Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want us to be very quiet in this Chamber, almost to the extent of hearing a pin drop. That is what happens when you are in prayer: Muslims, Catholics, those of the Jewish faith, Christians.

Prayer is the most sacred moment in many faiths, in all faiths.

Imagine that moment in Mother Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, friends of ours across the Nation. That weekday prayer service for some is a lifeline for their survival. They are huddled in prayer, maybe taking care of what they call a broken heart, a bad day at the office, a need to take care of a wayward child, and in comes this young man that they saw only as a person in need of prayer.

That is a song we sing. That we are in need of prayer. Just imagine this pristine, white, old church symbolizing the freedom of slaves, just imagine these precious souls who were doing nothing but praying.

I want to acknowledge the pain that Whip Clyburn experienced. I saw him in the aftermath of those days. These were not just his fellow Americans, they were his neighbors and his friends and interns.

How many remember when the commander in healing, the commander of bringing people together, President Obama, sang the song Amazing Grace?

That is what life in the midst of a storm is about, and that is what we are in, in the proliferation of guns.

And my friends on the other side keep throwing darts and bombs about undermining the Second Amendment. I say it again. From the early stages of the Founding Fathers in the Bill of Rights, gun usage in America was regulated. The Heller case does not deny regulation. In fact, there are aspects that allow it.

So this is a legitimate regulation for safety, not control. Because Dylann, who went to a gun store and manipulated a gun owner to go and give him the gun after 3 days because there was something funny about his information, this will save lives. Ten days is not too long to stop the loss of life and the bloodshed that was in Mother Emanuel.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 1446 to save lives.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership, and I thank Whip Clyburn for letting us fix the problem of criminals getting guns.

Do my friends on the other side of the aisle not understand that Dylann Roof had a criminal background? What happened is that the storekeeper, in essence, violated the law. He viewed it as not violating the law because, after 3 days, there was no answer.

Dylann Roof took a gun and became a mass shooter in America. Yes, if he had not gotten a gun illegally, these souls would be alive today.

In 2018, there were 355 mass shootings. We have evidence that people with guns have not stopped a mass shooting. So if there was a person armed with a gun inside Mother Emanuel praying with a gun, I don't believe that lives could have been saved.

What I do know is that if this bill, H.R. 1446, had been in place, that would have allowed a 10-day window to be able to determine whether Dylann Roof needed to have a gun. It is a simple context, simple facts, and it should be done to save lives.

I rise in enthusiastic support of H.R. 1446. I thank Whip Clyburn for his long years of persistence. And our sympathy goes to those who lost their lives at Mother Emanuel in 2015.

We have come now to be able to say no, criminals should not have guns, and we should have a NICS system that allowed the full review background check so that he could not have had a gun. What is wrong with that?

Are we interested in saving lives the right way?

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1446, the ``Enhanced Background Check Act of 2021,'' which strengthens the background check procedures federal firearms licensees or dealers follow before selling or transferring a firearm.

Under current law, firearms dealers are required to run a background check on prospective buyers using the NICS.

Over 90 percent of checks are completed within 90 seconds so if the NICS system has not returned an answer to the licensed firearms dealer within ten days, the prospective firearms purchaser may file a petition with the Attorney General for review.

After another 10-day period has expired, the licensed firearms dealer may sell or transfer the firearm to the prospective purchaser if it has not received a response through the NICS system and the dealer has no reason to believe that the purchaser is prohibited from obtaining a firearm under Federal, state, or local law.

Thus, under this measure, licensed firearms dealers could not sell or transfer under the ``default proceed'' provision until at least 20 days have passed since the initial background check.

Madam Speaker, the American people are demanding effective action to reduce, if not prevent altogether, the countless mass shootings and gun violence in our country that continue to claim so many innocent lives.

Newly released data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention found firearm-related deaths rose for the second-straight year in 2016, largely due to spikes in gun violence.

In 2016, the new CDC report on preliminary mortality data shows that there were more than 38,000 gun-related deaths in the U.S.--4,000 more than 2015.

An Associated Press analysis of FBI data shows there were about 11,000 gun-related homicides in 2016, up from 9,600 in 2015.

Congress must act to keep our country safe through gun safety and violence deterrence.

There was nearly one mass shooting per day in the United States--355 mass shootings in 2018.

In December 2012, a gunman walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and killed 20 children, 6 adults, and himself.

Since December 2012, there have been at least 1,518 mass shootings, with at least 1,715 people killed and 6,089 wounded.

On the night of October 1, 2017, a gunman opened fire on a large crowd of concertgoers at the Route 91 Harvest music festival on the Las Vegas Strip, leaving 58 people dead and 527 injured.

And on November 5, 2017, a mass shooting occurred at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, where the gunman, 26-year- old Devin Patrick Kelley, killed 26 and injured 20 others.

Every day, on average, 92 Americans are victims of gun violence, resulting in more than 33,000 deaths annually.

States with higher gun ownership rates have higher gun murder rates-- as much as 114 percent higher than other States.

A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looking at 30 years of homicide data found that for every 1 percent increase in a State's gun ownership rate, there is a nearly 1 percent increase in its firearm homicide rate.

Gun death rates are generally lower in States with restrictions such as safe storage requirements or assault weapons bans.

Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 33 years: 0.

Because more than 75 percent of the weapons used in mass shootings between 1982 and 2012 were obtained legally, stronger legislation is needed to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands.

Madam Speaker, enhancing the gun transfer background check system has consistently garnered broad public support, as high as 92 percent, because the American people know that the status quo is simply intolerable and action must be taken to reduce gun violence by keeping dangerous persons from obtaining deadly weapons.

That begins with passing H.R. 1446, the ``Enhanced Background Check Act of 2021,'' and I urge all members to join me in voting for its passage.

Madam Speaker, this past Sunday was Bloody Sunday. For some who are not familiar with that terminology, the Congressional Black Caucus did a special tribute last evening. But I think it is also a recognition that elections count, determination counts, conscience counts.

So this morning I want to emphasize Bloody Sunday and what it really meant. It was, in fact, to restore or to initiate or to give Americans the free and equal right to vote. The late John Lewis, our friend, our brother, the conscience of the Congress, may not have known what historical steps he was walking in when he stared down the Alabama State Troopers standing with Hosea Williams and Albert Turner and other foot soldiers, staring them down because voting counts.

I rise to pay tribute to that kind of determination. As we proceed to debate the American rescue package, I want the Members, my friends on the other side of the aisle, to recognize that elections count, that people are looking for us to stare down the devastation of COVID-19, the devastation of poverty, and the devastation of lack of jobs.

They are looking for diversity in terms of vaccinations, reaching out to neighborhoods. They are looking for the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit, and that is because John Lewis stood tall for the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

In fact, after that Bloody Sunday, President Johnson rose to this podium and said: ``I speak tonight for the dignity of man and the destiny of democracy. . . . At times, history and fate meet at a single time in a single place to shape a turning point in man's unending search for freedom. So it was at Lexington and Concord. So it was a century ago at Appomattox. So it was last week in Selma, Alabama.''

So when we debate, I want us to be reminded that people died for the Voting Rights Act because elections count: people like Jimmie Lee Jackson, who was shot by a State trooper in Marion, Alabama, after a peaceful rally to vote; women like Viola Liuzzo, a Detroit housewife who was driving people back and forth between Montgomery and Selma. She, a mother of 5, was shot to death.

So today I rise to emphasize that Bloody Sunday is not just Bloody Sunday. It is a continuation of the fight for justice and the fight for voting rights. It is what we will do tomorrow. It is the PRO Act. It is the Violence Against Women Act. It is the vote for the American rescue package that does not disallow the fact that all Americans, those impoverished, those who have lost loved ones to COVID-19, those teachers who want to get in the classroom and teach. All of this will be part of the American rescue package.

Thank you, John Lewis, for beginning to tell us what America should be and what America can be. It is because of that kind of strength that we are here today. To John Lewis, we commit to you to pass H.R. 1 in the Senate, to pass the Voting Rights Act enhancement number four, after Shelby, Alabama, destroyed and undermined the very strength of the Voting Rights Act. Because we would not be here today; we would not have the opportunity to have the American rescue package; we would not have the opportunity to have the Violence Against Women Act; we would not have the opportunity to have the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, whose family was here last week when we debated it, if we did not have the right to vote.

So it is my belief today that, as we go into this debate, as we go into the rest of the week, as we vote for the universal background checks and the Charleston, South Carolina, closing the loophole, it is not a frivolous authority or power that we utilize. It is because people were willing to be beaten and to be almost killed, but certainly unbowed, as Shirley Chisholm said, for the precious right to vote.

Bloody Sunday may be one day, March 7, but all the years that I have gone and crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge, chosen to highlight a Confederate segregationist, but we turned that lemon into lemonade. When thousands and thousands and thousands every year marched across that Edmund Pettus Bridge, we weren't marching for segregation, we weren't marching for the violence that was perpetrated against the foot soldiers year after year. We were marching for freedom and the right to vote.

So this right to vote will be exercised on the floor of the House this week. I ask and beg my colleagues to join us in what is good. Join us in the American rescue package. Join us in the PRO Act. Join us in the universal background checks. Join us in closing the Charleston loophole. Join us next week in the Violence Against Women Act. Join us to make America the country of John Robert Lewis, standing for what is good.

Madam Speaker, I know we will do good and get into good trouble.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership.

Madam Speaker, I rise enthusiastically to support the PRO Act and its protection against executives and companies who violate workers' rights, its support for collective bargaining, and also its access to fair elections with unions.

I rise to support my amendment, number 9. The Jackson Lee amendment is direct. The amendment explicitly extends whistleblower protections to employees, both employers, and unions, under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. I am grateful to the unions and to the committee for working with this very important amendment.

It extends whistleblower protection to all employees of employers or of unions to encourage and empower them to come forward and make known that something is wrong.

Ms. Lawson, who was in a fight for $15, worked for a fast food industry. She was sexually harassed. She needs that kind of protection. So this amendment is very strong and adds to this very strong initiative.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of Jackson Lee Amendment No. 9 included in the Chairman's En Bloc Amendment to H.R. 842, the ``Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021,'' or ``PRO Act,'' which protects the basic right to join a union by (1) empowering workers to exercise their right to organize; (2) holding employers accountable for violating workers' rights; and (3) securing free, fair, and safe union elections.

The LMRDA of 1959 protects union members through a ``bill of rights'' for union members, requires extensive reporting of union finances, and mandates transparency of arrangements between employers and anti-labor consultants.

I am pleased that the PRO Act includes reforms to the LMRDA that clarify that employers must disclose arrangements with consultants on indirectly persuading employees on how to exercise their labor rights.

Examples of indirect persuasion include planning employee meetings, training employer representatives, and identifying employees for disciplinary action or targeting.

The Jackson Lee Amendment No. 9 makes a simple common-sense improvement to the bill.

The identical version of this amendment was made in order by the Rules Committee in the 116th Congress and adopted by the House on February 6, 2020, by a roll call vote of 404-18.

