Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts and my friends on the other side of the aisle.

The good news is that Democrats, and I hope some good friends, some Republicans, will not kick American families down the aisle and down the road. That is why we are here today, to ensure that those human beings will not be kicked down the road.

I am stunned by the actions of my friends that would not support the paying of your bills.

Let us not discard the reality of what lifting the debt ceiling means. It is the bills that have already accrued. It is the light bill; it is the telephone bill; it is the heat bill; it is the tuition for college. Those are bills that have accrued that we are paying for. That is the example the American people ask.

Then we are trying to work together to ensure that lead poisoning that is killing our children in water--that the INVEST Act is ready to go with the Build Back Better, that broadband is ready to go with the Build Back Better.

Then, of course, we want to do something innovative. The housing crisis in

America is unbelievable. Homelessness is on the rise. Veterans who have pledged their life to us as Americans and who have put on the uniform unselfishly are homeless in droves. They are homeless in big cities, like Houston, Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago, and in rural areas. None of that is attributed to local leaders.

When I was home yesterday interacting with the engine of the economy--construction companies and workers and engineers--they begged for having us come together, INVEST Act, Build Back Better. This bill includes a $35 billion investment in the HOME Investment Partnerships.

We want to make sure that Medicare is strong, Federal Medicaid. We want housing, climate change, the immigration reform. There are many elements that will stop pushing the American people down the road like a can and just keep saying to them: We will get it one day. We will get it another day.

Provide education for all those workers who were stymied during the pandemic. Stop the eviction of individuals who I saw come out into the street.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The New York Times.

[From the New York Times, October 8, 2021]

What the Debt Ceiling Means for Social Security and More

The federal government is about two weeks away from being

unable to pay its bills--and that could delay benefit

payments to tens of millions of retirees, Medicare and

Medicaid providers, and numerous others receiving checks from

the U.S. Treasury.

Running into the federal borrowing limit could lead to a

catastrophic default on the nation's debt. Once the

government reaches the ceiling--and exhausts all other

measures to keep payments flowing--it will run out of funds

for bills it has already promised to pay.

To avoid such a calamity, Democrats are weighing a change

to filibuster rules in order to hold a vote. Senator Mitch

McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, has suggested

allowing a temporary increase until December, although that

would merely postpone a default deadline for a matter of

weeks.

The government has never defaulted on its obligations, so

what would happen is unclear. But the effects could be wide-

ranging, covering programs as varied as Social Security

benefits and school lunches.

``There is no public playbook for what to do when you

breach the debt limit,'' said Marc Goldwein, senior policy

director at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a

fiscal watchdog group. ``We don't know what will happen.''

What Programs Could be Affected?

A lot, covering a lot of people.

A default could potentially--but not necessarily--delay the

payment of Social Security benefits, which reach about 65

million Americans in some form.

It could also delay payments to government contractors,

including hospitals that accept patients who use Medicare and

Medicaid benefits. If the situation dragged on for weeks or

months, it could threaten access to health care, Whitney

Tucker, the deputy director of research on the State Fiscal

Policy team at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,

said in a recent note.

Some state-run programs that use federal money, like those

providing free or reduced-cost breakfast and lunch to low-

income students, might not be immediately reimbursed. The

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as

food stamps, would also be affected.

And it would probably halt payments being made to families

under the newly expanded child tax credit, which in July

began sending eligible families half of the credit in monthly

installments. Roughly 35 million families received the

benefit in July.

When Could this Happen?

That's not totally clear. The Treasury secretary, Janet L.

Yellen, has said the government will hit the debt ceiling on

Oct. 18. But some analysts believe the actual date could be

pushed back a few days, or perhaps longer.

It's important to note that this situation is different

from a government shutdown, which happens when Congress fails

to pass bills that permit new spending. White House officials

warn that running into the debt ceiling is far more damaging.

Won't the Government still have some money?

Yes, the Treasury will have some revenue coming in--from

estimated quarterly income taxes, excise taxes and other

sources--but the department has maintained that it does not

have the authority to pick and choose which payments it will

make.

``There is only one viable option to deal with the debt

limit: Congress needs to increase or suspend it, as it has

done approximately 80 times, including three times during the

last administration,'' a Treasury spokesman said.

But if no agreement is reached, some policy experts say

that the Treasury may ultimately have to pick winners and

losers--and that's a difficult bind, because there are

several conflicting laws at play.

The law says the government cannot borrow once it hits the

debt limit, but the 14th Amendment to the Constitution says

that the United States must honor its obligations. Other laws

state that certain benefits and salaries must be paid.

Is there anything else the government could do?

The Treasury might decide to issue more bonds anyway and

leave it to the Supreme Court to figure out the

constitutional questions, said Len Burman, an institute

fellow at the Urban Institute.

``They could ignore the debt limit,'' he said. ``It is a

question that has never been adjudicated because it hasn't

come up before.''

But previous administrations have rejected that approach,

he said, and legal experts don't agree about whether it would

actually work.

What about Social Security?

Social Security--which reaches tens of millions of

Americans through retirement, disability and survivor

benefits--is a bit different from other programs because it

is largely financed through a dedicated payroll tax. It also

has its own trust funds, which may give it more flexibility,

some experts said.

The taxes coming into the program aren't enough to pay all

of the benefits, according to Jason J. Fichtner, chief

economist at the Bipartisan Policy Center, who held several

positions, including acting principal deputy commissioner, at

the Social Security Administration. But since the checks are

sent out on a staggered basis, the agency could wait for more

cash to come in, which would result in delayed payments.

But there's also at least one other possibility. If the

Treasury redeemed the special-issue bonds from the program's

trust fund to pay benefits--and then quickly replaced them

with newly issued bonds--that wouldn't raise the debt

ceiling, Mr. Fichtner argues.

It's not clear whether the Treasury agrees with his

assessment.

What else could happen?

If the United States were to default on its debts--that is,

stop making payments on the Treasurys it has sold--there

would almost certainly be major consequences in the global

markets.

The immediate effect would be that portfolios held by

investors as varied as pension funds and holders of 401(k)s

would face a market tailspin. Even after any debt-ceiling

standoff were resolved, global investors would demand higher

interest payments on U.S. Treasury bonds--so the government's

borrowing in the future could become more expensive.

A default may also make it more difficult for consumers to

secure loans, and they would most likely pay more when they

did.

``In the case of a debt default, it would quickly spark a

credit crunch so the issue for borrowers becomes much more

about whether you can get a loan in the first place,'' said

Greg McBride, chief financial analyst at Bankrate.com.

``Lenders would likely freeze or cut credit lines on home

equity lines of credit and credit cards. Personal loans would

be harder to get and could see higher rates.''

What if the problem isn't quickly resolved?

An extended impasse would cause significant damage to the

U.S. economy, Wendy Edelberg and Louise Sheiner, both senior

fellows at the Brookings Institution, a research group, wrote

in a recent report.

``Even in a best-case scenario where the impasse is short-

lived, the economy is likely to suffer sustained--and

completely avoidable--damage, particularly given the

challenges that Covid-19 poses to the health of the

economy,'' they wrote.

If it dragged on through November, the federal government

would have little choice but to significantly slash

government spending by roughly $200 billion--a

``devastating'' blow to the economy, Mark Zandi, chief

economist of Moody's Analytics, said in a recent analysis.

And the increased expense of borrowing would only add to

the hit in the long run.

``Americans would pay for this default for generations,''

he said.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from Forbes.

[From Forbes, Oct. 4, 2021]

Defaulting on the National Debt Ceiling Would Be Catastrophic for Small

Businesses

Here we go again. It seems every time this issue arises,

lawmakers seem intent to put the U.S. economy and small

businesses at risk.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Department of Treasury Secretary

Janet Yellen has said that the federal government will run

out of money on October 18 if the debt ceiling is not raised.

The government reached its debt limit at the end of July and

Treasury has been taking steps to keep from defaulting. If

the debt ceiling is not raised in the coming weeks, the U.S.

will default on its debt for the first time in its history

and that will be catastrophic for small businesses.

There is no question that our national debt needs to be

addressed in the coming years with a mixture of revenue

raises and spending cuts as the Clinton Administration did in

the 1990s. However, defaulting on the debt is not the answer.

It will not be some teachable moment on government spending.

Instead, it

will have unnecessary and irreversible consequences for

almost all Americans. A Navigator survey also found that 58

percent of Americans support raising the debt ceiling.

Unfortunately, this has become a political issue. Just a few

days ago, Senate Minority Leader McConnell blocked Democrats

from using a simple majority to get this done.

Why? Republicans may want to use this as a campaign issue

against Democrats this coming fall trying to claim that they

are growing the national debt. But, the real story is, the

national debt has risen regardless of which party is in

control. There will be a time when Republicans will be in the

driver's seat and need to raise the debt limit, and let's

hope Democrats move beyond politics because playing

``chicken'' with the debt limit is not good politics, not

good for small business, not good for our national security,

and not good for the economy. In fact, an analysis by Moody's

Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi estimates that

defaulting on the national debt would wipe out as many as 6

million jobs and erase $15 trillion in household wealth.

``We can't emphasize enough how disastrous it would be for

Congress to consider a government shutdown if consensus

cannot be met in advance of the funding deadline. Small

businesses are especially vulnerable and many would not

survive a government shutdown at this time due to the

pandemic, particularly with the rapid spread of the Delta

variant, and trying to move from crisis to recovery,'' wrote

Candace Waterman, President and CEO of Women Impacting Public

Policy, in a letter to U.S. House and Senate leadership.

Here are five ways defaulting on the national debt would

harm Main Streets across the country.

1. More Expensive Small Business Loans

A majority of credit rating agencies rate the U.S. federal

government at AAA, the highest level. Defaulting on the debt

would lead to an automatic downgrade of the country's credit

rating, driving up interest rates for all Americans. Small

business loans will become costlier as private lenders are

forced to increase their interest rates. Even Small Business

Administration (SBA)-guaranteed loans, which are often lower

cost and more accessible but still reflective of market

conditions, will become more expensive.

2. Higher Credit Card Interest Rates

Many small business owners use their personal credit cards

to cover business expenses and manage debt. As with loan

rates, small business credit card and personal credit card

interest rates will also rise, squeezing the amount of

capital small business owners have to work with and

potentially driving them into more debt.

3. Tightened Credit Markets

One can look at the stories of Argentina and Greece to see

what happens to a country's credit markets when it defaults'

on its debt. The same will be the case for the United States

if it follows in these countries' footsteps. Credit markets

will tighten up and U.S. banks will prioritize lending to

businesses where they have pre-existing relationships, which

are more likely to be larger ones than small ones. Small

businesses, especially unbanked ones and those in underserved

communities, would be at a severe disadvantage when they have

the least financial cushion.

