many witnesses came before us in the Judiciary

Committee. Witness after witness gave us horror stories of isolation and fear and the absolute inability, because of the fine print, to do anything about it.

Stefani Bambace alleged that she worked in a sexually charged and hostile work environment, including being subjected to sexually explicit language from her employer, sexual advances and groping. Let me say that again. Touching in her space from her employer, sexual advances and groping and explicit images. How can you work as a professional or anyone? Think of the levels of work that women are in; from domestic to as high a level as scientists and CEOs. But yet, they are subjected to this kind of behavior.

According to Ms. Bambace's petition, she complained to human resources to no avail about the harassment. And guess what her relief was? Guess what empathy was shown? Guess what comfort and reforming the system was? It was her being fired. That is right. She was fired. How many stories of women are there, that are yet not told, who were fired?

And so this agreement of which my colleague has worked on, and we are pleased in the Judiciary Committee to be part of moving this legislation, this will end these arbitration agreements that are snuck into a packet of materials that you sign.

It is imperative we pass it, but more importantly Madam Speaker, it is imperative that it is passed in the Senate because it is bipartisan, but it is signed by the President and becomes law.

I thank Ms. Bambace and all of the witnesses that came before us. They sacrifice, they suffered, but yet today, hopefully, will be an announcement, a pronouncement of freedom and justice for women who have struggled with this all of the time.

H.R. 4445 is a relief that is a long time in coming, and it should move away from blind, silent, quiet agreements that no one knows what it is. Freedom and justice for women in the workforce today.

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in strong support of H.R. 4445, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act.

This bill will amend Title 9 of the United States Code, empowering survivors of sexual assault and harassment by restoring their access to justice and public accountability under the law.

By ending forced arbitration in lawsuits involving these claims, survivors of sexual assault or sexual harassment are empowered with making the decision on whether they wish to pursue legal action against their assailants which often includes going to court to arbitrate their claims.

It is estimated that 60 million Americans have signed away their right to seek real justice and most don't realize it until they try to get help.

H.R. 4445 will not allow any pre-dispute arbitration agreement or predispute joint-action waiver to be valid or enforceable with respect to a case which is filed under Federal, Tribal, or State law and relates to a sexual assault dispute or a sexual harassment dispute.

In the Judiciary markup which brought this bill to the floor, survivors of sexual harassment and sexual assault shared their stories with the committee about their devastating experiences and the subsequent arbitration process they were forced to endure as a condition of their employment.

The #MeToo movement chipped away at the culture of secrecy that protects predators and silences survivors.

Ending mandatory arbitration has the power to ensure that survivors of sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace have their voices heard.

For example, in Bambace v. Berry Y&V Fabricators, LLC, Stefani Bambace alleged that she worked in a sexually charged and hostile work environment, including ``being subjected to sexually explicit images from her employer, sexual advances, and groping.''

According to her petition, she complained to Human Resources about the harassment and was fired three weeks later.

She filed a lawsuit alleging violations of Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code.

Like more than half of non-unionized American workers, Bambace was subject to an employer promulgated arbitration agreement.

These arbitration agreements are often snuck into a packet of materials employers give employees on their first day of employment to sign and they are rarely negotiated or even discussed.

In a well-reasoned opinion in Bambace, the Court held that the arbitration agreement, which required the Plaintiff to litigate sexual harassment claims in confidential and binding arbitration, violated public policy, injured the public good, and was therefore void and unenforceable.

Critically, the Court further rejected Defendant's argument that the arbitrator, not the Court, should determine whether the sexual harassment claims were subject to arbitration.

Fortunately, in the Bambace case Harris County Judge Lauren Reeder understood that cases such as these should be determined by a court, rather than an arbitrator irrespective of whether the agreement purports to delegate such determinations to an arbitrator.

This is just one story out of millions where forced arbitration agreements attempt, and usually succeed, to silence sexual assault and sexual harassment victims.

These forced ``agreements'' strip survivors of the right to decide how to pursue accountability of their predators.

Instead, these survivors' stories are heard in secret, behind closed doors, and do little to nothing to stop the systematic abuse from occurring again.

The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 will ensure that these survivors will have their voices heard in a court of law if they choose to do so.

No survivor of sexual harassment or sexual assault should be forced into silence, especially by a piece of paper buried within their employment agreement.

Forced arbitration allows companies to hide and shield sexual predators and keep employees from knowing that their other colleagues could be victims of the same person.

Voiding these clauses in sexual harassment and discrimination cases would aid victims by pulling back the veil of secrecy on bad behavior in the workplace.

More than 56% of Americans are subject to these mandatory arbitration agreements.

These victims deserve the right to choose to go to court, it should not be in the hands of their employer.

A 2011 Cornell University study found that employees are less likely to win arbitration cases.

These corporations embrace arbitration because it is a cheaper and faster way to settle disputes and can cut down frivolous lawsuits.

Corporations do not want to face juries because they know citizens will punish them for their wrongdoing, so they sneak arbitration language into their take-it-or-leave-it contracts.

Forced arbitration is a sexual harasser's best friend, it is an issue of fundamental human rights.

Eliza Dushku, an actress, testified that she had been fired from the CBS prime-time drama ``Bull'' after she asked her co-star, Michael Weatherly, a producer on the show, to stop harassing her.

She said he had made rape jokes about her and had told her in front of dozens of cast and crew members that he wanted to be in a threesome with her.

She said she had later learned that the contract she signed with CBS included a forced arbitration clause.

After a mediation, the company agreed to a confidential settlement that would pay Ms. Dushku $9.5 million.

Situations such as Ms. Dushku's aim to sweep sexual harassment and assault cases under the rug.

Silencing these victims is exactly what forced arbitration agreements are meant to do and I believe we should no longer tolerate this behavior.

This is an excellent and common-sense bill that will ensure victims are not silenced by forced arbitration agreements any longer.

Although we cannot bring justice and a voice for those who have already settled their cases to their arbitration agreements, we can ensure that future victims will be heard and not suppressed in their truth.

Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the House and the Committee on Homeland Security, and as Chair of

the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4445, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 4445, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021, is bipartisan and bicameral legislation that empowers survivors of sexual assault and sexual harassment by giving them a choice to go to court instead of being forced into arbitration.

This legislation would amend the Federal Arbitration Act for disputes involving sexual assault and sexual harassment in order to stop employers and businesses from forcing employees and customers out of the court system and into arbitration.

It would ensure that predispute arbitration clauses and waivers of the right to bring joint actions in cases of sexual assault or sexual harassment would not be valid or enforceable for cases that are filed under Federal, Tribal, or State law.

Under current law, many employment and other contracts require binding arbitration for a wide range of matters before a dispute arises, which denies survivors the ability to decide whether to pursue their claim with the procedural protections provided by courts, and silences victims of abuse by forcing them into a confidential dispute forum without the right to appeal.

Madam Speaker, more than 60 million Americans are subject to mandatory arbitration clauses in the workplace, often without realizing it until they come forward to bring a claim against their employer.

The Report of the Co-Chairs of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace notes that between 50-75 percent of women have faced some form of unwanted or unwelcome sexual harassment in the workplace.

Additionally, contracts for services may include mandatory arbitration clauses in the fine print that shield companies and businesses from being held publicly accountable for the harm caused.

I support this necessary legislation because it advances efforts to prevent and address sexual harassment and sexual assault, strengthen rights, protect victims, and promote access to justice.

Madam Speaker, I strongly support this legislation and urge all Members to join me in voting for H.R. 4445, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021.