Specifically, the amendment explicitly extends whistleblower protections to employees of both employers and unions under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act.

This is a fair and balanced amendment.

Supreme Court decisions like Janus v. AFSCME, 585 U.S.__138 S. Ct. 2448, 201 L. Ed. 2d 924 (2018), and many others, have severely weakened the ability for unions to be able to organize and bargain collectively, or to discharge an essential mediating function upon which a vibrant democracy depends.

The PRO Act protects the workers who are trying to organize.

But the Jackson Lee Amendment No. 9 extends whistleblower protections to all employees, of employers or of unions, to encourage and empower them to come forward and make known something wrong or unlawful that they have learned or observed.

Let me give you an example.

Last year, I met Kimberly Lawson, who is part of the Fight for $15.

She also came to see me to advise me of the problems she has had with sexual harassment on her job in the fast-food industry.

She told me, on the record, that if we could pass the PRO Act, she would not be alone trying to raise our hourly wage or face sexual harassment without a union to help her.

Madam Speaker, this whistleblower protection is important because it gives workers like Ms. Lawson the ability to be able to report what is happening to them without losing or jeopardizing their jobs and the ability, like Ms. Lawson, to support her children on the income of a single mother.

Our economy needs a strong middle class, and unions are essential to rebuilding America's middle class and improving the lives of workers and their families.

When workers have the power to stand together and form a union, they have higher wages, better benefits, and safer working conditions.

Protecting workers' rights to organize will help rebuild the middle class and improve the quality of life for workers and their families.

Unions are essential to rebuilding America's middle class and improving the lives of workers and their families because they deliver higher wages, better benefits, and safer working conditions.

Unions deliver bigger paychecks for both union and nonunion workers.

Over the last eight decades, unions have consistently provided workers with a 10- to 20-percent higher wage.

The benefits of union membership are so strong that even the children of union workers enjoy greater economic mobility.

When union density is high, even nonunion workers receive higher wages.

Unions provide workers with a voice on the job to bargain for better wages and safer working conditions.

While the entire economy has suffered from massive job loss during the pandemic, union workers suffered fewer job losses because they were able to bargain with employers on how to respond to the pandemic.

Unions deliver greater access to affordable health care and a more secure retirement.

Private sector workers covered by a union contract are 27 percent more likely to be offered health insurance through their employer.

More than 9 in 10 unionized private sector workers have access to a retirement plan, compared to just 65 percent of nonunion workers.

Unions narrow both the racial wealth gap and the gender pay gap.

About two-thirds (65 percent) of workers age 18 to 64 who are covered by a union contract are women and/or people of color.

Union members of color have almost five times the median wealth of their nonunion counterparts.

Unions are one of the most effective solutions for closing the gender pay gap.

I urge all members to join me in supporting Jackson Lee Amendment No. 9 by voting for the En Bloc Amendment to H.R. 842, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, or PRO Act, of 2021.

I want to remind us that, in the early 1900s, women worked in factories where they died. They simply died because there were no provisions, no protections; and they died with drastic fires and other devastating actions.

Madam Speaker, I ask support of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter of support for the Jackson Lee amendment from the Government Accountability Project. It reads that they think that this is an especially important initiative to be added. I ask that in support.

Government Accountability Project,

Washington, DC, March 8, 2021.

Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee,

Member of Congress, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Lee: Thank you for your leadership

through legislation to add whistleblower protection rights to

the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.

That law strives for union accountability to its members and

in management relations. Your bill reflects best practice

rights that Congress has passed 16 times since 2005 in laws

throughout the private sector. However, the reality is that

not only employers abuse power and undermine worker rights.

This legislation protects those who seek accountability

within and by organizations whose mission is to protect

employees.

As summarized below, your legislation would honor best

practices by--

prohibiting retaliation against applicants, employees or

former employees who are perceived as disclosing or assisting

to disclose violations of the Act's provisions;

protecting both front line and management employees from

retaliation;

extending identical protection to those who refuse to obey

orders to violate the law;

providing an administrative remedy at the U.S. Department

of Labor, with the right to a jury trial in federal court if

there is not a timely decision;

governing enforcement with realistic Whistleblower

Protection Act legal burdens of proof; and

so employees do not lose by winning, providing ``make

whole'' remedies for those who prevail, including cancelation

of all career damage, compensatory damages and costs

including attorney fees.

Unless there are loopholes in the political mandate for

accountability, this legislation should not be controversial.

It merely applies almost identical legal rights in the labor-

management context that Congress has enacted since 2005 for

financial, food safety, consumer protection, energy, medical

insurance and transportation whistleblowers. Thank you for

your leadership. Please consider Government Accountability

Project on call for further assistance.

Sincerely,

Tom Devine,

Legal Director.

Madam Speaker, I ask support of the Jackson Lee amendment in the en bloc amendment No. 1.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 842, the ``Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021, or ``PRO Act,'' which protects the basic right to join a union by (1) empowering workers to exercise their right to organize; (2) holding employers accountable for violating workers' rights; and (3) securing free, fair, and safe union elections.

Our economy needs a strong middle class, and unions are essential to rebuilding America's middle class and improving the lives of workers and their families.

The erosion of America's middle-class is a direct result of decades- long assault on workers' rights, funded by wealthy special interests.

When workers have the power to stand together and form a union, they have higher wages, better benefits, and safer working conditions.

Workers seeking to organize a union frequently face a surge of intimidation and retaliation from wealthy special interests.

After decades of anti-worker attacks, union membership is at historic lows and inequality is at historic highs.

It is imperative that we begin to recognize that the American people support unions--over 64 percent of Americans and millennials appreciate the idea of having representation for better quality of life and work.

When workers have the power to stand together and form a union, they have higher wages, better benefits, and safer working conditions.

Protecting workers' rights to organize will help rebuild the middle class and improve the quality of life for workers and their families.

Unions are essential to rebuilding America's middle class and improving the lives of workers and their families because they deliver higher wages, better benefits, and safer working conditions.

Workers with strong unions have been able to set industry standards for wages and benefits that help all workers, both union and nonunion.

Over the last eight decades, unions have consistently provided workers with a 10- to 20-percent higher wage.

The benefits of union membership are so strong that even the children of union workers enjoy greater economic mobility.

Unions provide workers with a voice on the job to bargain for better wages and safer working conditions, and never has it been more important that all workers have a voice in the workplace and access to a union.

While the majority of workers who are currently working onsite at their workplaces believe they face considerable risk of COVID-19 infection, Black and Hispanic workers are more likely to fear risks from work than are White workers.

In fact, Black workers make up one in six of all front-line industry workers, putting them and their family members at greater risk of contracting and spreading COVID-19.

Without unions, many workers are forced to work without personal protective equipment or access to paid leave or premium pay.

When nonunion workers have advocated for health and safety protections or wage increases, they have often been retaliated against or even fired for doing so.

Workers' lives and the health and safety of working families depends on their ability to have a say in how they do their jobs.

While the entire economy has suffered from massive job loss during the pandemic, union workers suffered fewer job losses because they were able to bargain with employers on how to respond to the pandemic.

Unions deliver greater access to affordable health care and a more secure retirement.

Private sector workers covered by a union contract are 27 percent more likely to be offered health insurance through their employer.

More than 9 in 10 unionized private sector workers have access to a retirement plan, compared to just 65 percent of nonunion workers

Unions narrow both the racial wealth gap and the gender pay gap.

The right to a union and collective bargaining is also directly relevant to our urgent national conversation around racial inequality in its various forms, including economic disparities by race.

Unions and collective bargaining help shrink the Black-White wage gap, and this means that the decline of unionization has played a significant role in the expansion of the Black-White wage gap over the last four decades, and that an increase in unionization could help reverse those trends.

About two-thirds (65 percent) of workers age 18 to 64 who are covered by a union contract are women and/or people of color.

Union members of color have almost five times the median wealth of their nonunion counterparts.

Unions are one of the most effective solutions for closing the gender pay gap.

Madam Speaker, here are 36 reasons why Americans should be thankful for unions and remain committed to ensuring there will always be a strong organized labor movement in the United States:

1. Weekends

2. All breaks at work, including your lunch breaks

3. Paid vacation

4. FMLA (Family and Medical Leave Act)

5. Sick leave

6. Social security

7. Minimum wage

8. Civil Rights Act Title VII (prohibits Employer Discrimination)

9. 8-Hour workday

10. Overtime pay

11. Child labor laws

12. Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA)

13. 40 Hour Work Week

14. Worker's Compensation (Worker's Camp)

15. Unemployment Insurance

16. Pensions

17. Workplace Safety Standards and Regulations

18. Employer Health Care Insurance

19. Collective Bargaining Rights for Employees

20. Wrongful Termination Laws

21. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967

22. Whistleblower Protection Laws

23. Employee Polygraph Protect Act (Prohibits Employer from using a lie detector test on an employee)

24. Veteran's Employment and Training Services (VETS)

25. Compensation increases and Evaluations (Raises)

26. Sexual Harassment laws

27. Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)

28. Holiday Pay

29. Employer Dental, Life, and Vision Insurance

30. Privacy Rights

31. Pregnancy and Parental Leave

32. Military Leave

33. The Right to Strike

34. Public Education for Children

35. Equal Pay Acts of 1963 & 2011 (Requires employers pay men and women equally for the same amount of work)

36. Laws Ending Sweatshops in the United States

I urge all members to join me in supporting H.R. 842, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, or PRO Act, of 2021.

Mr. Speaker, over 500,000 dead; 44,000 or more dead in the State of Texas.

The State of Texas, throughout the entire pandemic, remained one of the top hot spots of the Nation. They started testing late. We started vaccines and still have not reached a certain percentage, but yet, tomorrow, on March 10, 2021, our Governor has announced that there will be no mask mandate, and there will be no restrictions on any form of entertainment, restaurants, any large gatherings.

Tomorrow, March 10, the people of Texas get a death notice. I am asking my friends in Texas to wear your masks, socially distance, wash your

hands. We are vaccinating as fast as we can, but I am letting you know that Texas has all five of the variants of COVID-19. They have long- haulers in Texas, people who have continued to have COVID-19.

To save lives, I am asking my fellow Texans--as I know President Bush always used to call us, his ``fellow Texans''--to wear your masks, wash your hands, socially distance to save lives.

Let's ignore wrong-headed advice and do what is right to save lives.

Mr. Speaker, today is International Women's Day, and the theme is #ChooseToChallenge--choose to challenge gender bias and discrimination, choose to challenge poor pay, and choose to challenge desperate conditions that women are in to be opposed to. So we ask that in this day that women will realize that they are ready and able to challenge what is wrong.

This is International Women's Day, and I know that the American Rescue Plan Act will take women out of the quagmire of COVID-19 and economic depression.

As well, we look forward this evening to introducing the Violence Against Women Act of which I am the lead sponsor with over 150 cosponsors, so women again can have the protection that is needed by law. International Women's Day, yes, we should choose to challenge.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor that I will be introducing members of the Congressional Black Caucus for this Special Order, including the distinguished chair, who has led us to understand our power-hour message. I thank the distinguished CBC chair, Congresswoman Joyce Beatty.