4. Plunging Stock Markets

Moody's Report estimates that stock prices would likely

plunge by one-third, sparking that $15 trillion loss in

household wealth. This would be a one-two punch for small

business owners who would see their own retirement savings

dissipate and then lose business from consumers who are now

dealing with their lost nest egg. In turn, larger public

companies could lose value, thus making it harder to

incorporate small businesses into their vendor supply chain.

5. Delayed Treasury Payments

The Treasury Department has been taking steps to meet its

obligations, including payments to households such as Social

Security. If the U.S. default on its debt, the government

would immediately need to stop more than 40 percent of

expected payments, including Social Security and other

household income. There are a number of downstream effects

this would have on small businesses, including a loss of

customers and a strain on business owners and employees now

taking steps to make ends meet for themselves and their loved

ones.

The American economy and its Main Streets are working

through their greatest crisis since World War II. Both are

still standing right now but a default on the national debt

would be a knockout blow. Let's stop playing politics and get

the debt limit raised. Once that's done, we can return to the

important work of getting an infrastructure bill passed that

has the ability to pave the way for the next generation of

American small businesses and entrepreneurs.

Mr. Speaker, let us do the debt extension that the Senate has given us, but let us not accept this paltry extension. Do it right in December and save the American people. Build Back Better and the INVEST Act, do it together. Do it now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Rule governing debate of H.R. 2119, the ``Family Violence and Prevention Services Improvement Act,'' H.R. 3992, the ``Protect Older Job Applicants Act,'' H.R. 3110, the ``Pump for Nursing Mothers Act,'' and the Senate Amendment to the House Amendment to S. 1301, ``Temporary Extension of Public Debt Act.''

As a member of the Budget Committee, we sat for many hours on Saturday giving this Congress and the American people a budget. So I know that the discussions of my good friends are purely political, and the reason is this. In 2019, during the Trump administration, Majority Leader McConnell, the very person who stood up with such great profoundness and did not want to vote to raise the debt ceiling in order to adhere to the Constitution, as the leader, he voted to raise the debt ceiling, and he said: ``We will raise the debt ceiling because America can't default. That would be a disaster.''

Is there any poorer recollection?

Then for those of us who are historians or love history, in 1789, Alexander Hamilton, the Nation's first and greatest Treasury Secretary, understood that the path to American prosperity and greatness lay in its creditworthiness, which provided the affordable access to capital needed to fund internal improvements and economic growth. That is why we are known as the greatest economy in the world.

I would venture to say to my colleagues that the importance of what we do stands on the premise of the Constitution. We the people have formed to create a more perfect Union and for the general welfare of our people.

Vote to increase the ability to pay our bills and stand worthy in the world's eye.

I want Leader McConnell to remember his words. We need to do this on behalf of the American people.

Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary, on Homeland Security, and on the Budget, I rise in support of the rule governing debate for RCP 117-16, S. 1301, the ``Temporary Extension of Public Debt Act,'' which provides funding to extend the national debt limit through December 16, 2021 and avoids a wasteful, irresponsible, reckless threatening of one of the nation's singular indispensable assets: the full faith and credit of the United States.

Madam Speaker, American families do not get to choose which bills to pay and which ones to ignore; neither can the United States Congress without putting the nation into default for the first time in its history.

Long ago, in 1789, Alexander Hamilton, the nation's first and greatest Treasury Secretary, understood that the path to American prosperity and greatness lay in its creditworthiness which provided the affordable access to capital needed to fund internal improvements and economic growth.

The nation's creditworthiness was one of its most important national assets and according to Hamilton: ``the proper funding of the present debt, will render it a national blessing.''

But to maintain this blessing, or to ``render public credit immortal,'' Hamilton understood that it was necessary that: ``the creation of debt should always be accompanied with the means of extinguishment.''

In other words, to retain and enjoy the prosperity that flows from good credit, it is necessary for a nation to pay its bills.

Madam Speaker, if our friends across the aisle really want to shrink the deficit, reduce the national debt, practice fiscal responsibility, and bring about sustained economic growth and prosperity, there is a much better, easier, and more certain way to achieve these goals than by tampering with the U.S. Constitution.

The easier and better way is for the American people to keep a Democrat in the White House and place Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

In the 1990s under the leadership of President Clinton the budget was balanced for four consecutive years, the national debt was paid down, the national debt, 23 million new jobs were created, and projected surpluses exceeded $5 trillion.

Under President Obama the financial crisis and economic meltdown inherited from his Republican predecessor was ended, the annual deficit was reduced by 67 percent, the auto industry was saved from collapse, and 15 million jobs were created.

In contrast, under every Republican administration since President Reagan the size of the deficit bequeathed to his successor was substantially larger than the one he inherited, a major economic recession occurred, and economic growth was lower than it was at the beginning of his administration.

According to Moody's Chief Economist Mark Zandi, it would be ``cataclysmic'' for the United States to default.

Republicans know the debt ceiling needs to be raised; in 2019 during the Trump Administration, Majority Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans voted to raise the debt ceiling, ``We raised the debt ceiling because America can't default[,] that would be a disaster.''

Madam Speaker, this debate over extending the debt limit is not about restraining future spending, it is about paying the bills piled up already under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

To preserve the sanctity of the full faith and credit of the United States, protect American jobs and businesses of all sizes, and ensure the continued growth of the economy, I strongly support the provision in the bill before extending the public debt limit to December 16, 2021.

I strongly support this legislation and urge all Members to join me in voting for S. 1301, the ``Temporary Extension of Public Debt Act.''

Mr. Speaker, we have often turned to Lincoln. My good friends on the other side of the aisle have tried to be Lincolnesque, but I don't think they have dug deep into the virtues of Abraham Lincoln. They didn't delve deeply into his sense of courage and integrity.

We know that his ultimate goal was to preserve the Union, as it should have been. He was, in fact, the President of the United States of America, not of the Union States, not of the Confederate States. But often as they pretend Lincolnesque, it is abandoned along the trash heap of highways of despair.

First of all, the Build Back Better Act is paid for over 10 years, in contrast to the debacle voted on, to a one, by my friends on the other side of the aisle, of the Trump tax cut, 83 percent for those who were already flourishing in dollars, while it left the bus drivers and teachers and paramedics, nurses and emergency room doctors, along the highway with tin cups.

Any plan for embellishing, staffing--and that is what it is--for the Internal Revenue Service, of which we should continue to have oversight, is to ensure that those who have paid not a dime--not a dime--not a dime, Mr. Speaker--pay their fair share.

Do you think any American is against that? I have seen Republicans, Democrats, and Independents who are crucially asking the question: Am I carrying the entire burden?

My friends stand stalwart, the Republicans; they are not going to raise the debt ceiling. First of all, it is the full faith and credit of the United States. Read the Constitution. It is to ensure that America's bills, money already spent, are paid.

Just like you use your electricity, you are paying ahead of time; you are paying for the bill already spent. The electricity, the light was on for 20 days. You are paying for that light to be on.

I am sad to say that there are so many who can't make ends meet, can't pay the light bill. I have heard it often. Can't pay rent; can't pay the water bill.

So I am going to start with two icons from different eras about the word ``courage.''

Abraham Lincoln eloquently spoke in 1862--he was a most visionary writer--``The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present.'' All that we talked about, all the contentiousness of yesteryear, you need to put it aside. ``The occasion is piled high . . .''--this day, this month, this 2021, this in the midst of a national health emergency, is piled high ``. . . with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so must we think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.''

Is anyone here willing to save their country? Are they willing to join as Americans to save the country?

I know 2022 is coming. Great campaign ads about what Democrats did. I am glad that my terminology will be what an American did by the name of Sheila Jackson Lee. What did she do?

``Courage is the most important of all the virtues because without courage you can't practice any other virtue consistently,'' said the iconic and late Maya Angelou, who I had the privilege of teaching me. What a great memory I have of her being my professor.

So I want to speak this morning on the cruciality of moving forward on the INVEST Act and the Build Back Better Act. Without a doubt, I want to be able to not give short shrift to the 2 years of free pre-K and 2 years of free community college, paid for, giving Americans the front-end and giving the opportunity to be able, for some, to be in college for the first time. They are moving on to historically Black colleges of their choice or other colleges of their choice.

What about the Federal Medicaid program, when 12 States failed to opt in during the Affordable Care Act and left a trash heap of desperate people. Not the people desperate, but on the heap of despair, no healthcare, because they were below the threshold. Our friends as well decided not to do anything.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, how important it is to have the INVEST Act, with making sure we have broadband and making sure that we have high- speed internet as well as highways that work not against us but for us.

Let's do the right thing and have the courage of Americans. Let's stand for America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee for yielding and with the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island, Judge Gohmert knows, and we know that Texas knows how to lead. So I thank them so very much for bringing that to our attention.

Let me take just a moment to turn and say thank you to Chairman Jeffries for leading us on and providing the energy and the engine for doing something that is and will continue to be lifesaving.

It is my life's work to use the criminal justice system as a reform mechanism to save lives and to ensure that it is not a system that unequally prides itself on supporting the rights sometimes of the offender without acknowledging the rights of the victim.

In many instances in addiction, Mr. Speaker, you will find persons who go awry of the criminal justice system as victims because they then are not given the treatment that they should get, or they are not given the recognition of the question of how you can

fairly address these laws. They are, in fact, becoming victims. They are victims of the system. They become incarcerated. They lose their right to vote. Their families are separated from them. They are stigmatized. They may lose their life's dream of being a teacher or a police officer or a lawyer.

We don't know what lives we lost in the so-called war on drugs and how many fell by the wayside. So I am proud to support H.R. 1693, the EQUAL Act of 2021, which will finally eliminate the sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses and provide retroactive relief to thousands of people who received harsh and unfair sentences based on this disparity.

The crack and powder cocaine sentencing disparity is another byproduct of our country's failed war on drugs. I have long championed for the equalization of crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses. The evidence of the statement of support and comments of our co-manager, Mr. Gohmert from Texas, and as well the letter from Mr. Armstrong showed the bipartisan recognition of where we are today.

I want to thank the members of the Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee who collectively have had a vision along with all the members of the Judiciary Committee.

What are we doing there?

Yes, we are there to uphold laws to promote the legal process under the system called criminal justice, but we are surely there to ensure that criminal justice works.

Beginning in 2007 I introduced legislation that would have ended the disparity, because we had learned that most of the assumptions on which the 100-to-1 ratio was based turned out to be unfounded. Those unfounded assumptions damaged communities of color for generations. A higher percentage of Black Americans are convicted of crack cocaine versus powder cocaine offenses and receive significantly longer sentences for comparable offenses, and the percentage of individuals serving unreasonably long sentences is because that disparity exists.

Let me also indicate, I was happy to introduce an amendment to allow the courts to grant sentence reductions absent the defendant's presence as required today. This will eliminate the court's logjam, and some of these individuals are, in fact, incarcerated still. Individuals like William Underwood, Matthew Charles, and Cynthia Shank all testified before the House and Senate Judiciary Committees about the devastating impact that sentencing disparity and mandatory minimum laws have had on them, their families, and countless others.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is long overdue. I am excited that the introduction of my legislation now today will become reality, and I am excited to be a partner and working with Chairman Jeffries on this important legislation.

Finally, to conclude, I want just to say that race has been a factor, and we are glad that we are moving beyond that. We must pass the EQUAL Act.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Trone) for the work that he is doing.

Having served on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and now serving on Judiciary as the chair of the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee, I can affirmatively say that fentanyl kills. It kills people. It kills our children, our mothers, our fathers. It kills the family's infrastructure and system.

So let me just simply indicate that the idea of having an extension of the Commission on Combating Synthetic Opioid Trafficking to join in the thoughtful discussion of what we are attempting to do on drugs that kill.

We in the Judiciary Committee have been working and secured an extension of fentanyl sanctions, and it was in acknowledgment that the community is suffering by the harmful effects of fentanyl abuse and usage. It was acknowledging that it is imperative that we find a thoughtful resolution to address the grave tragedies that plague communities like mine and those throughout the country.

Earlier, I mentioned names of individuals who were on the other side in terms of incarceration because of the imbalance in drug enforcement. But, again, we say that fentanyl kills.

Given the importance of getting this right, I am in support of extending the measure in Judiciary, but I am in support of having the opportunity for thoughtful discussion to deal with what our next steps are.

Any way that we can come together to address the loss of life and, of course, the acceptance that fentanyl kills, and other opioid substances as well, used and abused, then I can assure you that we are doing the right thing as Members of Congress.

Madam Speaker, I am most grateful for the opportunity to join the gentleman from Colorado, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

I have just finished with a conference call with the director of the CDC, but I just could not miss the opportunity, because I am almost in a deja vu, having been here for--even shocking myself, because when you are enjoying serving, you don't count the years--but more than two decades. I have seen the dastardly results of government shutdown. So I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this to the floor.

Madam Speaker, I believe that it is always important to know who governs and how we are governed and what document do we yield to in terms of being governed. And I heard my friend from Colorado make the point that Democrats are ensuring that this government is governed.

This morning I was on the floor, and I made the point that I don't stand here as a Democrat or a Republican but as an American, an American that has the responsibility of government. And that means that all of the shenanigans in the other body should be immediately dispensed with.

One point of the Constitution that I always like reading is: We, the people of the United States, in order to create or to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare. This was the very premise that the Founding Fathers--and everyone knows the Constitution missed some elements on those who were slaves, missed elements on women. They missed some elements; they missed some issues. But the premise was that we gather for the general welfare, uniquely grounded in some values of European principles but uniquely American.

Why did we form this government?

So having lived through government shutdowns, let me just, for a very brief moment, capture the horrors of a government shutdown, which is tied to ultimately the CR, but the effort that we, as Democrats, our leader, our Speaker, our leadership, rightly so, were acting not as Democrats but they were acting as leaders of this Nation, protecting those who are most vulnerable.

So the full faith and credit is not something to dismiss. Let me say, over and over again--I know it has been said on this floor--we are paying bills. As I said, if you had the light on for the last 20 days, you have a bill.

So to lift the debt ceiling--and I would like to characterize it some other way--to provide the mechanism to pay your bills. If you had the cable on for the last 20 days, you are paying your bill. So we are simply paying the bill.

The lack of responding to paying bills creates inflation, puts a damper on the view of America as an international destination for businesses. It, in fact, crumbles the economy on the most vulnerable, the hardworking bus driver, union worker, teacher. Because what you have done is, you have not given their dollar substance. That is how they make a living; that is how they pay for their responsibilities of a quality of life.

I always think of the persons who cannot speak for themselves who are doing great work. Teachers are doing great work; paramedics are doing great work; nurses are doing great work. I always think of bus drivers, because I think of school bus drivers. There is a shortage of school bus drivers. They are all doing great work.

So let me say that I came on the floor because I clearly wanted to emphasize the eloquent and important points that you are making, that it is tomfoolery to make political points about the debt ceiling, which is a responsibility that cannot be gotten rid of.

So it would be okay if I said: Well, we would want to say that. When I say that, if you are playing politics, you say we don't want to do that either, meaning those of us who are governing. But it is an obligation of governing and governance, and it is constitutionally vested not only in the language of full faith and credit but in the opening statement of the Constitution. If we don't take care of the general welfare, then who will?

I am grateful, as I close, to say that I support the INVEST Act and one bill, the Build Back America Act. That is how I would proceed on the unifying of those. The reason why I connect that, again, is to make the point that, as I have read line by line of the Build Back--and I am on the Budget Committee, and we sat on a Saturday to bring this bill forward to you-all. And rightly so; we make no complaint about that. But to get this bill here. It is ready. We passed it out of the Budget Committee.

But as I looked at it, I have not deflected the gentleman here, deflected families. But it is a justice for women act. It is finally penetrating where women are in America, in terms of the care economy, in terms of pre-K, in terms of child care, in terms of family responsibilities. It is a bill that gives justice to women.

And so tie it to our responsibilities of governing, to lift the debt ceiling for payment of our bills, and also this book, the Constitution, doing our duty to create this Union that has been created to ensure general tranquility and the general welfare of the American people. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, this is not about hijacking America. It is about rewarding America. I stand here with one bill, the INVEST bipartisan infrastructure bill, and, yes, the Build Back America--one bill.

Let me share with you the reasons why. This bill on the floor right now, the agreement will create good-paying union jobs. It will deliver high-speed internet to every American, eliminating lead pipes, and providing clean drinking water. Something in my district that is long overdue. Public transit.

But most importantly, it will reconnect communities. As we try to overcome this massive I-45 north in Texas where we need the input of the government, Federal Government, to make a balance between highways and Black communities and communities of color that are traditionally divided by highways. This bill will do so. And it will remedy brownfields and other sites.

At the same time, we have the recognition that we deal with people. And what does that mean? That is that we will have pre-K in our Build Back America. We will have expanded Medicaid in Build Back America. We will have child care for the individuals, women in particular, that need to go to work. We will have a care economy. We will have affordable housing that invests so that people will have safe housing.

This will provide a wholeness. This is not a hijacking. It is actually a reward that we put two outstanding directions of the President's agenda, President Biden's absolutely progressive, moving agenda for all of America.

We don't look at America and divide her in corners of conservatism and progressive or right and left. We look at her and the needs of her people. I am here today to say that I stand with America. I stand with working families. I stand with women. We must move these bills, the INVEST Act, creating union jobs, turning the corner on all the necessities of infrastructure and, yes, bringing people into the light once and for all. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, George Washington fought for the Nation. Abraham Lincoln tried to unify it.

I am absolutely stunned that the United States Senate would not uphold its responsibility to pay America's bills--the bills that we have paid over and over again--by refusing to raise the debt ceiling for some foolish tomfoolery of politics. What is our Nation up to? What are the Republicans up to?

But I do want to say as well that I look forward to the budget reconciliation or the Build Back America and the INVEST Act traveling the same pathway because my district needs the extra $20 million that we had established here in the House to be able to help the corridor along Scott Street where Texas Southern University is and the University of Houston, a majority university and a historically Black university.

We have to get to work. We have to realize that the importance of connecting neighborhoods that lost the connectiveness because of major highways is crucial-- like I45 North that divided the community; like 288, that is already there, that has divided communities of color.

Let's do the right thing and stand for the American people. Politics has no place for deciding whether people have clean water, whether people have roads that work and mobility, and, of course, broadband.

Madam Speaker, let's stand with the American people.

Madam Speaker, S.B. 8 will kill women. It is a dangerous, dangerous depriving of our constitutional rights, but it will kill women. It is a bill that provides a provision that I have never seen in my lifetime living in the United States of America, a free Nation.

It actually sets a bounty, reminiscent of eras of dastardly life in this country, the slave life; a bounty in order to stalk a woman to ensure that the provider does not give and the woman does not get an abortion.

I support this legislation because it upholds the Constitution, and I look forward to my bill on preventing vigilante stalking being passed.

Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and the Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security; a member of the Democratic Working Women's Task Force, the representative of 700,000 highly interested and affected persons in the Eighteenth Congressional District of Texas; as a sponsor of the legislation; and as a woman who was born and came of age during a period when the women of America were denied rights that men took for granted, including the basic human right of autonomy over one's own body and to decide for herself the profound and fundamental question of whether to bear or beget a child, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3755, the Women's Health Protection Act, which protects a person's ability to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and to protect a health care provider's ability to provide abortion services.

I am extremely pleased that the Biden-Harris Administration strongly endorses this legislation and urges its swift passage by the Congress.

Madam Speaker, I support H.R. 3755 because it states clearly and unequivocally in Section 4 that a ``health care provider has a statutory right under this Act to provide abortion services, and may provide abortion services, and that provider's patient has a corresponding right to receive such services, without any burdensome limitations or requirements.

Burdensome and unlawful requirements include:

1. A requirement that a health care provider perform specific tests or medical procedures in connection with the provision of abortion services, unless generally required for the provision of medically comparable procedures.

2. A requirement that the same health care provider who provides abortion services also perform specified tests, services, or procedures prior to or subsequent to the abortion.

3. A requirement that a health care provider offer or provide the patient seeking abortion services medically inaccurate information in advance of or during abortion services.

4. A limitation on a health care provider's ability to prescribe or dispense drugs based on current evidence-based regimens or the provider's good-faith medical judgment, other than a limitation generally applicable to the medical profession.

5. A limitation on a health care provider's ability to provide abortion services via telemedicine.

6. A requirement or limitation concerning the physical plant, equipment, staffing, or hospital transfer arrangements of facilities where abortion services are provided, or the credentials or hospital privileges or status of personnel at such facilities, that is not imposed on facilities or the personnel of facilities where medically comparable procedures are performed.

7. A requirement that, prior to obtaining an abortion, a patient make one or more medically unnecessary in-person visits to the provider of abortion services or to any individual or entity that does not provide abortion services.

8. A prohibition on abortion at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or restriction on a particular abortion procedure.

9. A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good- faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient's life or health.

10. A limitation on a health care provider's ability to provide immediate abortion services when that health care provider believes, based on the good-faith medical judgment of the provider, that delay would pose a risk to the patient's health.

It is important to note that prior to fetal viability, the law prohibits a health care requiring a patient seeking abortion services to disclose the patient's reason or reasons for seeking abortion services, or a limiting the provision or obtaining of abortion services at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability based on any actual, perceived, or potential reason or reasons the health care provider believes the patient has for obtaining abortion services.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 3755 contains another important provision, this one directed toward the judiciary, and it is that all courts are to ``liberally construe'' the provisions of the law to effectuate the congressional intent in enacting the law and that courts are not to construe the act in anyway ``to authorize any government to interfere with a person's ability to terminate a pregnancy, or to diminish or in any way negatively affect a person's constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy.''