As we begin to do a Special Order on Bloody Sunday and a tribute to the honorable late John Robert Lewis, who was and continues to be the conscience of the Congress, it is my privilege to yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty), the chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio for setting just the right tone of why members of the Congressional Black Caucus are on the floor today.

Let me acknowledge the gentleman from New York, who is now Speaker pro tempore, who is my co-anchor. How appropriate for him to be presiding over this Special Order dealing with the deeply embedded segregationist, violent period when we were fighting for voting rights.

Isn't it interesting that we are now in the midst of fighting for the passage of H.R. 1, but we are in the midst of a battle to ensure the passage of H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act?

Let me just briefly set the tone, as my members continue to do, and to tell the story. Maybe many of us may not know the significance. I realize that there has been some discussion on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, which I have crossed now for almost 30 years during Bloody Sunday, which was, in fact, yesterday, March 7.

It was named after Edmund Pettus. Isn't it interesting that it was named more than three decades after his death? They wanted to honor a symbol of the Confederacy. They wanted to honor someone who was soaked in the blood and the anguish of slavery.

This river, the Alabama River, was a key route for the slave plantation and cotton economy during slavery. That is what the Edmund Pettus Bridge was, a key route for the cotton economy during slavery and Reconstruction. The route for the slave plantation and cotton economy crossed this bridge during our darkest hour.

That is who the bridge is named after, and this is the bridge that the foot soldiers Martin King, Hosea Williams, Andy Young, John Robert Lewis, Albert Turner, and many others crossed.

This 56th commemoration is extremely important today, and it is to recognize that the fight and struggle still goes. It is to recognize that this was not, in fact, a simple process. This was not a circumstance where this was an easy task. This was a dark moment.

It was based on the courage of those who were willing to lose their life. It was based on the courage of these men and women and little children as young as 8 years old. It was based on the death of Jimmie Lee Jackson, in 1964, who had gone to one of the meetings and was actually shot by a law enforcement officer.

Tonight, this is a serious moment in history. This is a moment in history that the Congressional Black Caucus is more than able to present to the American people. Listen to us over these 60 minutes as we tell the story of how imperative it is to ensure that the Voter Advancement Act named after John Robert Lewis is actually passed.

Let me just give you the words of John Robert Lewis as we also pay tribute to him. John Lewis said recently: ``My philosophy is very simple. When you see something that is not right, not fair, not just, say something, do something. Get in trouble, good trouble.''

Recently, of course, preceding his death, this is something we are always reminded of. We can see John Lewis, who gave all that he could so that we, in America, African Americans, Black Americans, and all people, could have the precious right to vote.

Tonight, you will hear these stories in tribute to him, in tribute to all those whose lives were lost in that battle, that their memory never be forgotten, their fight never be forgotten. The Congressional Black Caucus makes them a promise that it will not.

Mr. Speaker, fifty-six years ago, in Selma, Alabama, hundreds of heroic souls risked their lives for freedom and to secure the right to vote for all Americans by their participation in marches for voting rights on ``Bloody Sunday,'' ``Turnaround Tuesday,'' or the final, completed march from Selma to Montgomery.

Those ``foot soldiers'' of Selma, who were led by our beloved colleague, the late Congressman John Lewis of Georgia, were brave and determined men and women, boys and girls, persons of all races and creeds, who loved their country so much that they were willing to risk their lives to make it better, and to bring it even closer to its founding ideals.

The foot soldiers marched because they believed that all persons have dignity and the right to equal treatment under the law, and in the making of the laws, which is the fundamental essence of the right to vote.

On March 15, 1965, before a joint session of the Congress and the eyes of the nation, President Lyndon Johnson explained to the nation the significance of ``Bloody Sunday'':

I speak tonight for the dignity of man and the destiny of

democracy. . . .

At times history and fate meet at a single time in a single

place to shape a turning point in man's unending search for

freedom.

So it was at Lexington and Concord.

So it was a century ago at Appomattox.

So it was last week in Selma, Alabama.

The previous Sunday, March 7, 1965, more than 600 civil rights demonstrators, including our beloved colleague, Congressman John Lewis of Georgia whose skull was battered by police batons, were brutally attacked by state and local police at the Edmund Pettus Bridge as they marched from Selma to Montgomery in support of the right to vote.

``Bloody Sunday'' was a defining moment in American history because it crystallized for the nation the necessity of enacting a strong and effective federal law to protect the right to vote of every American.

No one who witnessed the violence and brutality suffered by the foot soldiers for justice who gathered at the Edmund Pettus Bridge will ever forget it; the images are deeply seared in the American memory and experience.

Mr. Speaker, what is so moving, heroic, and awe-inspiring is that the foot soldiers of Selma faced their heavily armed adversaries fortified only by their love for their country and for each other and their audacious faith in a righteous cause.

The example set by the foot soldiers of Selma showed everyone, here in America and around the world, that there is no force on earth as powerful as an idea whose time has come.

These great but nameless persons won the Battle of Selma and helped redeem the greatest nation on earth.

But we should not forget that the victory came at great cost and that many good and dear persons lost their lives to win for others the right to vote.

Men like Jimmy Lee Jackson, who was shot by Alabama state trooper as he tried to protect his mother and grandmother from being beaten for participating in a peaceful voting rights march in Marion, Alabama.

Women like Viola Liuzzo, a housewife and mother of five, who had journeyed to Selma from Detroit to join the protests after witnessing on television the events at Edmund Pettus Bridge on ``Bloody Sunday'' and who was shot and killed by Klansmen while driving back from a trip shuttling fellow voting rights marchers to the Montgomery airport.

Persons of faith, goodwill, and non-violence like the Reverend James Reeb of Boston, a minister from Boston who heeded the call of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to come

to Selma and who succumbed to the head injuries he suffered at the hands of his white supremacists attackers on March 9, two days after ``Bloody Sunday.''

Mr. Speaker, in the face of unspeakable hostility, violence, brutality, and hatred, the foot soldiers of Selma would not be deterred--would not be moved--would not be turned around.

They kept their eyes on the prize and held on.

And help came the very next week when President Johnson announced to the Nation that he would send to Congress for immediate action a law designed to eliminate illegal barriers to the right to vote by striking down ``restrictions to voting in all elections--Federal, State, and local--which have been used to deny Negroes the right to vote.''

On August 6, 1965, that legislation--the Voting Rights Act of 1965-- was signed into law by President Johnson and for the next 48 years did more to expand our democracy and empower racial and language minorities than any act of government since the Emancipation Proclamation and adoption of the Civil War Amendments.

But our work is not done; the dreams of Dr. King and of all those who gave their lives in the struggle for justice are not behind us but still before us.

Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2013 ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, which severely crippled the Voting Rights Act, we have seen many states across our nation move to enact legislation designed to limit the ability of women, the elderly, and racial and language minorities to exercise their right to vote.

To honor the memory of the foot soldiers of Selma, we must rededicate ourselves to a great task remaining before us--to repair the damage done to the Voting Rights Act by working to pass legislation like H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019, introduced in the 116th Congress, which I was proud to be one of the original co-sponsors.

As I have stated many times, the 1965 Voting Rights Act is no ordinary piece of legislation.

For millions of Americans, and for many in Congress, it is sacred treasure, earned by the sweat and toil and tears and blood of ordinary Americans who showed the world it was possible to accomplish extraordinary things.

As we remember and honor the foot soldiers of Selma, let us resolve also to restore the Voting Rights Act of 1965 so that the Voting Rights Act remains a lasting monument to their heroism and devotion to the country they loved.

Our leader on this, who has taken up the mantle, who has worked with John Robert Lewis, is, how should I say, a sister of the South, of Alabama, a scholar and a lawyer, but with a passion and a heart for voting rights, for justice. And, yes, as we both have said, our beloved brother, John Robert Lewis, has a special place in our hearts. I know that he has a special place in mine, and he has a special place in the heart of the distinguished gentlewoman from Alabama, Terri Sewell.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her powerful message on good trouble and doing the right thing. I can hear John Lewis right now.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Johnson), the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for that question of how long. Now it is my privilege to yield to a distinguished leader of the House, the co-chair of the Steering and Policy Committee, a senior member on Appropriations, the Honorable Barbara Lee.

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining, please?

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Detroit, the co-chair of the Women's Caucus, and an officer with the Congressional Black Caucus. That is the Honorable Brenda Lawrence.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her remarks. She reminded us that his sacrifice was not a simple one. He shed blood. John Robert Lewis shed blood because of his beliefs and his commitment.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to be able to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman, the chair and founder of the Historically Black College Caucus, a longtime academician and professor at a historically Black college, and that is the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Alma Adams.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Adams for saying what our power is all about.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford), the first vice chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and a leader in the fight for labor rights that brought him to the United States Congress.

Congressman Horsford is the distinguished gentleman from Nevada, and I hope I have gotten that right because I have been there many times, and I know that I have to get it right.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman. We will carry on the fight. Thank you for challenging us tonight. I think that everyone knows that we will not rest until the Voter Rights Act, H.R. 4, the John Robert Lewis bill is passed.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Evans), who stood at this podium some years ago as the leader of the Special Order. And I am delighted to seek to grow as tall as he is in this job, because he is now a leading member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who has provided our road map that we are going to use to take this long journey, and we are not going to stop until we finish the job.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath). This distinguished Congresswoman has a voice of passion for an issue that John Lewis had a voice of passion for, and I believe that it clearly was before she came, if I am not mistaken, that John Lewis led a floor boycott so that gun legislation could be passed.

You see, he is and was the conscience of the Congress. I think he must have known that Congresswoman McBath was coming to Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for reminding us of how broad Congressman Lewis' civil rights fight was. And he was the conscience to change all that was bad to make it good.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege now to yield to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Jones), who has come with a storied history on fighting for those who cannot fight for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much. Concise but powerful. We know what our guidepost is.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think that the history of the United States has had a more civil rights activist as Speaker, one who is a fighter for justice. We are delighted to have her joining us this evening. Her voice has been alongside John Robert Lewis.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our distinguished Speaker of the House, joining us on the commemoration of Bloody Sunday.

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

Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary, on Homeland Security, on the Budget, and as a cosponsor, I rise in strong support of H.R. 447, the National Apprenticeship Act of 2021, which invests more than $3.5 billion over 5 years in expanding opportunities and access to Registered Apprenticeships, youth apprenticeships, and pre-apprenticeships.

I thank Congressman Scott, the Chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, for reintroducing this legislation which passed by a substantial margin in the 116th Congress as H.R. 8294.

This important legislation has the potential to yield $10.6 billion in net benefits to U.S. taxpayers in the form of increased workers productivity and decreased spending on public-assistance programs and unemployment insurance and which bring America's investments in apprenticeship more in line with countries around the world.

Madam Speaker, the Registered Apprenticeship (RAs) system is America's most successful federally authorized workforce development program.

According to the Department of Labor, 94 percent of people who complete RAs are employed upon completion, earning an average starting wage of above $70,000 annually.

Yet, according to the most recent data, only 0.3 percent of the overall workforce in America have completed an apprenticeship.

Madam Speaker, this legislation could not be more timely because during a time of record unemployment, the National Apprenticeship Act of 2021 invests more than $3.5 billion over 5 years in expanding opportunities and access to Registered Apprenticeships, youth apprenticeships, and pre-apprenticeships.

The legislation also creates an additional 1 million new apprenticeship opportunities on top of the current expected growth of the apprenticeship system, an investment that not only will pay off for workers and employers, but also benefit the taxpayers.

Madam Speaker, this legislation is critical to expanding the nation's workforce development system during our country's deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression.

Specifically, the National Apprenticeship Act of 2021 authorizes $400 million for fiscal year (FY) 2022, increasing by $100 million annually to $800 million for FY 2026, to support the creation or expansion of registered apprenticeships, youth apprenticeships and pre- apprenticeship programs, including in non-traditional apprenticeship occupations and for nontraditional populations.

This funding will also attract and encourage employer participation and recruitment for individuals with barriers to employment, including individuals impacted by the criminal justice system.

Additionally, to ensure that apprenticeship agreements and program registration to ensure consistency in quality standards and worker protections, H.R. 447 codifies and streamlines standards for registered apprenticeships, youth apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship programs.

Also codified are the existing regulations and practices to ensure that all individuals have an equal opportunity to participate in programs under the national apprenticeship system, and to increase diversity in the occupations offered and the individuals participating in programs, especially in high-skill, high-wage, and in-demand industry sectors and occupations.

The legislation institutionalizes, and establishes by statute, the Department of Labor's (DOL) Office of Apprenticeship, and vests it with the following roles and responsibilities:

Increasing participation in programs under the national apprenticeship system through technical assistance and program recognition activities;

Bringing together industry sector leaders and experts, including employers, industry associations, joint labor-management organizations, labor organizations, education and training providers, credential providers, and apprentices to establish national frameworks to expand apprenticeships to new occupations and sectors; and

Improving data infrastructure to improve reporting and publicly disseminating information about apprenticeship programs.

Another strong feature of this legislation is that it codifies the roles and responsibilities of the State Apprenticeship Agencies (SAAs) by:

Authorizing annual funding for State Apprenticeship Offices and SAAs at $75 million for fiscal year (FY) 2022, increasing by $10 million annually to reach $115 million for FY 2026, with one-third of funds equally distributed to all States and outlying areas, and two-thirds of funds distributed via formula to SAAs; and

Requiring SAAs to submit plans for registered apprenticeship activities, which generally mirror existing state requirements under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act and the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act.

My concluding reason for supporting this important legislation is that it strengthens the connections between the Department of Education and Department of Labor through an interagency agreement to support the creation and expansion of youth apprenticeships, college consortiums, and data sharing agreements.

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

Apprenticeship Success Stories

Apprenticeship Program

The Houston Community College (HCC) Apprenticeship Program

is a partnership between HCC and 11 U.S. Department of Labor

approved Apprenticeship programs in Houston. The program

provides a 3-5 year job training system for skilled trade and

craft workers.

Employers, employer associations, and joint-labor

management organizations known collectively as apprenticeship

sponsors provide apprentices with on-the-job instruction that

reflects industry needs, while HCC provides the classroom-

related instruction. HCC apprentices can study in eight

different disciplines including: carpenters, electricians,

millwrights, pipe-fitters, welders, masons, stationary

engineers, and glaziers.

In 2013, HCC launched a 35-million renovation project of

the San Jacinto building on its Central campus with HCC

apprentices contributing to the massive renovation and

restoration project.

Ten HCC plumber and pipefitter apprentices helped upgrade

the building's pool, basketball gymnasium, laid pipes and

redesigned Memorial Green.

HCC apprenticeship program prides itself on the rapid

development and professionalism of its students. Thus far,

HCC apprentices can boast a zero OSHA injuries and a 24%

increase in productivity and 43% decrease in job turnover.

``The quality of the work on this project will provide

lower maintenance and operating cost for Houston Community

College and is referred to as Life Cycle Engineering Cost.

This project provides a win-win opportunity for Houston

Community College and their students,'' said Apprenticeship

Director, Doug Posey.

When the San Jacinto project is complete, it will become an

academic center for Central College. The project is scheduled

to be completed by the end of 2013.

John Soileau's Story

John Soileau knows his way around a plumbing system. He's

spent the last 5-years learning to install and repair

commercial and residential plumbing systems, as well as

designing new systems, laying or fitting pipes and repairing

and maintaining appliances in Houston Community College's

(HCC) apprenticeship program.

``I've learned so much over the five year period. From math

basic, AutoCAD, shop classes to welding and learning how to

pipe a dollhouse,'' said Soileau.

Unlike many college students, Soileau got paid to go to

school. The 3-5 year apprenticeship program mixes paid on-

the-job training with classroom instruction allowing the

student to earn as they learn.

``This program gave me the opportunity to make a living and

eliminate any doubts I had about how I was going to pay my

tuition. It was a win/win situation for me.''

As Soileau nears the end of the apprenticeship program, he

is looking forward to starting his career as a Master Plumber

and with a five-year work history; he says he is confident

about his training and his future.

HCC apprentice students help build new hospital

Eleven Houston Community College (HCC) and Independent

Electrical Contractors (IEC) apprentice students broke ground

on the Jeanie Sealy Hospital construction project in

Galveston, Texas in September 2012. In collaboration with

numerous contracted workers, HCC students are proving on a

daily basis that their apprentice training is valuable to the

project.

``The project is an example of the quality of electricians

being trained at their apprentice school. The old time skills

of electrical workers simply are no longer sufficient to meet

the demands of modern day technology in accomplishing the

work,'' said Eddie Rodriquez, Director of IEC Apprentice

School.

The total project was design by computer aided drafting or

AutoCAD with prefabrication of all conduits including the

smaller \3/4\'' size conduit at their fabrication shop and

shipped to the job site for installation. The complexity of

this project has construction veterans in awe of the

students' knowledge and success.

``I was totally impressed with the complexity and quality

of the conduit installation in such a complex and compact

facility as a modern hospital requires,'' said Doug Posey,

HCC Director of Apprenticeship Programs.

Apprentice workers training has been recognized in

providing increased productivity by 24%, worker turnover down

by 43%, job site absenteeism down by 59%, Occupational Safety

& Health Administration (OSHA) recordable injuries down by

67%, and first aid cases down by 90%.

``IEC continues to modernize their training methods and the

technology needed to satisfy the contractor's needs to stay

productive and competitive in today's market place,'' said

Rodriquez.

The Jeanie Sealy Hospital project contract is valued at

$27.4 million. The project is scheduled to conclude August

2015.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for her leadership and for adding to this legislation--my legislation--the For the People Act, adding the Coretta Scott King Mid- Decade Redistricting Prohibition Act that I wrote as long ago as 2006.

Madam Speaker, section 2402 prohibits a State that has been redistricted in accordance with this legislation from doing it in the mid-decennial, waiting till the next time, the decennial apportionment; so no mid-decade kind of redistricting that has been so unhelpful to all of us.

Madam Speaker, I rise, as well, to support the Swalwell amendments regarding the college student voting, as well as prohibiting false voting polling places and adding colleges and universities' responsibility to give civic information to our students.

I also support the privacy information required by the Speier amendment to ensure that there is no domestic violence and dating violence because your voting information gets out.

And I also support the Waters amendment that prohibits misinformation, which threatens potential voters with civil or legal penalties if they exercise their right to vote. I can assure you, this happens in the minority community.

And I do support the 16-years-of-age amendment, because if you can be on the front lines of civil rights and protest for justice and democracy, you have the right to vote.

Madam Speaker, let's educate our young people so they can vote. I am very happy to support the en bloc.

Madam Speaker, as an original cosponsor, I rise today in support of H.R. 1, the ``For the People Act of 2021,'' which expands access to the ballot box, reduces the influence of big money in politics, and strengthens ethics rules for public servants.

Specifically, the For the People Act will:

Make it easier, not harder, to vote by implementing automatic voter registration, requiring early voting and vote by mail, committing Congress to reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act and ensuring the integrity of our elections by modernizing and strengthening our voting systems and ending partisan redistricting.

Reform the campaign finance system by requiring all political organizations to disclose large donors, updating political advertisement laws for the digital age, establishing a public matching system for citizen-owned elections, and revamping the Federal Election Commission to ensure there's a cop on the campaign finance beat.

Strengthen ethics laws to ensure that public officials work in the public interest by extending conflict of interest laws to the President and Vice President; requiring the release of their tax returns; closing loopholes that allow former members of Congress to avoid cooling-off periods for lobbying; closing the revolving door between industry and the federal government; and establishing a code of conduct for the Supreme Court.

H.R. 1 expands access to the ballot box by taking aim at institutional barriers to voting.

This bill ensures that individuals who have completed felony sentences have their full rights restored and expands early voting and simplify absentee voting; and modernize the U.S. voting system.

I am particularly proud and appreciative to Chairwoman Lofgren and Congressman Sarbanes that the For The People Act incorporates in Section 2402 of the legislation the Coretta Scott King Mid-Decade Redistricting Prohibition Act that I first offered in 2006 during the Judiciary Committee markup of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 reauthorization and as standalone legislation in the 114th Congress.

This provision, section 2402, prohibits a State that has been redistricted in accordance with this legislation from engaging in redistricting again until after the next decennial apportionment unless required by a court to do so to comply with the Constitution of the United States, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Constitution of the State, or the terms or conditions of this subtitle.

Madam Speaker, this legislation is particularly timely because more than 55 years after the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, we are still discussing voter suppression--something which should be a bygone relic of the past, but yet continues to disenfranchise racial minorities, immigrants, women, and young people.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a watershed moment for the Civil Rights Movement--it liberated communities of color from legal restrictions barring them from exercising the fundamental right to civic engagement and political representation.

But uncaged by Supreme Court's infamous 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), which neutered the preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act, 14 states, including my state of Texas, took extreme measures to enforce new voting restrictions before the 2016 presidential election.

If is not a coincidence that many of these same states have experienced increasing numbers of black and Hispanic voters in recent elections.

If not for invidious, state-sponsored voter suppression policies like discriminatory voter ID laws, reduced early voting periods, and voter intimidation tactics that directly or indirectly target racial minorities, the 2016 presidential election might have had a drastically different outcome.

Madam Speaker, let me list some of the salutary features of the legislation that will make it easier for Americans to exercise their right to vote, the most precious right of all because as President Johnson said in securing passage of the Voting Rights Act, the right to vote ``is preservative of all other rights.''

H.R. 1 modernizes the voter registration system by requiring each state to make available online voter registration, correction, cancellation, and designation of party affiliation.

In addition, H.R. 1:

Requires states to permit voters to register on the day of a federal election, including during early voting.