To enforce the provisions of the legislation, the Attorney General is authorized to commence a civil action for prospective injunctive relief on behalf of the United States against any government official that is charged with implementing or enforcing any limitation or requirement that is challenged as a violation of a statutory right under this Act.

In addition, H.R. 3755 authorizes private rights of action to be brought for injunctive relief against the government official that is charged with implementing or enforcing the challenged limitation or requirement by any individual or entity, including any health care provider, aggrieved by the alleged violation of this Act.

Madam Speaker, swift, clear, and decisive action to codify the rights and protections provided by the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) is the clearly required response to the more than 500 state laws restricting abortion access over the past decade.

These regressive restrictions have eliminated access to abortion care in large swaths of the United States; nearly 90 percent of U.S. counties are without a single abortion provider and five states are down to their last clinic.

The people hurt most by abortion restrictions are those who already face barriers to accessing health care-including Black, indigenous and persons of color, women, those working to make ends meet, members of the LGBTQI+ community, immigrants, young people, those living in rural communities, and people with disabilities.

Madam Speaker, right-wing Republican legislators passed, and the Republican governor signed, Texas SB8, an extreme and facially unconstitutional law that contemptuously violates existing Supreme Court precedent.

The Texas law significantly impairs women's access to critical reproductive health care, particularly affecting communities of color, individuals with low incomes, and those who live in rural or underserved communities.

The law also turns private citizens into bounty hunters who are empowered to bring lawsuits against anyone who they believe has helped another person get an abortion, including family members, faith leaders, Uber drivers and others providing transportation, and health care providers.

The new Texas law prohibits abortions as early as six weeks into a pregnancy and creates the opportunity for almost any private citizen to sue abortion providers and women seeking to terminate their pregnancy past six weeks.

The law effectively bans abortion in Texas, as the six-week cutoff is just two weeks after a missed menstrual cycle.

The ``hotline'' reporting system in the Texas law is particularly malicious.

Since enforcement of the bill lies entirely with private citizens, Texans are incentivized to stalk women as they make vitally important decisions about their own health.

It is anathema to the conscience of the United States of America to have individuals following women to determine whether they have or will receive an abortion.

We saw similar occurrences during the KGB era of the Soviet Union, as neighbor spied on, lied against, and turned against neighbor to hand over their fellow citizens to the state.

We are Americans, and to have a law that so blatantly foments distrust and stalking among our citizenry is a blatant spit in the face of the principles on which this country was founded.

To assist in stopping this law, and to protect women from vigilante bounty hunters, I have introduced H.R. 5226, the ``Preventing Vigilante Stalking that Stops Women's Access to Healthcare and Abortion Rights Act of 2021.''

This bill would enhance criminal penalties under the federal stalking statute if the stalking is done with the intent to prevent or report on a woman's health decisions.

Importantly, this bill does not include any mandatory minimums.

This bill will weaken the incentive to stalk women by bolstering the criminal penalties under the federal stalking statute if the stalking is intended to prevent or report on a woman's health decisions.

Additionally, earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that in December it will hear argument on a Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, which represents a direct challenge to the continued vitality of Roe v. Wade.

Madam Speaker, one of the most detestable aspects of these continued attacks to undermine a woman's right to reproductive health care is that it would curb access to care for women in the most desperate of circumstances.

Women like Danielle Deaver, who was 22 weeks pregnant when her water broke and tests showed that Danielle had suffered anhydramnios, a premature rupture of the membranes before the fetus has achieved viability.

This condition meant that the fetus likely would be born with a shortening of muscle tissue that results in the inability to move limbs.

In addition, Danielle's fetus likely would suffer deformities to the face and head, and the lungs were unlikely to develop beyond the 22- week point.

There was less than a 10% chance that, if born, Danielle's baby would be able to breathe on its own and only a 2% chance the baby would be able to eat on its own.

Abridging a woman's right to reproductive health care hurts women like Vikki Stella, a diabetic, who discovered months into her pregnancy that the fetus she was carrying suffered from several major anomalies and had no chance of survival and whose physician determined that because of Vikki's diabetes, induced labor and Caesarian section were both riskier procedures for Vikki than an abortion.

SB8 is the most brazen, but not the first, attempt to roll back women's reproductive health care rights in Texas.

In 2013 Texas passed a law that would have cut off access to 75 percent of reproductive healthcare clinics in the state had it not been challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014 and 2015.

On October 2, 2014, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a Texas law that required that all reproductive healthcare clinics that provided the full range of services would be required to have a hospital-style surgery center building and staffing requirements.

This requirement meant that only 7 clinics in the entire state would be allowed to continue to provide a full spectrum of reproductive healthcare to women.

But because Texas is a vast state comprising 268,580 square miles, (second only in size and population to the state of California), implementation of the law would have ended access to reproductive services for millions of women in my state.

In 2015, the State of Texas once again threatened women's access to reproductive health care when it attempted to shutter all but 10 healthcare providers in the state of Texas.

The Supreme Court once again intervened on behalf of Texas women to block the move to close clinics.

Madam Speaker, since the United States Supreme Court ruled over 40 years ago, in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)), that a woman's constitutional right to privacy includes her right to abortion, both abortion rates and risks have substantially declined, as have the number of teen and unwanted pregnancies.

If opponents were so concerned about women's health and safety, they would be promoting any one of the number of evidence-based proactive policies that improve women's health and well-being.

Instead, they are continuing their assault on women's constitutional rights and their campaign to outlaw abortion.

That is their number one priority; it is certainly not about protecting women's health; it is about politics.

It is clear women are under attack and must be on perpetual guard against new attacks on women's access to reproductive health care, often couched in those same terms.

Madam Speaker, this is not what the American people want.

Support for abortion access is at an all-time high; nearly 80 percent of Americans do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned.

There is no state in the Nation where making abortion illegal is popular.

The American people want more access to health care, not less, and it is more critical than ever to see through this inflammatory misinformation campaign.

Madam Speaker, the right to make decisions about reproductive health care, including abortion, is central to individual equality.

The right enables a person to decide if, when, and how to start and grow their family.

It enables people to pursue and advance in their education and employment, and to be full and equal participants in society.

Laws that restrict reproductive freedom, including restrictions on abortion and birth control, perpetuate harmful stereotypes about gender roles and undermine gender equality.

Courts, federal law, and the public have long connected reproductive freedom with equality.

Reproductive freedom is central to women's equality, for as the Supreme Court said in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992): ``The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.''

Americans understand this connection and it is reflected in a January 2019 national poll showing 71% of voters agree--48% agree strongly-- that equal rights for women includes access to reproductive health care.

State laws like Texas SB8 represent unconstitutional infringements on the right to privacy, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in a long line of cases going back to Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) and, of course, Roe v. Wade.

In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that a state could not prohibit a woman from exercising her right to terminate a pregnancy in order to protect her health prior to viability.

While many factors go into determining fetal viability, the consensus of the medical community is that viability is acknowledged as not occurring prior to 24 weeks gestation.

Supreme Court precedents make it clear that neither Congress nor a state legislature can declare any one element--``be it weeks of gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor--as the determinant'' of viability. Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 388-89 (1979).

The constitutionally protected right to privacy encompasses the right of women to choose to terminate a pregnancy before viability, and even later, where continuing the pregnancy to term poses a threat to a woman's life, health, or safety.

This right of privacy was hard won and must be preserved inviolate.

Madam Speaker, every pregnancy is different, and no politician knows, or has the right to assume he knows, what is best for a woman and her family.

These are decisions that properly must be left to women to make, in consultation with their partners, doctors, and their God.

I urge all Members to join me in voting to protect a person's ability to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and to protect a health care provider's ability to provide abortion services by voting for H.R. 3755, the Women's Health Protection Act.

[From the Intelligencer, Sept. 3, 2021]

Texas Is Already Creating Abortion Refugees

(By Melissa Jeltsen)

Just pause and breathe. We're going to help, but I need you

to take a breath and calm down for a moment.

Kathaleen Pittman, director of the Hope Medical Clinic for

Women in Shreveport, Louisiana, repeated this mantra over and

over to the teary women on the other end of the phone. The

calls were coming from all over Texas, where abortion is

currently banned at about six weeks, before many women know

they are pregnant. They wanted to know if they could get an

abortion in Louisiana instead.

``The phone has been ringing off the wall, patients

attempting to get in,'' Pittman said. But appointments were

scarce. When I spoke with her on Thursday, Hope Medical

Clinic was the only functioning abortion clinic in the state

of Louisiana; the other two remaining clinics were closed due

to power outages caused by Hurricane Ida. ``Right now we are

booked out three, possibly four weeks just to get in for that

first visit,'' Pittman said, noting that a state-mandated

waiting period requires patients to come to the clinic twice.

``We're going to see women who are terminating later in the

pregnancy than desired because they simply can't get in

quickly enough,'' she said. Others, she feared, wouldn't be

able to get an abortion at all. ``Of course it's going to be

the women who have no money,'' she added. ``It's always the

women without the means that suffer the most.''

In the wake of SB 8, which went into effect on Wednesday,

many clinics in Texas are still providing abortions for

patients up to six-weeks pregnant, or before embryonic

cardiac activity can be detected. Everyone else--estimated to

be about 85 percent of all abortion patients--is now being

referred out of state. As a result, clinics in Oklahoma,

Louisiana, New Mexico, Colorado, and Kansas are being

inundated with a surge of pregnant people who are racing

against the clock for care. Yet, in many of these states,

years of constant antiabortion attacks have eroded the

existing reproductive health infrastructure, leaving a

fragile system that is ill-equipped to absorb the additional

demand.

``The second largest state in the country goes dark on a

service and everyone else surrounding is trying to support

and provide care,'' said Emily Wales, interim president and

CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, which covers

Arkansas, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Clinics in all three states

are seeing an increase in Texas patients, she said,

especially in Oklahoma. At the same time, abortion access is

under attack there; five new abortion restrictions are set to

go into effect on November 1. ``It feels a little bit like

it's whack-a-mole right now in trying to beat back what are

medically unnecessary requirements to ensure ongoing

access,'' Wales said.

While other states have passed similar six-week abortion

bans, the Texas law is the only one that has been allowed to

go into effect. That's because of the unique way it was

drafted. The state does not enforce the law. Instead, SB 8

deputizes regular people to file civil lawsuits against

doctors or anyone else who knowingly ``aids or abets'' an

abortion. The law appears to have been intentionally designed

this way to thwart judicial action.

At Trust Women's clinic in Oklahoma City, which is one of

the closest abortion clinics for people in north Texas,

abortion appointments are already being booked three weeks

into September, just like at Hope Medical Clinic in

Louisiana. ``All of our doctors fly in from other states,''

explained Zack Gingrich-Gaylord, communications director for

Trust Women. ``We're currently asking them to consider

working additional days, but of course, our doctors also

practice medicine in their home states as well.'' Trust Women

has another clinic in Wichita, Kansas, with slightly more

availability, but to get there, Texas patients must travel

even further. ``We've already started seeing some of those

Texas patients today, and we've got some scheduled

tomorrow,'' said Ashley Brink, the Wichita clinic director.