Limits the authority of states to remove registrants from the official list of eligible voters in elections for federal office in the state based on interstate voter registration crosschecks .

Requires states to provide annual reports on voter registration statistics to the Election Assistance Commission.

Provides HAVA funds to implement the voter registration modernization reforms .

Makes it unlawful to hinder, interfere or prevent an individual from registering to vote.

Instructs the Election Assistance Commission to develop best practices for states to deter and prevent such violations.

H.R. 1 explicitly prohibits `voter caging', the pernicious practice of using returned non-forwardable mail as the basis for removing registered voters from the rolls, and it prohibits challenges to eligibility from individuals who are not election officials without an oath of good faith factual basis.

Importantly, the legislation prohibits providing false information about elections to hinder or discourage voting and increases penalties for voter intimidation.

I support the declaration in the legislation of the right of citizens to vote in federal elections will not be denied because of a criminal conviction unless a citizen is serving a felony sentence in a correctional facility and it requires states and the federal government to notify individuals convicted of a state or federal felony, respectively, of their reenfranchisement

H.R. 1 promotes election accuracy, integrity, and security by requiring states to use individual, durable, voter-verified paper ballots and that said ballots be counted by hand or an optical character recognition device and that a voter be given the opportunity to correct his or her ballot should a mistake be made; and it also requires that provisional ballots from eligible voters at incorrect polling places be counted.

The legitimacy and stability of democratic governance is always enhanced by increased voter participation in elections, so I am very pleased that H.R. 1 outlaws many practices resorted to by voting opponents to reduce election participation.

In particular, H.R. 1 requires at least 15 consecutive days of early voting for federal elections and that early voting locations be near public transportation, in rural areas, and open for at least 10 hours per day.

Additionally, the legislation prohibits a state from imposing restrictions on an individual's ability to vote by mail and requires a state to carry out a program to track and confirm the receipt of absentee ballots and to make this information available to the voter who cast the ballot.

Also, the bill requires the prepayment of postage on return envelopes for voting materials, which includes any voter registration form, any application for an absentee ballot, and any blank absentee ballot transmitted by mail.

Madam Speaker, another important feature of H.R. 1 is that it promotes voter access by mandating several improvements to election administration, including:

Treating universities as voter registration agencies;

Requiring states to notify an individual, not later than 7 seven days before election, if the individual's polling place has changed;

Requiring states to allow voters to sign sworn affidavits to vote in lieu of presenting photo ID;

Providing accommodations for voters residing in Indian lands;

Ensuring equitable and efficient operation of polling places, reducing long lines and wait times for voters;

Requiring states to provide secured drop boxes for voted absentee ballots in elections for federal office;

Prohibiting states from restricting curbside voting;

Imposing requirements for federal election contingency plans in response to natural disasters and emergencies; and

Clarifying that failure to vote is not grounds for removing registered voters from the rolls.

Of course, nothing in this legislation prohibits or restricts the authority of states to provide greater opportunities for voting, and the bill makes that explicitly clear.

This litany of good measures demonstrates all the many ways and means through which H.R. 1 expands voter participation and election integrity, and our experience of the previous four years counsels the urgency of adopting them.

I am much less confident of the ability of one component of the bill--the title mandating creation of ``Independent Redistricting Commissions''--to strengthen our democracy; in fact I believe that title of the legislation should be stricken because of its potential to negatively effective marginalized communities and minority groups.

I am not contending that independent redistricting commissions are an unconstitutional usurpation of authority belonging exclusively to state legislatures; that argument was presented and rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona. Independent Redistricting Commission, 576 U.S. 787 (2015).

Instead, the nation's experience with independent redistricting commissions is still in its early stages, and I believe that instead of mandating a one-size fits all approach, Congress should allow further experimentation to occur in the states, the ``laboratories of democracy,'' as they were described by Justice Brandeis in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262 (1932).

In addition, it appears to me that the selection process laid out in the bill for choosing members of the independent redistricting commissions is too random and will not result in a commission comprised of members reflective of the communities directly affected by the work of the commission, particularly members of racial and language minorities.

Madam Speaker, the issue of redistricting and how to do it fairly is a never-ending one, and, as most political scientists agree, it is virtually impossible to draw most congressional and legislative districts in ways that are competitive; redistricting exacerbates geographical polarization, but it does not create it.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 1 must be passed because many of the civil rights that I fought for as a student and young lawyer have been undermined or been rolled back by reactionary forces in recent years.

To add insult to injury, the immediately preceding Administration issued an Executive Order establishing a so-called ``Election Integrity'' Commission to investigate not voter suppression, but so- called ``voter fraud'' in the 2016 election.

The 45th President and his followers were unceasing in their efforts to perpetuate the myth of voter fraud, but it remains just that: a myth.

Between 2000 and 2014, there were 35 credible allegations of voter fraud out of more than 834 million ballots cast--that is less than 1 in 28 million votes.

An extensive study by social scientists at Dartmouth College uncovered no evidence to support Trump's hysterical and outrageous allegations of widespread voter fraud ``rigging'' the 2016 election.

Just for the record, Madam Speaker, the popular vote of the 2016 presidential election was:

Hillary Clinton: 65,853,5160.

Donald Trump: 62,884,8240.

Trump's deficit of 2.9 million was the largest of any Electoral College winner in history by a massive margin, and despite the allegations of the current Administration, there have been only 4 documented cases of voter fraud in the 2016 election.

The same is true for the 2020 presidential election, which again Donald Trump claimed was fraudulent after losing the popular vote to President Biden by more than 7 million votes, and the Electoral College by 306-232, the exact margin that he claimed constituted a landslide and epic blowout when he won the Electoral College vote in 2016.

Again, and just for the record, Madam Speaker, the popular vote of the 2020 presidential election was:

Joe Biden: 81,281,502.

Donald Trump: 74,222,593.

The Trump Campaign brought more than 63 legal challenges to the 2020 election, claiming the outcomes were tainted by wide-spread and massive fraud but every court, whether state or federal, and nearly 90 judges, including Trump appointees, summarily rejected these baseless claims for failure of proof.

Of course, this did not deter the reckless 45th President who then went on to threaten and coerce state election officials to corruptly change vote counts and after that ploy failed, incited his loyalists to storm the U.S. Capitol and use force and violence if necessary to prevent the Congress from conducting the constitutionally required Joint Meeting to count the electoral votes cast and announce the winner of the presidential election.

Madam Speaker, the Trump Voter Fraud Commission, like many of Trump's business schemes, was a massive scam built on countless lies that did not hold up to any level of scrutiny.

As Members of Congress, we should be devoting our time, energy, and resources addressing Russian infiltration of our election infrastructure and campaigns, along with other pressing issues.

Instead of enjoying and strengthening the protections guaranteed in the Voting Rights Act--people of color, women, LGBTQ individuals, and immigrants--have been given the joyless, exhausting task of fending off the constant barrage of attacks leveled at our communities by Trump and other conspiracy theorists.

Not only are we tasked with reversing the current dismal state of voter suppression against minorities; we are forced to refute the blatant, propagandist lie of voter fraud.

To this end, I have been persistent in my efforts to protect the rights of disenfranchised communities in my district of inner-city Houston and across the nation.

Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have cosponsored dozens of bills, amendments, and resolutions seeking to improve voters' rights at all stages and levels of the election process.

This includes legislation aimed at:

Increasing voter outreach and turnout;

Ensuring both early and same-day registration;

Standardizing physical and language accessibility at polling places;

Expanding early voting periods;

Decreasing voter wait times;

Guaranteeing absentee ballots, especially for displaced citizens;

Modernizing voting technologies and strengthening our voter record systems;

Establishing the federal Election Day as a national holiday; and

Condemning and criminalizing deceptive practices, voter intimidation, and other suppression tactics.

Along with many of my CBC colleagues, I was an original cosponsor of H.R. 9, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act, which became public law on July 27, 2006.

I also authored H.R. 745 in the 110th Congress, which added the legendary Barbara Jordan to the list of civil rights trailblazers whose memories are honored in the naming of the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act.

This bill strengthened the original Voting Rights Act by replacing federal voting examiners with federal voting observers--a significant enhancement that made it easier to safeguard against racially biased voter suppression tactics.

As noted earlier, in the 114th Congress, I introduced H.R. 75, the Coretta Scott King Mid-Decade Redistricting Prohibition Act of 2015, which prohibits states whose congressional districts have been redistricted after a decennial census from redrawing their district lines until the next census.

Prejudiced redistricting, or gerrymandering as it is more commonly known, has been used for decades to weaken the voting power of African Americans, Latino Americans, and other minorities since the Civil Rights Era.

Immediately after the Shelby County v. Holder ruling, which lifted preclearance requirements for states with histories of discrimination seeking to change their voting laws or practices, redistricting became a favorite tool for Republicans who connived to unfairly gain 3 congressional seats in Texas.

In the 110th Congress, I was the original sponsor of H.R. 6778, the Ex Offenders Voting Rights Act of 2008, which prohibited denial of the right to vote in a federal election on the basts of an individual's status as a formerly incarcerated person.

The Ex-Offenders Voting Rights Act sought to reverse discriminatory voter restrictions that disproportionately affect the African American voting population, which continues to be targeted by mass incarceration, police profiling, and a biased criminal justice system.

Those of us who cherish the right to vote justifiably are skeptical of Voter ID laws because we understand how these laws, like poll taxes and literacy tests, can be used to impede or negate the ability of seniors, racial and language minorities, and young people to cast their votes.

Voter ID laws are just one of the means that can be used to abridge or suppress the right to vote but there are others, including:

Curtailing or Eliminating Early Voting;

Ending Same-Day Registration;

Not counting povisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct on Election Day;

Eliminating Teenage Pre-Registration;

Shortened Poll Hours;

Lessening the standards governing voter challenges used by vigilantes, like the King Street Patriots in my city of Houston, to cause trouble at the polls;

``Voter Caging,'' to suppress the turnout of minority voters by sending non-forwardable mail to targeted populations and, once the mail is returned, using the returned mail to compile lists of voters whose eligibility is then challenged on the basis of residence under state law; and

Employing targeted redistricting techniques to dilute minority voting strength, notably ``Cracking'' (i.e., fragmenting and dispersing concentrations of minority populations); ``Stacking'' ( combining concentrations of minority voters with greater concentrations of white populations); and ``Packing'' (i.e., overconcentrating minority voters in as few districts as possible).

Madam Speaker, we must not allow our democracy to slide back into the worst elements of this country's past, to stand idly by as our treasured values of democracy, progress, and equality are poisoned and dismantled.

I urge all members to join me in voting to pass H.R. 1, the ``For The People Act of 2021.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss the rule governing debate of H.R. 1, the ``For the People Act of 2021,'' which expands access to the ballot box, reduces the influence of big money in politics, and strengthens ethics rules for public servants.

H.R. 1 is intended to increase public confidence in our democracy by reducing the role of money in politics, restoring ethical standards and integrity to government, and strengthening laws to protect voting.

I am particularly proud and appreciative to Chairwoman Lofgren and Congressman Sarbanes that the For The People Act incorporates in Section 2402 of the legislation the Coretta Scott King Mid-Decade Redistricting Prohibition Act that I first offered in 2006 during the Judiciary Committee markup of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 reauthorization and as standalone legislation in the 114th Congress.

This provision, section 2402, prohibits a State that has been redistricted in accordance with this legislation from engaging in redistricting again until after the next decennial apportionment unless required by a court to do so to comply with the Constitution of the United States, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Constitution of the State, or the terms or conditions of this subtitle.

Madam Speaker, this legislation is particularly timely because more than 55 years after the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, we are still discussing voter suppression--something which should be a bygone relic of the past, but yet continues to disenfranchise racial minorities, immigrants, women, and young people.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a watershed moment for the Civil Rights Movement--it liberated communities of color from legal restrictions barring them from exercising the fundamental right to civic engagement and political representation.

But uncaged by Supreme Court's infamous 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), which neutered the preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act, 14 states, including my state of Texas, took extreme measures to enforce new voting restrictions before the 2016 presidential election.

It is not a coincidence that many of these same states have experienced increasing numbers of black and Hispanic voters in recent elections.

If not for invidious, state-sponsored voter suppression policies like discriminatory voter ID laws, reduced early voting periods, and voter intimidation tactics that directly or indirectly target racial minorities, the 2016 presidential election might have had a drastically different outcome.

H.R. 1 expands access to the ballot box by taking aim at institutional barriers to voting.

Let me list some of the salutary features of the legislation that will make it easier for Americans to exercise their right to vote, the most precious right of all because as President Johnson said in securing passage of the Voting Rights Act, the right to vote ``is preservative of all other rights.''

H.R. 1 modernizes the voter registration system by requiring each state to make available online voter registration, correction, cancellation, and designation of party affiliation.

In addition, H.R. 1:

Requires states to permit voters to register on the day of a federal election, including during early voting.

Limits the authority of states to remove registrants from the official list of eligible voters in elections for federal office in the state based on interstate voter registration crosschecks.

Requires states to provide annual reports on voter registration statistics to the Election Assistance Commission.

Provides HAVA funds to implement the voter registration modernization reforms.

Makes it unlawful to hinder, interfere or prevent an individual from registering to vote.

Instructs the Election Assistance Commission to develop best practices for states to deter and prevent such violations.

H.R. 1 explicitly prohibits `voter caging', the pernicious practice of using returned non-forwardable mail as the basis for removing registered voters from the rolls and it prohibits challenges to eligibility from individuals who are not election officials without an oath of good faith factual basis.

Importantly, the legislation prohibits providing false information about elections to hinder or discourage voting and increases penalties for voter intimidation.

I support the declaration in the legislation of the right of citizens to vote in federal elections will not be denied because of a criminal conviction unless a citizen is serving a felony sentence in a correctional facility and it requires states and the federal government to notify individuals convicted of a state or federal felony, respectively, of their reenfranchisement.

H.R. 1 promotes election accuracy, integrity, and security by requiring states to use individual, durable, voter-verified paper ballots and that said ballots be counted by hand or an optical character recognition device and that a voter be given the opportunity to correct his or her ballot should a mistake be made; and it also requires that provisional ballots from eligible voters at incorrect polling places be counted.

The legitimacy and stability of democratic governance is always enhanced by increased voter participation in elections, so I am very

pleased that H.R. 1 outlaws many practices resorted to by voting opponents to reduce election participation.

In particular, H.R. 1 requires at least 15 consecutive days of early voting for federal elections and that early voting locations be near public transportation, in rural areas and open for at least 10 hours per day.

Additionally, the legislation prohibits a state from imposing restrictions on an individual's ability to vote by mail and requires a state to carry out a program to track and confirm the receipt of absentee ballots and to make this information available to the voter who cast the ballot.

Also, the bill requires the prepayment of postage on return envelopes for voting materials, which includes any voter registration form, any application for an absentee ballot, and any blank absentee ballot transmitted by mail.

Madam Speaker, another important feature of H.R. 1 is that it promotes voter access by mandating several improvements to election administration, including:

Treating universities as voter registration agencies;

Requiring states to notify an individual, not later than 7 seven days before election, if the individual's polling place has changed;

Requiring states to allow voters to sign sworn affidavits to vote in lieu of presenting photo ID;

Providing accommodations for voters residing in Indian lands;

Ensuring equitable and efficient operation of polling places, reducing long lines and wait times for voters;

Requiring states to provide secured drop boxes for voted absentee ballots in elections for federal office;

Prohibiting states from restricting curbside voting;

Imposing requirements for federal election contingency plans in response to natural disasters and emergencies; and

Clarifying that failure to vote is not grounds for removing registered voters from the rolls.

Of course, nothing in this legislation prohibits or restricts the authority of states to provide greater opportunities for voting, and the bill makes that explicitly clear.

This litany of good measures demonstrates all the many ways and means through which H.R. 1 expands voter participation and election integrity and our experience of the previous four years counsels the urgency of adopting them.

I am much less confident of the ability of one component of the bill--the title mandating creation of ``Independent Redistricting Commissions''--to strengthen our democracy; in fact I believe that title of the legislation should be stricken because of its potential to negatively effective marginalized communities and minority groups.

I am not contending that independent redistricting commissions are an unconstitutional usurpation of authority belonging exclusively to state legislatures; that argument was presented and rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona. Independent Redistricting Commission, 576 U.S. 787 (2015).

Instead, the nation's experience with independent redistricting commissions is still in its early stages and I believe that instead of mandating a one-size fits all approach, Congress should allow further experimentation to occur in the states, the ``laboratories of democracy,'' as they were described by Justice Brandeis in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262 (1932).

In addition, it appears to me that the selection process laid out in the bill for choosing members of the independent redistricting commissions is too random and will not result in a commission comprised of members reflective of the communities directly affected by the work of the commission, particularly members of racial and language minorities.

Madam Speaker, the issue of redistricting and how to do it fairly is a never-ending one and, as most political scientists agree, it is virtually impossible to draw most congressional and legislative districts in ways that are competitive; redistricting exacerbates geographical polarization, but it does not create it.

For this reason, unlike the other titles of H.R. 1, I withhold my support for Title II, Subtitle E, Part 2.

Mr. Speaker, the tragic death of George Floyd has awakened the Nation, the world.

Last summer, in response to a call for action from righteous protestors across the Nation, we had to stand up. And we know that 8 minutes and 46 seconds are printed and imprinted in the brains of those around the world. There is no defunding of the police. It is standing up the police and the community.

Today, we are honored that the George Floyd family did not turn to bitterness, but they turned to justice. Their parents, Larcenia and George; his daughter, Gianna; his siblings, Philonise, Zsa Zsa Williams, LaTonya Floyd, Rodney Floyd, Bridgett Floyd, Terrence Floyd, and a nephew, Brandon Williams.

We know that we will be ending racial profiling now. We know that we will have qualified immunity for justice in the courts. We know that there will be training on racial bias. We will ban no-knock. We will ban choke holds. We will make sure that we end the racial profiling that caused George to come out of a grocery store and have someone's knee on his neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, the world has stood up and justice is about to be rained on us.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary, as an original cosponsor of the legislation, and the author of several of its key legislative provisions, I rise in strong and enthusiastic support of H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice In Policing Act of 2021, which marks a defining turning point in our country.

Let me say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that any questions that there continues to exist today racial double-standards, disparities, and system racism in policing and the administration of justice were conclusively laid to rest by

what social scientists would regard as a ``natural experiment'' that took place in Washington, D.C., beginning in the summer and culminating with the January 6, 2021, insurrection and siege of the U.S. Capitol by Trump seditionists incited by the 45th President of the United States.

Mass protests and political rallies took place in Washington, D.C., started May 29, 2020, four days after George Floyd died in Minnesota after a Minneapolis police officer kneeled on his neck for more than eight minutes.

By the millions, Americans took to the streets in protest to affirm that no longer will the people of this country tolerate or acquiesce in horrible policing practices that include excessive and unnecessary uses of lethal force that has diminished community trust of policing practices across the country and has angered and terrified communities of color who are overwhelmingly and disproportionately its innocent victims.

Within days of the demonstrations, U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr announced that multiple law enforcement agencies, including the National Guard, Secret Service and Federal Bureau of Investigation, would ``flood the zone'' in D.C.

Thousands of law enforcement officials, armed with tear gas, rubber bullets and firearms were deployed to protect the city.

Hundreds of people were arrested, D.C. police records show.

More than 300 were arrested on June 1, 2020, the day Attorney General Barr ordered law enforcement to forcefully clear peaceful protesters from a perimeter near the White House, making room for President Trump to pose for cameras while waving a Bible in front of St. John's Episcopal Church.

It was the largest number of arrests recorded for any day during the summer of events.

Across the nation, law enforcement made an estimated 14,000 arrests in 49 U.S. cities during anti-racism protests in the summer of 2020, according to the Washington Post.

Following the November 3, 2020, election of Joe Eiden and running mate Kamala Harris, large groups of Trump supporters held rallies in the city, where they clashed with counter-protesters.

Police made 20 arrests during the so-called Million MAGA March on November 14, 2020, an event in which Trump-supporters, including White nationalists, far-right extremist groups, and conservative politicians gathered in D.C. to protest the election results.

And, incredibly, only 61 arrests were made of rioters, who were overwhelming white and who used violence, that stormed the Capitol on January 6, an attack that claimed the lives of at least six persons, injured hundreds of others, caused horrific damage to property and national treasures, and inflicted emotional scars that will not heal for generations.

But most of these arrests are related to charges involving curfew violations--D.C. mayor Muriel Bowser announced a 6 p.m. curfew, though mobs had broken into the Capitol hours earlier, around 1:30 p.m.

There were only four non-curfew-related arrests, compared to 40 non- curfew-related arrests during Black Lives Matter protests on June 1, 2020.

Mr. Speaker, the horrifying killing of George Floyd on May 25, 2020 by a Minneapolis police office shocked and awakened the moral consciousness of the nation.

Untold millions saw the terrifying last 8:46 of life drained from a Black man, George Floyd, taking his last breaths face down in the street with his neck under the knee of a police officer who, along with his three cohorts, was indifferent to his cries for help and pleas that he ``can't breathe.''

In direct response, for past several months civil protests against police brutality have occurred nightly in cities large and small all across the nation.

These protests were a direct reaction to the horrific killing of George Floyd but are most motivated by a deep-seated anger and frustration to the separate and unequal justice African Americans receive at the hands of too many law enforcement officers.

The civil disobedience witnessed nightly in the streets of America were also in memory of countless acts of the inequality and cruelty visited upon young African American men and women no longer with us in body but forever with us in memory.

Beloved souls like Breanna Taylor in Louisville, Kentucky; Eric Garner and Sean Bell in New York City; 12-year old Tamir Rice in Cleveland; and Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

They remember the senseless killings as well of Ahmaud Arbery and Trayvon Martin by self-appointed vigilantes.