``It's been a really emotional time. A lot of these folks,

they're scared, they're confused, they're sad.''

Kristina Tocce, medical director at Planned Parenthood of

the Rocky Mountains, said she was seeing the same uptick in

Colorado and New Mexico. ``I'm very nervous for patients who

need services immediately because this was an immediate hard

stop to abortion services in Texas without a clear path for

those patients as to where they can go,'' she said. ``Texas

is essentially a pre-Roe world now.''

The distance to the nearest clinic is only one of the

problems that Texas patients now face, said Alan Braid, the

owner and medical director of Alamo Women's Reproductive

Services in San Antonio. Many patients are already mothers,

and cannot leave their jobs or their children for the length

of time needed to access care in another state. Some are

undocumented and cannot travel with ease.

``It sounds very easy--oh well, you can't get it in Texas,

just go to Oklahoma, New Mexico. But the people that we see--

that hourly wage patient, the single mom, the people that

don't have the means to travel--it's impossible for them,''

he said. ``That's like saying well, just hop on a plane and,

you know, go to France. It's beautiful there, you can get an

abortion and then take a walk down the Champs-Elysees.''

Braid, who has been providing abortion care in Texas since

he began his OB/GYN internship in 1972, said this was the

worst climate he had ever seen for reproductive rights in

Texas since before Roe v. Wade. The new law, with its

vigilante-enforcement scheme, is spreading fear and distrust.

``You can feel it in the room,'' he said. ``It hangs heavy.''

As a provider, he said, he is usually optimistic that he can

support his patients and meet their needs. ``Now, when I walk

in the room, I have huge doubts about whether I'm going to be

able to help,'' he said. ``I'm not used to that.''

He expressed deep concern about what patients will do to

obtain abortions if they can't get one inside Texas when they

need it. He still has a powerful memory of three teenagers

dying from septic shock and organ failure after obtaining

back-alley abortions back when he was an intern in 1972.

``That's where we're headed,'' he said. ``I promise you

that people are going to cross the border to Mexico. They're

going to self-induce.''

[From the AP News, Sept. 2, 2021]

New Texas Abortion Law Pushes Women to Out-of-State Clinics

Even before a strict abortion ban took effect in Texas this

week, clinics in neighboring states were fielding growing

numbers of calls from women desperate for options.

An Oklahoma clinic had received more than double its number

of typical inquiries, two-thirds of them from Texas. A Kansas

clinic is anticipating a patient increase of up

to 40% based on calls from women in Texas. A Colorado clinic

that already had started seeing more patients from other

states was preparing to ramp up supplies and staffing in

anticipation of the law taking effect.

The Texas law, allowed to stand in a decision Thursday by

the U.S. Supreme Court, bans abortions once medical

professionals can detect cardiac activity, typically around

six weeks. In a highly unusual twist, enforcement will be

done by private citizens who can sue anyone they believe is

violating the law.

``There's real panic about how are they going to get an

abortion within six weeks,'' said Anna Rupani, co-director of

Fund Texas Choice, one of several nonprofits that help pay

for travel and other expenses for patients seeking out-of-

state abortions. ``There's this fear that if I can't get it

done in six weeks, I may not be able to get it done because I

may not be able to leave my job or my family for more than a

day.''

Traveling for an abortion may be impossible for women who

would struggle to find child care or take time off work. And

for those without legal U.S. status along Texas' southern

border, traveling to an abortion clinic also entails the risk

of getting stopped at a checkpoint.

Fund Texas Choice is among the groups seeking to expand a

network that helps women in Texas and other places with

restrictive abortion laws end their pregnancies in other

states. It already has seen more women reaching out. The

organization typically handles 10 new cases per week but

received 10 calls from new clients just Wednesday, when the

law took effect.

The phenomenon is not new. Women have been increasingly

seeking out-of-state abortions as Republican legislatures and

governors have passed ever-tighter abortion laws,

particularly in the South. At least 276,000 women terminated

their pregnancies outside their home state between 2012 and

2017, according to a 2019 Associated Press analysis of state

and federal data.

The trend appears to have accelerated over the past year.

Abortion clinics in neighboring states began seeing an uptick

in calls from Texas after Gov. Greg Abbott banned abortions

in March 2020 for nearly a month under a COVID-19 executive

order.

The number of Texans seeking abortions in Planned

Parenthood clinics in the Rocky Mountain region, which covers

Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming and southern Nevada, was 12

times higher that month. In California, 7,000 patients came

from other states to Planned Parenthood clinics in 2020.

The number of Texans getting abortions in Kansas jumped

from 25 in 2019 to 289 last year. The Trust Women clinic in

Wichita accounted for 203 of those procedures in a three-

month period. Those patients traveled an average of 650 miles

(1,000 kilometers), Trust Women spokesman Zack Gingrich-

Gaylord said.

``Last year was a dress rehearsal,'' he said, predicting

similar numbers under the new Texas law.

One woman discovered she was pregnant just as Abbott's

emergency order banning abortions was lifted. She and her

partner had lost their jobs in San Antonio during the

pandemic.

``We didn't know which way the world was going to go with

everything shut down and no change in sight,'' said Miranda,

who spoke on the condition that only her first name be used

for fear of harassment and intimidation. ``The last thing I

wanted to do was be pregnant.''

She struggled to find an abortion clinic that could help

her. An online search led her to Fund Texas Choice and the

Lilith Fund, another organization that offers financial

assistance to Texans seeking abortions. They offered to pay

for a flight to New Mexico.

``It's so comforting because it's like someone saying, `We

got you. Let's take care of this together,' '' Miranda said.

Eventually, she found an appointment at a clinic in Dallas,

a five-hour drive away. The groups helped with gas and

lodging, aid that will be even more important with the new

law, Miranda said.

``To be able to help me in a time of need when I had

nothing, not even a job--that's something I think a lot of

women would benefit from if they knew those options were

there,'' she said.

Trust Women Wichita clinic director Ashley Brink said the

phones have been busier than normal this week with potential

patients from Texas and beyond. Women also have been calling

from Louisiana and Alabama who would typically get abortion

care in Texas but are having to travel even farther.

The clinic typically sees 40 to 50 abortion patients in a

week and now is expecting an additional 15 to 20.

At Trust Women's clinic in Oklahoma City, 80 appointments

were scheduled over the past two days, more than double the

typical amount, co-executive director Rebecca Tong said. Two-

thirds were from Texas, and the earliest opening was three

weeks out.

``Oklahoma has just barely enough clinics for the amount of

people here,'' Tong said. ``If anyone is thinking, `Oh, they

can just go out of state, it'll be so easy,' a lot of clinics

in the Midwest and South, we don't do abortion care five days

a week.''

Oklahoma providers also face the potential for abortion

restrictions similar to those in Texas in a matter of months.

In recent months, 15% of patients supported by Cobalt, an

abortion access advocacy group in Colorado, were from out of

state, president Karen Middleton said. She expects that

number to keep rising.

The group administers a fund to cover the cost of the

procedure, travel, lodging and meals. It began preparing for

a potential influx of patients from Texas several weeks ago.

``We reached out to everyone who provides abortion care in

the state of Colorado,'' Middleton said. ``We asked them to

be ready and to let us know if they could handle increased

capacity.''

Traveling for the procedure may still be out of reach for

some. Women without legal U.S. status might turn to abortion

medication, said Diana Gomez, advocacy manager with Progress

Texas, though even that option is in question.

Several Republican-led states have passed laws making it

harder to access the pills and banning prescriptions through

virtual health visits. Texas is considering similar

restrictions, which could force women to get pills by mail

for do-it-yourself abortions or other methods.

``They are going to have to go underground and find

alternative means in our state,'' Gomez said.

[From TIME, Sept. 23, 2021]

Florida Lawmaker Proposes Abortion Ban That Mimics Texas SB-8 Law

A Florida legislator has proposed banning most abortions in

the state and allowing lawsuits against doctors who violate

it, mirroring a Texas law that instituted the strictest

abortion restrictions in the U.S.

It wasn't immediately clear how much support the bill would

garner. The Republican-controlled Florida legislature has

shown significant support for tighter abortion policies, but

Governor Ron DeSantis said he hadn't reviewed this specific

proposal and the GOP House speaker was similarly noncommittal

on Wednesday.

The bill, proposed by state Representative Webster Barnaby,

a Republican, would require doctors in Florida to perform

tests to determine if a fetus has a detectable heartbeat

before performing an abortion.

If a physician detects a heartbeat, according to the bill,

abortion would be prohibited. The measure also would allow

doctors to be sued if suspected of performing an abortion

after detecting a heartbeat, matching a powerful provision in

the Texas law, known as Senate Bill Eight, or SB-8.

The bill appeared to be a clear example of a Texas copycat

law in another large, GOP-controlled state. In the days after

the Texas law took effect, abortion clinics turned away

hundreds of patients. It was seen by abortion-rights

supporters as an end-run around Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme

Court decision that has been the foundation of abortion

rights in the U.S. ever since.

Florida's Republican House Speaker Chris Sprowls said

through a spokesman that he supported stricter abortion

restrictions, but said that any bill brought to the floor

would have to withstand judicial scrutiny.

``We look forward to bringing to the Floor a bill that

saves every unborn life possible,'' he said. ``I have asked

House Judiciary Committee Chairwoman Erin Grall and House

Health & Human Services Chairwoman Colleen Burton to review

the various proposals, look at other ideas, and take point on

this issue this Session.''

Still, the Florida proposal sparked immediate condemnation

from abortion rights advocates, who called legislation

unconstitutional and part of a flurry of harsh restrictions

on women's rights.

``We are horrified to see anti-choice politicians in

Florida following in Texas' footsteps, and there's no

question that lawmakers hostile to reproductive freedom in

other states will do the same,'' Adrienne Kimmell, acting

president of Naral Pro-Choice America, said in a statement.

Early this month, a sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court

refused to block the Texas law, which outlaws most abortions

after six weeks of pregnancy. SB-8, bars abortion after a

fetal heartbeat can be detected and puts clinics at risk of

being shut down if they are found to be in violation.

Asked about Barnaby's bill on Wednesday in Kissimmee,

Desantis said he considered his record ``100% pro-life'' but

added that he had not seen it.

Desantis, a Republican seen as a potential presidential

candidate, has rejected coronavirus mask mandates and so-

called vaccine passports, saying his position is largely

about an individual's right to determine their healthcare

choices. He said Wednesday that the abortion question was

different because ``another life is at stake.''

Democratic candidates vying to replace Desantis in the 2022

election firmly opposed the legislation.