Stephon Clark, was an unarmed 22-year-old African American male from Sacramento, California, who was shot 23 times and killed by two uniformed members of the Sacramento Police Department on Sunday afternoon, March 18, 2018, in his grandmother's backyard, leaving behind two small children because police officers claim that he had a gun but no weapon was found at the scene, only a cell phone.

In August 2019, Elijah McClain, a 23-year-old African American man, was simply listening to music while walking home from a convenience store when he was stopped without basis by officers of the Aurora, Colorado Police Department, put into a carotid hold and given multiple doses of ketamine, which caused cardiac arrest from which he fell into a coma and died three days later.

And the continuing need for their activism was reflected in the recent outrage, which began on June 12, 2020, and ended in the senseless slaughter of Rayshard Brooks, who was simply sleeping in his car at a local Wendy's restaurant, by a uniformed officer of the Atlanta Police Department.

It was reflected again on August 23, 2020, when a Kenosha Police Department officer shot Jacob S. Blake, a 29-year-old black man, in the back seven times--yes seven--as he attempted to enter his SUV where three of his young sons were in the back seat.

We know the pain and heartbreak in my home state of Texas and the City of Houston where Robbie Tolan's promising Major League Baseball was career was cut short after being shot by Bellaire Police Department officer in the front yard of his parents' home.

And Sandra Bland, a 28-year-old African American female who was arrested after a traffic stop just outside of Houston, Texas, and found dead in a Waller County jail cell three days later.

Or Pamela Turner, an unarmed 44-year old African American mother of three who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, who was killed outside her home in Baytown, Texas, by an officer of the Baytown Police Department, on Monday, May 13, 2019, the day after Mother's Day.

Or Jordan Baker, an unarmed 26-year-old African American male from Houston, Texas, who was shot to death by an off-duty uniformed member of the Houston Police Department in the parking lot of a Harris County shopping mall on January 16, 2014.

Or Danny Ray Thomas, an unarmed 34-year-old African American male, who was shot to death by a uniformed officer of the Harris County Sheriffs Department on March 22, 2018, in Houston, Texas.

Indeed, the history goes back much further, past Amidou Diallo in New York City, past the Central Park Five, past Emmitt Till, past the racist abuse of law enforcement power during the struggle for civil rights and equal treatment.

Mr. Speaker, the times we are in demand that action be taken and that is precisely what my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, on this committee, and Congressional Democrats did in introducing H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020.

And we are taking the next bold action today in voting to pass this legislation and send it to the Senate and on to the White House for presidential signature and enactment.

I support this bold legislation not just as a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, who also served on the House Working Group on Police Strategies, but also a mother of a young African American male who knows the anxiety that African American mothers feel until they can hug their sons and daughters who return home safely, and on behalf of all those relatives and friends who grieve over the loss a loved one whose life and future was wrongly and cruelly interrupted or ended by mistreatment at the hands of the police.

The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021 is designed to destroy the pillars of systemic racism in policing practices that has victimized communities of color, and especially African Americans for decades, is overdue, too long overdue.

This legislation puts the Congress of the United States on record against racial profiling in policing and against the excessive, unjustified, and discriminatory use of lethal and force by law enforcement officers against persons of color.

The legislation means no longer will employment of practices that encourage systemic mistreatment of persons because of their race be ignored or tolerated.

With our vote today to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021, the government of the United States is declaring firmly, forcefully, and unequivocally that Black Lives Matter.

It is true all lives matter, they always have.

But that Black lives matter too, and in so many other areas of civic life, this nation has not always lived up to its promise but that the promise is worthy of fulfilling.

Every African American parent, and every African America child, knows all too well `The Talk' and the importance of abiding by the rules for surviving interactions with the police.

While many police officers take this responsibility seriously and strive to treat all persons

equally and with respect, their efforts are too often undermined by some of their colleagues who abuse the enormous trust and confidence placed in them.

And systemically racist systems and practices left in place can corrupt even the most virtuous police officers.

So, the most important criminal justice reforms needed to improve the criminal justice system are those that will increase public confidence and build trust and mutual respect between law enforcement and the communities they swear an oath and are willing to risk their lives to protect and serve.

That is the overriding purpose and aim of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021, which contains numerous provisions to weed out and eliminate systemic racism in police practices.

Specifically, this legislation holds police accountable in our courts by:

Amending the mens rea requirement in federal law (18 U.S.C. Section 242) to prosecute police misconduct from ``willfulness'' to a ``recklessness'' standard;

Reforming qualified immunity so that individuals are not barred from recovering damages when police violate their constitutional rights;

Incentivizing state attorneys general to conduct pattern and practice investigations and improving the use of pattern and practice investigations at the federal level by granting the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division subpoena power;

Incentivizing states to create independent investigative structures for police involved deaths; and

Creating best practices recommendations based on the Obama 21st Century Policing Task force.

As recognized by scholars at Cato--the conservative think tank Cato-- the time has come to abolish qualified immunity.

According to Cato, ``qualified immunity is a legally baseless judicial invention'' that has ``proven unworkable as a matter of judicial doctrine,'' and ``routinely denies justice to the victims of egregious misconduct and undermines public accountability across the board, especially for members of law enforcement.''

I am particularly pleased that the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act includes the End Racial Profiling Now Act, which I introduced to ban the pernicious practice of racial profiling.

In addition, I am proud that this legislation includes as Title I, Subtitle B, the bipartisan and bicameral George Floyd Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act, which I introduced with Congressman Jason Crow of Colorado in the 116th Congress as H.R. 7100.

This legislation provides incentives for local police organizations to voluntarily adopt performance-based standards to ensure that incidents of deadly force or misconduct will be minimized through appropriate management and training protocols and properly investigated, should they occur.

The legislation directs the Department of Justice to work cooperatively with independent accreditation, law enforcement and community-based organizations to further develop and refine the accreditation standards and grants conditional authority to the Department of Justice to make grants to law enforcement agencies for the purpose of obtaining accreditation from certified law enforcement accreditation organizations.

As I have stated many times, direct action is vitally important but to be effective it must be accompanied by political, legislative, and governmental action, which is necessary because the strength and foundation of democratic government rests upon the consent and confidence of the governed.

Effective enforcement of the law and administration of justice requires the confidence of the community that the law will be enforced impartially and that all persons are treated equally without regard to race or ethnicity or religion or national origin.

As the great jurist Judge Learned Hand said: ``If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: thou shalt not ration justice.''

Equal justice is the proud promise America makes to all persons; the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021 will help make that promise a lived reality for African Americans, who have not ever known it to be true in the area of community-police relations.

And when Black Lives Matter, then and only then can it truthfully be said that all lives matter.

Finally, let me say a few words in memory of the man whose sacrifice of his inalienable right to life has galvanized the world and awakened the sleeping giant of moral decency.

Mr. Speaker, let me pay tribute to the person for whom this legislation is named and to his family.

George Floyd, also known lovingly as ``Big Floyd,'' ``Perry,'' or ``The Gentle Giant,'' loved life, his family, friends, and community and throughout his life used his love of sports and music to leave a positive impact on this world.

Mr. Speaker, rather than giving in to bitterness and hate, the family of George Floyd has channeled the pain and heartbreak of the tragic loss of their beloved George into the creation of a force for good: The George Floyd Memorial Foundation, Inc., a 501(c)(3) non-profit, to promote global awareness about racial injustice and provide opportunities for others to contribute to the unification of our communities and touch the world.

Let me thank each member of the Floyd family and list them by name: his parents, Larcenia Jones-Floyd and George Perry Floyd, Sr.; his daughter, Gianna Floyd; his siblings Philonise Floyd, Zsa Zsa Williams, LaTonya Floyd, Rodney Floyd, Bridget Floyd, Terrence Floyd; and nephew, Brandon ``WOO'' Williams.

Mr. Speaker, in Acts 2:23 of the Scriptures it is written that ``This man was handed over to you by God's deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.''

Duty calls us to to improve the quality of policing in America.

We cannot agitate for change one day and then allow things to remain the same, to allow wicked men to keep committing this crime against humanity.

This behavior did not begin with George Floyd; there is a 400-year history here, from slave patrols, to Jim Crow to Bull Connor to the modern-day lynching of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin.

But the good news is that right is on our side; God has stepped in.

In John 1:46 it is said, ``can anything good come out of Nazareth?''

When he was growing up, I am sure there were people who saw George Floyd and asked can anything good come out of the Third Ward of Houston?

We now know the answer is clearly yes.

George Floyd was here in service to God's divine plan.

And as his daughter Gianna said, her Daddy changed the world.

Thank you, George Floyd for what you have done for us, for helping us find our voice and our resolve.

We will not let you down; we will finish the job.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Bush- Jones Amendment to H.R. 1, a critical amendment which clarifies that felony convictions do not bar any eligible individual from voting in federal elections, including individuals who are currently incarcerated.

This amendment seeks to reverse discriminatory voter restrictions that disproportionately affect the African American voting population, which continues to be targeted by mass incarceration, police profiling, and a biased criminal justice system.

Voting is a right of citizenship, not a privilege any of us earns, and should not be connected to punishment.

Felon disenfranchisement laws were crafted with the intent to disenfranchise as many African Americans as possible after the Civil War, and today, one in every 16 African Americans of voting age is disenfranchised, a rate 3.7 times greater than that of non-African Americans.

According to PEW Research, over 10 percent of the adult population in Texas was a felon as of 2010.

Nearly 5.2 million Americans are disenfranchised while serving time behind bars.

These Americans are full members of our civic life, and they have ties to their families and communities, engage in robust civic life, and many of them have been or will be released back into their communities.

The white supremacists who championed such measures were very clear on their reasons.

Disenfranchising a specific group of people undermines democracy, and it does so with a particular impact on people of color.

In many states, state disenfranchisement laws have explicitly racist origins, and it's time to put this ghost of Jim Crow behind us.

Many states have already begun to recognize the right to vote for those serving time.

Vermont and Maine are the only U.S. states, in addition to Puerto Rico, that allow all people with felony convictions, including those incarcerated, to vote.

Alabama, Mississippi, and Alaska allow some people who are incarcerated to vote, depending on their felony convictions.

Additionally, Washington D.C. passed a measure just last year which allowed those incarcerated to vote in the November 2020 election.

This amendment is supported by a host of civil rights, racial justice, and criminal legal reform organizations, including the Leadership Conference, Demos, the Sentencing Project, the National Immigration Project, the National Council of Churches, and more.

Madam Speaker, we must not allow our democracy to slide back into the worst elements of this country's past, to stand idly by as our treasured values of democracy, progress, and equality are poisoned and dismantled.

I urge all members to join me in supporting the Bush-Jones Amendment to H.R. 1.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California, the chair of the Committee on House Administration, for the work that she has done.

It is interesting to hear a speech by the former President, following in his tradition of denial of a fair election, but announcing that he believes that there should be only 1 day for an election to take place, denying essential workers, not recognizing the disaster of COVID-19, denying rural voters and minority voters the opportunity in some stressful time to be able to vote.