``This is a direct attack on a woman's right to choose,''

Charlie Crist, a former governor, said on Twitter. ``We're

going to have to fight tooth and nail to protect reproductive

freedom.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, and I thank the ranking member for his support, longtime friends.

Let me quickly indicate that as I have embraced the NDAA over the years, it has always been my focus to deal with the military personnel and to make us the best, the strongest, and the most well respected and appreciated.

I want to thank this committee and the Rules Committee for allowing my amendments Nos. 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, and 198. Many of them speak for themselves.

Let me clearly say that I have worked year after year as a breast cancer survivor to ensure that triple-negative breast cancer, which is one of the most deadly forms of cancer--that women in the military have the services that they need.

Let me just share with you that triple-negative breast cancer has a survival rate of 5 years. The key to beating this cancer is early detection. There is $10 million to enhance research and to help these women. In addition, I have asked for $2 million for post-traumatic stress disorder. I even, under then-Colonel Murtha, organized a center in my district.

But the most important point for supporting this amendment is that it still exists--Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, 11 to 20 out of 100; Gulf war, 12 out of 100; Vietnam war, 30 out of 100. It is still needed, and we appreciate this amendment.

I also want to thank you for recognizing that we are going into space. My amendment says that we should have a bill that studies the risks proposed by man-made space debris in lower orbit, including recommendations and remediation of such risks. It is extremely important.

Finally, I want to speak to a very important amendment dealing with the longstanding history of African Americans in the United States military, to create a task force that respects the fact that Crispus Attucks, a runaway slave who escaped--during the Boston Massacre to the present day--an escaped slave who fought in the Revolutionary War with George Washington.

This story is a long-story story. The United States Army and others have a very long history. This task force will determine the impact of slavery and the impact of our soldiers from the very early years, who happened to be ex-slaves fighting all the way through the many different wars.

I believe we will find that those who are descendants of enslaved Africans have fought in wars from the very beginning. It is an important story. It should be told. I am very pleased that this particular amendment is included.

Mr. Speaker, I will just conclude that this task force, which will be a very significant historical study, will be very much appreciated.

But let me quickly say that having worked with our various nominees to the military academies, one in particular was an individual who stuttered. By the time he finished, they said he could not have his command. They never assessed him in the academy while he was there.

I believe this is an important assessment, to assess that vital $250,000 student, so that when he graduates, he will have a command even if he is a stutterer because he made it into the academy; he was successful academically; and he should be allowed to serve his country.

I thank you for considering my amendments and for them to stay in to become law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my Amendments in the En Bloc Amendment No. 2 to H.R. 4350, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2022, which incorporates Jackson Lee Amendments Nos. 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, and 198.

I thank the Rules Committee for making these amendments in order.

I also thank Chairman Smith of the House Armed Services Committee and his staff for working with me and my staff to include the Jackson Lee Amendments in this En Bloc, and for his great work in shepherding the bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for her leadership.

Let me make a proclamation here on the floor of the House, that when you have the responsibility of governing, you govern.

The President of the United States, President Biden, who believes in transformational government, the House and the Senate, the House under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, the Senate under the leadership of Chuck Schumer. You govern. Today, we are making an enforced, pointed, and open statement about governing.

Let me quickly start with the NDAA, the vehicle that helps the men and

women who put on the uniform unselfishly on our behalf. I am excited about the increase in quality-of-life dollars, the raise in personnel salaries, the concern about families. I am increasingly excited about cyber protection, and as well that we ask the hard questions about Afghanistan and how we will not see the return of such. But we are not afraid to govern by asking those questions so that we can move forward.

I am also excited about recognizing that the quality-of-life issues for our members in the military are important. The Jackson Lee amendments emphasize those points:

$10 million to fight triple-negative breast cancer impacting our women in the United States military, particularly women of color.

$2.5 million in PTSD. I have heard many times we give to PTSD, but it keeps growing and growing, and there are those in our constituency, our constituents who need these ongoing services. I have been working on this for a long time.

To recognize that we must treat our men and women that go into the United States military academies fairly. Does anyone know that they admit people with speech disorders? Good for them. But when they graduate, they are not given a command. My amendment, that I hope to become law, will determine that you analyze all of your military students to make sure they have a command when they graduate.

I am most excited about one that I will talk about quickly later.

And then, of course, we have done so much great work with the momnibus to look at maternal mortality rates for military members traveling around the world.

Space debris, to determine how we can remediate the risks and outline plans to reduce the incidence of space debris.

To be able to ensure that we stop students from being recruited when they go overseas to be engaged in spy operations. That happens. And we are glad to have that, as well as to begin looking at renaming some of these bases after historic African Americans.

Let me quickly say that amendment No. 194 should be one that we all come together on, tracing the history of the service of African Americans in the United States military, particularly in slavery, to recognize that they can be a vital legacy to the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I will talk further about that as we move into the NDAA, but let me talk about my original premise of governing.

The continuing appropriations is crucial, and I support the lifting of the debt ceiling not to spend money, but--when you have responsibility to govern, you govern--to pay our bills. Does anyone want to suggest that we should not?

I am looking for a few good men and women on the other side of the aisle that will stand with us as Americans and be responsible to our fellow Americans, governing, so that we can ensure we have a supplemental food program and other aspects of it, but we have to govern.

More response to COVID-19.

And finally, it is important to give women back their rights. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and we are going to pass that legislation along with my anti-stalking and vigilante bill because people are suffering with the Texas law. It has no place in society. It is a violation of the Constitution of the United States, and it should be quashed, with the Roe v. Wade codification. I ask the other body to support us in that. I ask everyone to support the underlying bills.

Mr. Speaker, the House, led by the Democratic majority, did its job, passing 10 of the 12 appropriations bills earlier this year, but Senate Republicans failed to hold a single markup of appropriations bills, making it necessary to pass this Continuing Resolution to avert a shutdown that would only further damage our economy.

Throughout the 117th Congress, House Democrats have worked to deliver results for the American people, passing legislation to address each pillar of the ``For The People'' agenda: lower health care costs, higher wages by rebuilding America, and cleaning up corruption and strengthening our Democracy.

And under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, the House has passed hundreds of bills, including legislation to crush the COVID-19 pandemic, build our economy back better, lower health care and prescription drug prices, raise wages, advance economic and retirement security, end gun violence, act on the climate crisis, protect Dreamers, and strengthen voting rights.

Mr. Speaker, let me briefly list several of the programs vital to Americans that are protected or extended by H.R. 5305.

Section 101. Same Terms and Conditions for Continuing Appropriations as FY 2020.

Section 101 states that appropriations are under the same terms and conditions, including relevant authorities and prohibitions, as the fiscal year 2021 appropriations bills.

Section 106. End Date of CR.

Section 106 provides that the CR ends at the earlier of the enactment of a full-year appropriations bill or December 3, 2021.

Section 112. Restrictions on Furloughs or Termination of Employees.

Section 112 restricts furloughs or termination of employees due to lack of funds during the duration of a CR.

Section 113. Waiver Language for Intelligence Programs.

Section 113 provides waiver language for certain intelligence programs as well as agencies that operate under the State Department Basic Authorities Act and Foreign Relations Authorization Act.

Section 118. Commodity Supplemental Food Program.

Section 118 allows the Food and Nutrition Service to spend at a higher rate during the CR to provide supplemental USDA foods to low- income seniors (age 60 and over) and to some low-income women, infants and children up to age six.

Section 127. Increased Flexibility for White House COVID Response.

Section 127 allows a higher spending rate for the White House to support continuing COVID19 operations.

Section 129. Increased Flexibility to Process Certain SBA Business Loans.

Section 129 allows the Small Business Administration flexibility to spend at the rate necessary to accommodate potential demand increases for commitments for business loans through the 7(a) and 504 business loans, for the Secondary Market Guarantee Program, and for the Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) program.

Section 130. Extension for District of Columbia Voucher School Accreditation.

Section 130 allows District of Columbia voucher schools an additional year to be accredited and therefore remain in the program. The accrediting process requires in-school visits, which are not happening during the coronavirus.

Section 131. District of Columbia Local Funds

Section 131 allows the District of Columbia to spend FY 2021 funds received from local tax revenues and other non-Federal sources in the amount and for the programs and activities provided in DC's FY 2021 Budget Act.

Section 132. Extension of Certain Bankruptcy Judgeships.

Section 132 extends the term of certain bankruptcy judgeships.

Section 134. Disaster Relief Fund (DRF).

Section 134 allows the Federal Emergency Management Agency to access the entire DRF appropriation for fiscal year 2021 under the continuing resolution as necessary to respond to declared disasters.

Section 135. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

Section 135 continues the authorization for the NFIP through December 3, 2021.

Section 148. Maintaining Funding for the TANF and Child Care Entitlement to States Programs.

Section 148 extends funding for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program and the Child Care Entitlement to States program during the period of the continuing resolution. The extension will allow HHS to make first-quarter payments to States.

Section 152. Extending Availability of Funding for NIH multiyear research grants.

Section 152 extends the availability of funding for multiyear research grants supported by the National Institutes of Health that were interrupted in fiscal year 2020 by COVID-19 and would have expired at the end of the fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and strongly support the inclusion of Divisions B and C in the legislation before us.

Division B provides emergency supplemental appropriations in the amount of $28.6 billion to address the rising cost of climate change: recent natural disasters, including Hurricanes Ida, Delta, Zeta, and Laura, wildfires, severe droughts and winter storms, and other natural and major disasters declared in 2021 and prior years.

This funding will help working families, small businesses, and communities get back on their feet and rebuild, while repairing damage to federal facilities.

Division C provides $6.3 billion in supplemental appropriations to support Afghan evacuees includes funding to temporarily house evacuees at American facilities and in foreign countries, provide necessary security screenings, and ultimately resettle eligible evacuees in the United States.

The legislation also includes funding to provide humanitarian I assistance for Afghan refugees in neighboring countries.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, as another example of the extraordinary and responsible leadership of Speaker Pelosi and Appropriations Committee Chair DeLauro, the legislation checkmates the announced Republican intention to vote against raising the debt and to have the federal government default on its obligations by extending the public debt limit through December 16, 2021.

Mr. Speaker, American families do not get to choose which bills to pay and which ones to ignore; neither can the United States Congress without putting the nation into default for the first time in its history.

Long ago, in 1789, Alexander Hamilton, the nation's first and greatest Treasury Secretary, understood that the path to American prosperity and greatness lay in its creditworthiness which provided the affordable access to capital needed to fund internal improvements and economic growth.

The nation's creditworthiness was one of its most important national assets and according to Hamilton: ``the proper funding of the present debt, will render it a national blessing.''

But to maintain this blessing, or to ``render public credit immortal,'' Hamilton understood that it was necessary that: ``the creation of debt should always be accompanied with the means of extinguishment.''

In other words, to retain and enjoy the prosperity that flows from good credit, it is necessary for a nation to pay its bills.

To preserve the sanctity of the full faith and credit of the United States, protect American jobs and businesses of all sizes, and ensure the continued growth of the economy, I strongly support the provision in the bill before extending the public debt limit to December 16, 2021.

I strongly support this legislation and urge all Members to join me, in voting for H.R. 5305, the ``Extending Government Funding and Delivering Emergency Assistance Act.''

Mr. Speaker, I also offer my strong support of the Rule governing debate of H.R. 3755, the Women's Health Protection Act (''WHPA''), which would enshrine access to reproductive health care into law for all women across America.

The refusal of the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court to halt implementation of the odious and offensive Texas S.B. 8, the threat of other state attacks on the constitutional right to reproductive choice recognized in Roe v. Wade, and decades of precedent have together mandated that the House act to protect women's reproductive rights.

Madam Speaker, I want the Haitian community in America and in the United States to know that we have not forgotten them.

Haiti has been a strong ally of the United States that, unfortunately, has been caught in the quagmire of destructive poverty and, of course, governments that sometimes have not worked. Recently, they experienced a horrific earthquake; 800,000 people homeless.

So now that we see Haitians by the thousands coming to our border, we have an obligation not to deport them. We have an obligation to provide the potential review that comes about by having the number of immigration personnel to determine their status. We have an obligation for humanitarian relief.

I know our borders are closed; I recognize that. But I also know that there is opportunity for asylum through credible fear, and there is also an opportunity to deal with whether or not these individuals have family members.

Let me simply say, Madam Speaker, the question we have now is sending these Haitians to a country that is so impoverished and violent is not the right way to go. Let's work together to do it right.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to be representing the Congressional Black Caucus as the Special Order chair.

I want to thank our chairwoman, Joyce Beatty, for her leadership on ensuring that the message of the Congressional Black Caucus--Our Power, Our Message--is reflected on the floor of this House and to the American people, to our constituents, the millions and millions of Americans that the 57 members of the Congressional Black Caucus represent.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of this Special Order.

Madam Speaker, it is clear that we will be dealing with Build Back Better for the time of this week and into next week, so the Congressional Black Caucus will come very briefly this week to discuss and let our constituents and Americans know that any distorted representation of the $3.5 trillion, as not being able to afford it or that it is too extensive, is really a misrepresentation.

First of all, we support, as the Congressional Black Caucus, Build Back Better enthusiastically. It is a $3.5 trillion package over 10 years for a country that is nearing 350 million people, a country that has not seen infrastructure investment, climate investment, investment to deal with electric cars, investment to deal with the new economy, the care economy--we have not seen this for decades, or at least we have not seen this as we have moved into the 21st century.

The Build Back Better plan makes the transformative investments that we need to continue our growing economy, lower costs for working families, and position the United States as a global leader in the innovation and jobs of the future.

The $3.5 trillion gross investment will build on the successes of the American Rescue Plan and set our Nation on a path of fiscal responsibility and broadly shared prosperity for generations to come.

Almost 4 years ago, in 2017, the Houston area and most of the Southern region, all the way to Florida, including some of our Commonwealths, experienced Hurricane Harvey.

This is my district, where the water looked like an extended ocean-- $155 billion worth of damage, so much damage that we are continuing to work with it. Why? Because we did not have the infrastructure. We did not have the bayous that were constructed in a way that would hold the water. So much damage, so much loss, so much pain.

So a combination of the INVEST Act and Build Back Better is a must. They must walk hand-in-hand. One without the other does not answer the call of the American people. It does not reflect the Lincolnesque attitude that we all are in this together.

Let me read a quote from President Lincoln, who reminds us so much whenever we speak of the idea of what America is. Abraham Lincoln, in 1862, as he was seeing the divide coming into this Nation, offered these words: ``The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.''

As we move forward with Build Back Better and the INVEST Act, the $3.5 trillion and the $1 trillion, there is no time to isolate ourselves as one or I or me. This is a time when we stand with America as we, working to ensure that this magnificent contribution to the infrastructure--to some of the worst infrastructure problems, from dams to highways to the electric grid--can also stand alongside childcare and the care economy.

For example, in the State of Texas, this bill would help the local economy. It would send more than $400 million in Texas to support the expansion of an electric vehicle charging network, with up to $2.5 billion more available through grants.

Texas would also receive $3 billion to improve pipes and the delivery of clean drinking water so needed in our State, in urban and rural communities.

And Texas would benefit from the bill's $3.5 billion investment in weatherizing energy grids across the country. Millions of Texans who sat shivering in their dark living rooms during the last winter's freeze will undoubtedly welcome that improvement. We lost over 150 people in that short span in February when we saw temperatures in Texas that we had never imagined. People literally froze in their beds. One comes to mind that is so emotional: An 11-year-old boy froze in his bed in February 2021.

Critically, the bill would provide at least $100 million for broadband access in a State where 14 percent of households don't have an internet subscription, and 4 percent of Texans have no broadband infrastructure at all.

My view is that we cannot simply go for one versus the other. Let me just tell you about the Build Back Better $3.5 trillion bill.

It will provide childcare to help our workforce and contribute to the economy where that is needed. Therefore, the plan supports families in need of childcare, providing access to safe, reliable, high-quality childcare, delivered by well-trained childcare providers.

As it relates to education, we will be productive and having our children have high-quality education. That is why this plan makes necessary investments to increase quality education by 4 years for all students at no cost to hardworking parents. The plan will provide 2 years of free pre-K and 2 years of free community college. We are investing in people.

In regard to healthcare, too many Americans are forced to choose between medical care and putting food on the table. The plan expands access to quality, affordable healthcare by strengthening the Medicare, Medicaid, and Affordable Care marketplace programs that millions of Americans rely on. But now more could be added, in addition to providing dental, hearing, and vision benefits. That is when we go it together. Not I's and me's, but we, us together.

Paid leave that can help us get on our feet when we are having issues with family and healthcare.

Tackling the climate crisis. We have seen the ravages of hurricanes. We have seen Hurricane Ida--devastation that is unspeakable, electricity that people do not have, a million people without electricity. The climate crisis and climate change are here. It is crucial that we begin to invest in a plan that empowers comprehensive action to build an equitable, clean energy economy with historic investments to transform and modernize the electricity sector. It is imperative that we do that.

We must take a moment to pause and to recognize that any positive steps on climate will be because of us, because of the most powerful lawmaking body in the Nation, taking a moment to pause and realistically confronting it, providing the research dollars, working with universities, such as the University of Houston Energy Institute and Texas Southern University, looking at ways to provide the best approach to a green approach and climate response as well as providing the necessary research on new kinds of energy. That is what we need to do.

Just for a moment, may I step back to the point about healthcare. We know it all too well in Houston. We were the poster child in Texas for the most uninsured persons when the Affordable Care Act was implemented. Six million people, 25 percent of the State of Texas, were uninsured. We still do not have access to healthcare as we should.

Then to add this horrific burden and insult to the women of Texas, to write the most heinous bill that would, in fact, disallow a woman's access to healthcare, this horrible bill that would have a bounty hunter that would seek to follow you in the midst of you getting good healthcare. I think this is clearly an unfortunate set of circumstances that we should correct.

Healthcare, your own personal decision with your provider, your faith, and your family, choices that no one wants to make, yet this State law was put in place to create a vigilante community to attack women and those that might help them provide access to healthcare. That is what it is, access to healthcare, a decision that no one offers to make lightly. But here we are, a vigilante being enticed by $10,000-- gossip, spying, standing outside dorm rooms, watching Uber cars, standing in front of doctors' offices, standing in front of organizations like Planned Parenthood that deal with healthcare for women, and just plain providing a sense of intimidation and fear.

That brings me to the legislation that we hope that we will see passing, H.R. 5226, Preventing Vigilante Stalking that Stops Women's Access to Healthcare and Abortion Rights Act of 2021. I hope my colleagues will join me in a simple bill that simply says you don't have the right to stalk a woman who is seeking healthcare. It may be that she is going for a mammogram. You don't know. But by creating this

atmosphere of money being given to a whole industry of people, ne'er- do-wells and others, some with good intentions in their mind but seeking to make profit on someone else's pain, that is unacceptable. I hope my colleagues will join me in that legislation.

Healthcare is a right, and we should give that to families, to women, to men, to children, and to seniors. That is what building America back better will do.

Affordable housing, helping homeless persons, tax cuts for families and workers, I am so grateful. And I want everybody to know how Democrats worked so hard for the child tax credit--excuse me, let me correct that--the child tax cut. In fact, as I hear it, my constituents, your constituents, their constituents, are receiving those child tax cuts right now. Many people are making ends meet, helping their children get into school.

That is what Democrats do, and that is what this bill is going to do--research, development, and innovation on good, forward-thinking infrastructure.

Working with HBCUs, helping them be historically relevant but also helping them to be stronger in terms of their infrastructure. I support that and thank one of our colleagues, Congresswoman Alma Adams, who has been a leader on making sure our HBCUs are front and center, are surviving. These are our historic colleges founded in the 1800s.

Immigration, of course, is a very important issue, and I might say, another issue that we worked on in the Judiciary Committee with our allotment of $107 billion, and that is, of course, community violence intervention. We put in $2.5 billion on community violence intervention. And that of course was $107 billion, $107.5 billion in Judiciary. Part of that, of course, was to deal with the issue of community violence intervention.

So you can see there is no time to waste. There is no time to delay. There is only time to work hard on getting this legislation passed. We must do it as an INVEST Act, we must do it as a budget reconciliation, or the Build Back Better Act of 2021, the better name. We must do it together.

The Congressional Black Caucus stands to be able to say, ``No more Hurricane Harveys,'' but more, work with communities, rebuilding streets, historic preservation, and making a difference. That is what historic infrastructure investment can do, and that is what we in the Congressional Black Caucus stand for.

I look forward to us continuing our discussion. Madam Speaker, I take the opportunity at this point in the name of unity, reconciliation, a new pathway for transformational government, passing of the INVEST Act, passing of the Build Back Better Act, and making sure that we have voting rights, that we give women the right to choose, that we pass H.R. 40, the commission to study slavery and develop reparation proposals. A long agenda. I know that we can do this in the spirit of unity.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary, on Homeland Security, and on the Budget, and the Congressional Black Caucus, I am pleased to co-anchor this Congressional Black Caucus Special Order with my colleague, the distinguished gentleman from New York, Congressman Ritchie Torres.

I thank the Chair of the CBC, Congresswoman Beatty of Ohio, for organizing this Special Order to discuss the reasons why the CBC strong supports the Build Back Better Agenda conceived and advanced by President Biden and House Democrats to support visionary and transformative investments in the health, well-being, and financial security of America's workers and families.

Over the next hour, several of our colleagues will share their perspectives on why it is essential that we ``go big'' in building back better to our nation and all of its people have the opportunities and resources to compete and win in the changing global economy of the 21st century.

Madam Speaker, it is often said that the federal budget is an expression of the nation's values and the investments made to Build America Back Better are a clear declaration of congressional Democrats' commitment to ensuring that our government, our economy, and our systems work For The People.

Madam Speaker, these long-overdue investments in America's future will be felt in every corner of the country and across every sector of American life, building on the success of the American Rescue Plan, accommodating historic infrastructure investments in the legislative pipeline, and addressing longstanding deficits in our communities by ending an era of chronic underinvestment so we can emerge from our current crises a stronger, more equitable nation.

Should our friends across the aisle join us in this endeavor, it would send a powerful signal to the American people if our colleagues across the aisle would join us in this effort because nothing would better show them that their elected representatives can set partisanship aside and put America first.

And that bipartisan achievement would portend success for similar initiatives in the area of strengthening the infrastructure of democracy in which every American has a vital interest, national and homeland security, and criminal justice and immigration reform.

I would urge my Republican colleagues to heed the words of Republican Governor Jim Justice of West Virginia who said colorfully several months ago:

At this point in time in this nation, we need to go big. We

need to quit counting the egg-sucking legs on the cows and

count the cows and just move. And move forward and move right

now.

The same sentiment was expressed more eloquently by Abraham Lincoln in 1862 when he memorably wrote:

The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy

present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we

must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must

think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and

then we shall save our country.

Madam Speaker, the bipartisan action we took in February 2021 when we passed the American Rescue Plan was a giant step in the right direction, but it was a targeted response to the immediate and urgent public health and economic crises; it was not a long-term solution to many of the pressing challenges facing our nation that have built up over decades of disinvestment in our nation and its people in every region and sector of the country.

We simply can no longer afford the costs of neglect and inaction; the time to act is now.

The Build Back Better Plan makes the transformative investments that we need to continue growing our economy, lower costs for working families, and position the United States as a global leader in innovation and the jobs of the future.

This $3.5 trillion gross investment will build on the successes of the American Rescue Plan and set our nation on a path of fiscal responsibility and broadly shared prosperity for generations to come.

The Build Back Better Plan will provide resources to improve our education, health, and child care systems, invest in clean energy and sustainability, address the housing crisis, and more; all while setting America up to compete and win in the decades ahead.

The Build Back Better Plan is paid for by ensuring that the wealthy and big corporations are paying their fair share and Americans making less than $400,000 a year will not see their taxes increase by a penny.

Let me repeat that: No American making less than $400,000 a year will not see their taxes increase by a penny.

In sum, Madam Speaker, the investments made by the Build Back Better Plan will expand opportunity for all and build an economy powered by shared prosperity and inclusive growth.

No one is better prepared or more experienced to lead the American renaissance that will be produced by the investments made by the Build Back Better Plan than President Biden, the architect of the American Rescue Plan and who as Vice-President during the Obama Administration oversaw the implementation of the Recovery Act, which saved millions of jobs and rescued our economy from the Great Recession the nation inherited from a previous Republican administration.

And let us not forget that President Obama also placed his confidence in his vice-president to oversee the rescue of the automotive industry, which he did so well that the American car industry fully recovered its status as the world leader.

Madam Speaker, let me briefly highlight some of the key investments made by the Build Back Better Plan:

Madam Speaker, as tomorrow marks the 20th anniversary of the attack launched against the United States on September 11, 2001, I rise to remember the victims of that horrific tragedy and those first-responders who risked, and in too many cases, sacrificed their lives to rescue the occupants of the besieged World Trade Center Towers. The morning of September 11, 2001 is, and will always be, a day like no other. It is a day all living Americans will remember because not since Pearl Harbor had there been such a dastardly and deadly attack on American soil.

Twenty years later, my heart still grieves for those who perished on flights United Airlines 93, American Airlines 77, American Airlines 11, and United Airlines 175. When the sun rose on the morning of September 11, none of us knew that it would end in an inferno in the magnificent World Trade Center Towers in New York City and the Pentagon and in the grassy fields of Shanksville, Pennsylvania. I stand here remembering those who still suffer, whose hearts still ache over the loss of so many innocent and interrupted lives.

My prayer is that for those who lost a father, a mother, a husband, a wife, a child, or a friend will in the days and years ahead take comfort in the certain knowledge that they have gone on to claim the greatest. prize, a place in the Lord's loving arms. And down here on the ground, their memory will never die so long as any of the many of us who loved them lives. Madam Speaker, I watched as the first, and then the second, plane flew into the World Trade Center and was horrified when the buildings came down.

I was in The Capitol and saw the billowing smoke from the wreckage at the Pentagon and was told about the missing third plane that met its fiery end in the empty fields of Shanksville, Pennsylvania thanks to the selfless act of patriotic and heroic Americans. But as hard as it is to believe, out of a tragedy so overwhelming and horrific, something good and great emerged in the aftermath of September 11. On that day there were no Republicans or Democrats. There were no Northerners or Southerners or West or East Coasters. We were not Red State or Blue State. We were all simply Americans.

On that day, we were united in our shock and anger and sadness. We were united in our resolve to defend our country and protect the freedoms that has made America the greatest country in the history of the world. Later that day, I joined scores of my colleagues on the East Steps of the Capitol where we sang ``God Bless America''; lit candles, held hands, and prayed for our country and its leaders. In the days ahead I travelled to New York City to visit first responders and victims still recovering bodies and rescuing victims of the attacks and became a charter member of the Committee on Homeland Security to ensure that 9-11 never again happens in America. A united America can never be defeated as Operation Enduring Freedom showed.

The brave and valiant armed forces of the United States swiftly toppled the Taliban and liberated Afghanistan, making good on the pledge that ``[w]hether the terrorists are brought to justice or justice is brought to the terrorists, justice will be done.'' And though he ran and hid for almost ten years, Osama bin Ladin could not hide forever and evade the long arm of American justice, which, under the leadership of President Barack Obama, caught up with him on May 2, 2011.

Madam Speaker, Americans take care of their own. Americans cherish freedom. Americans cherish liberty. And Americans want peace. Not just for themselves alone, but all persons in every corner of the globe. Madam Speaker, ensuring that America is safe and secure and protected from another attack on American soil is the least we owe to the heroic passengers on Flight 93 and to the brave firefighters of the FDNY and officers of the NYPD and the officers and civilians we lost in the Pentagon who gave faithful service to our nation.

Americans want their country to remain safe, free, and invulnerable to another cowardly attack like the one we witnessed twenty years ago tomorrow. We owe that much to the Americans who lost and gave their lives. And we have an obligation to them to ensure that this nation-- and its 241 year record of, and experiment in, democracy--shall long endure and can and will withstand any threat from foreign adversaries or home-grown domestic terrorists.

This nation, as with any nation, suffers the conceit that it is immune from attacks from within on its democratic pillars at its peril, as we learned tragically on January 6, 2021. On that now unforgettable winter day, a violent mob invited by the then-president of the United States came to Washington, D.C. and laid siege to the Capitol for the avowed purpose of disrupting the constitutionally-mandated Joint Meeting of Congress to confirm the votes of presidential electors and announce publicly to the nation and the world the persons elected as President and Vice President of the United States.

As a result of the mayhem instigated by the 45th president, the congressional meeting was delayed for several hours, at least six persons lost their lives as a result of the insurrection, more than 138 officers, 73 from the United States Capitol Police Department and 65 from the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, sustained injuries during the attack on the Capitol Building, several of which required hospitalization and dozens, if not hundreds, of officers will suffer in years to come with post-traumatic stress disorder and cope with coronavirus infections contracted from the unmasked domestic terrorists and rioters who stormed the Capitol.

All of this is more than enough to sound the warning bell that we are now engaged, as President Lincoln observed at Gettysburg, in a great contest testing the proposition that this nation, or any nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all are created equal can long endure. This illustrates the reason why it is so vital that we enact legislation to strengthen and fortify the foundation of our democracy, which is of course the right to vote and to have that vote counted. To do that, we must enact without delay H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, and H.R. 1, the For The People Act. The right to vote is the sine qua non of democratic citizenship; without it every other right is fleeting and temporary.

That is why it is important to remember that the true and fundamental purpose of the Voting Rights Act was to give proof to the world that America was living the true meaning of its creed that all are created equal and doing so by protecting and empowering black Americans, who had for two centuries been exploited, victimized, persecuted, scapegoated, cheated, and treated with both benign and malignant neglect all because they were excluded from participating in the political process and the making of decisions that affected their lives.

It is interesting to note the absence of the current frantic efforts to disenfranchise black voters and other persons of color had no antecedent in 1994, when unexpectedly Republicans won the House majority for the first time in 40 years and majorities in several state legislatures across the country. Nor did it happen after the 2010 elections when Republicans recaptured the House majority after holding the White House for two consecutive terms. Madam Speaker, what accounts for the lack of vote suppression action then and the desperate anti- democratic actions we see now is clear and simple.

In 1994, 27 years ago, and as recent as 11 years ago in 2010, conservative Republicans still believed they could compete for democratic political power fair and square and that their ideals, ideas, principles, and values could attract majority support. But with the demographic changes and generational replacement taking place in America, the maturation and coming of age of the beneficiaries of the Great Society, and the rise of what social and political scientist call the ``Obama Coalition,'' they no longer believe that. So they now hold it as an article of faith that they cannot win if they do not cheat; instead of taking their ideas and arguments to the voters and letting the voters pick their leaders, they have opted to change the rules so they can handpick the voters.

In The Flight 93 Election, the controversial, provocative, call to arms, conservative essayist Michael Anton spelled out clearly the perils the antidemocracy forces feel surround them:

If you haven't noticed, our side has been losing

consistently since 1988. We can win midterms, but we do

nothing with them. Call ours Hannibalic victories. After the

Carthaginian's famous slaughter of a Roman army at Cannae, he

failed to march on an undefended Rome, prompting his cavalry

commander to complain: `you know how to win a victory, but

not how to use one.' And, aside from 2004's lackluster 50.7

percent, we can't win the big ones at all.

In his 1837 Lyceum Address titled ``The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions,'' Abraham Lincoln warned that mobs or people who disrespected U.S. laws and courts would always pose the most dangerous threat to the perpetuation of United States:

All the armies of Europe and Asia . . . could not by force

take a drink from the Ohio River or make a track on the Blue

Ridge in the trial of a thousand years. No, if destruction be

our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.

But Lincoln advised us of the best defense against domestic threats and attacks on our democracy: public reverence for the Constitution and rule of law as ``the political religion of our nation.''

Madam Speaker, democracy in America is not an act, it is an activity; it is never finished or complete but always in the process of making our union more perfect; and the nation will always be confronted with challenge of confirming the proposition that this nation, or any nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all are created equal can long endure.

The price of liberty is indeed eternal vigilance. But we can do this. We must do this.

After all, we are Americans.