H.R. 1 considers all factors in ensuring the empowerment of all voters in this Nation. The United Methodist Church offered these words, ``We hold governments responsible for the protection of the rights of the people to free and fair elections . . . the form and the leaders of all governments should be determined by exercise of the right to vote guaranteed to all adult citizens.''

This legislation recognizes that and recognizes that the dark days of 4 years ago of voter suppression and opposition to minorities voting, the lack of empowerment, are over with in H.R. 1. And I want to support amendments 22 and 23, to ensure that individuals with disabilities can vote.

I want to make sure that young people on college campuses are not discriminated against, as they have been in my community with polling places that they have had to stand in long lines.

I want to make sure as well that women are protected in privacy with making sure that their addresses are not printed so that they will not be subjected to assault, sexual assault, and violation of privacy. H.R. 1 provides an opportunity for justice and

the right way to vote, I ask for the recognition of that.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of En Bloc Amendment No. 3 to H.R. 1, which includes the Gallego Amendment, an important contribution to H.R. 1 that makes a long overdue technical fix to the Help American Vote Act to ensure and to protect the right to vote for Native Americans and others living with disabilities in the four corners region of Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and Colorado.

Specifically, this amendment will extend funding under the Protection and Advocacy for Voting Access program to the Native American Disability Law Center to ensure people with disabilities in the region can fully participate in the electoral process.

Too often, voters in this region drive hours to reach their nearest polling place, only to find that the ballot is not accessible to them due to inadequate disability training, ADA accessibility, or other impediments to the constitutional right to vote.

Voting is a right of citizenship, and every polling place should be adequately equipped to serve those with disabilities.

Nearly 15 percent of those eligible to vote in Texas are persons with disabilities--almost 3

million people--and lack of accessibility causes people with disabilities to vote at lower rates than the general population.

According to a study by the Government Accountability Office, nearly two-thirds of the 137 polling places inspected in 2016 had at least one impediment to people with disabilities.

These impediments included: the accessible voting machine not being set up and powered on, malfunctioning earphones, lack of wheelchair accessibility, and less privacy than standard voting stations.

Many people with disabilities cannot mark paper ballots without assistance, so they rely on special voting machines, but untrained poll workers have discouraged the use of accessible voting machines, leaving voters with disabilities behind.

People with disabilities continue to report barriers including a lack of accessible election and registration materials prior to elections, lack of transportation to polling places, and problems securing specific forms of identification required by some states.

Mr. Speaker, it is long past time to keep our promise for a fully inclusive electoral process in Native and rural communities, and I urge my colleagues to vote for En Bloc Amendment No. 3 to H.R. 1.

Madam Speaker, with great expectation, we expect to have the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act on the floor of the House this week.

I am joined in these special 1-minute speeches by Congressman Bowman from New York and Congresswoman Lee from California. On behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, we are here to say that the tragic death of George Floyd has awakened the Nation and the world to the gross injustice that too many African Americans face on a daily basis.

Eight minutes and 46 seconds, and the world stood up. New Zealand and London, around the world, they all said, enough is enough.

This legislation will now have qualified immunity reform, pattern and practice investigations, the idea of a national police misconduct registry, the Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act banning choke holds, banning no-knock drug warrants.

It will be a new day in the relationship between police and community. Crisis units because police do not want to be social workers. We know there are officers who believe in protect and serve. At the same time, we know the Nation does not want police misconduct.

Let's work together, pass this legislation, and let it be signed by the President of the United States. I thank the Congressional Black Caucus for its leadership. The world is watching us this week.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary, on Homeland Security, on the Budget, and as the Member of Congress for a congressional district that has experienced the worst of the COVID-19 as a public health emergency and economic catastrophe, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1319, the ``American Rescue Plan Act of 2021,'' which provides $1.9 trillion to take immediate and decisive action to crush the virus and vaccinate our people, build the economy back better, reopen schools, and provide needed support and assistance to state and local governments that have been asked to do too much with too little for far too long.

Mr. Speaker, by an overwhelming margin (72 percent), the public wants and is demanding that we act to provide more economic relief to address the damage caused by the coronavirus pandemic.

Nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents believe an additional relief package is necessary, while more than nine in ten (92 percent) Democrats and Democratic leaners say more coronavirus aid will be needed.

Even the most conservative Republicans favor more relief by a 56 percent-44 percent margin.

Nearly nine-in-ten of all adults (88 percent) in lower-income households say an additional package is necessary, while 81 percent of Republicans in lower-income households (81 percent) say additional aid is needed now.

The American Rescue Plan Act delivers that aid and does it in a way that will crush the coronavirus and build the economy back better.

The American Rescue Plan Act will put children safely back in schools with a strong $170 billion investment and putting money in workers' pockets by raising the federal minimum wage.

The American Rescue Plan Act will put food on the table, by expanding the SNAP program and respecting Black family farmers.

The American Rescue Plan Act will put people back to work by prioritizing funding for transit, airlines and airports, and the disaster relief fund.

The American Rescue Plan Act will put small businesses back on track with robust funding for EIDL and restaurant grants, additional funding for shuttered live venues and expanded PPP eligibility for nonprofits.

The American Rescue Plan Act will put a priority on protecting renters and homeowners, preventing homelessness, and providing $10 billion for the Defense Production Act to procure essential medical supplies and equipment.

The American Rescue Plan Act will put money in people's pockets, with direct payments, Unemployment Insurance, Child Tax Credit, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and includes pension security and expanded Affordable Care Act coverage.

The American Rescue Plan Act will provide $17 billion in critical funding to help the VA meet the health and economic security of veterans, especially as it relates to the benefits claims and appeals backlog caused by COVID-19.

The American Rescue Plan Act will produce and distribute the vaccine to test, treat and protect all Americans, including communities of color.

The American Rescue Plan Act will provides desperately needed funding for our heroes--health care workers, first responders, sanitation, transportation and food workers, and teachers--in states, localities, tribes, and territories.

Finally, and very importantly, the American Rescue Plan Act establishes the Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund and provides $45.570 billion the legislation provides in direct funding to major metropolitan cities and local governments.

In my home state of Texas, metropolitan cities are estimated to receive $10.327 billion in direct coronavirus relief funding, while the state of Texas is slated to receive $16.824 billion, for an estimated $27.152 billion total to the state of Texas.

During the Budget Committee markup, I proposed, and the Committee agreed that any effort to strip or reduce this vital funding is to be rejected so major metropolitan cities, like Houston, receive the direct COVID-19 relief funding desperately needed to battle the coronavirus, restore critical services to struggling families, and help save the jobs of essential public servants like teachers, firefighters, and other first responders.

Let me discuss briefly why direct funding to major metropolitan cities and counties is so critical.

The purpose of providing for direct payment to major metropolitan cities like Houston and counties like Harris County, as opposed to the County having to receive an allocation from the State, is so that the local governments, who are in the best position to identify and respond, will be able to tailor the funding to meet the urgent needs of their communities.

For example, under the direct payment provisions in the CARES Act, Harris County received more federal funding relative to the amount that would have been received through the State program and had the flexibility needed for more efficient use of this funding, which was a concern voiced even by State leaders over the restrictive way that the State of Texas distributed CARES Act funding.

By directly allocating funding to metropolitan cities and areas like Houston and Harris County, local authorities were and can work with the community to determine the specific needs of Harris County residents.

As a result, Harris County Commissioners Court approved, for example, the following programs to directly address community needs, and to get money into the hands of residents quickly:

1. Commissioners Court funded Community Programs

2. Census Services

3. Childcare Assistance Program

4. Court Evictions Services

5. COVID 19 Workforce Development Program

6. Direct Assistance Programs

7. Domestic Violence Assistance Fund

8. Rental Assistance Programs

9. Small Business Loan Program (LEAP)

10. Small Business Relief Fund

11. Small Cities Support

12. Student Digital Services

13. UT Health Community Spread Survey Program

Without direct payments to major metropolitan cities, state governments--as we saw here in Texas--would not have permitted CARES Act funding to be used to create or support any of these programs.

In addition, without direct payments to major metropolitan cities and government units, states invariably will succumb to the temptation to place onerous conditions on funding over and above those required by the Federal government.

For example, in Texas, only $55 per capita was allocated to non- direct allocation entities, instead of the $174.49 per capita that was allocated to them by Congress.

Additionally, only 20 percent of the allocation made available immediately to local entities instead of making 100 percent of the allocation available immediately.

Third, direct funding is necessary to prevent state governments from creating specific categories limiting eligibility for medical expenses, public health expenses, payroll expenses for employees in the fields of public safety, public health, health care, human services, or whose services are substantially dedicated to mitigating or responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency.

Without direct payments to major metropolitan cities, state governments, again as we have seen in Texas, will limit recovery for expenditures to support actions to facilitate compliance with COVID-19 related public health measures or associated with the provision of economic support in connection with the COVID-19, or other COVID-19 related expenses reasonably necessary to the function of government that satisfy the fund's eligibility criteria.

I would urge my Republican colleagues to heed the words of Republican Governor Jim Justice of West Virginia who said colorfully just a few days 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.

Mr. Speaker, the bipartisan action we took last December was a step in the right direction but only a long-delayed down payment; we cannot afford any more delays, especially since Republican stalling already caused a painful lapse in critical unemployment assistance last year, and additional unemployment assistance is set to expire on March 14, 2021.

That is why the American Rescue Plan Act is absolutely crucial and the right thing to do and to do right now.

The American Rescue Plan Act proposed by President Biden, takes a multiprong approach to tackling the public health and economic crises stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.

No one is better prepared or more experienced to lead the American rescue that President Biden, who as Vice-President oversaw

the implementation of the Recovery Act, which saved millions of jobs and rescued our economy from the Great Recession the Obama Administration and 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.

Mr. Speaker, to crush the virus and safely reopen schools, the American Rescue Plan Act will mount a national vaccination program that includes setting up community vaccination sites nationwide and makes the investments necessary to safely reopen schools.

It will also take complementary measures to combat the virus, including scaling up testing and tracing, addressing shortages of personal protective equipment and other critical supplies, investing in high-quality treatments, and addressing health care disparities.

The American Rescue Plan Act delivers immediate relief to working I families bearing the brunt of the crisis by providing $1,400 per person in direct cash assistance to households across America, bringing the total (including the $600 down payment enacted in December) to $2,000.

Additionally, the plan will also provide direct housing and nutrition assistance to families struggling to get by, expand access to safe and reliable child care and affordable health care, extend and expand unemployment insurance so American workers can pay their bills, and give families with children as well as childless workers a boost through enhanced tax credits.

Mr. Speaker, the American Rescue Plan Act provides much needed support for communities struggling with the economic fallout, including hard-hit small businesses, especially those owned by entrepreneurs from racial and ethnic backgrounds that have experienced systemic discrimination.

Finally, the plan also provides crucial resources to protect the jobs of first responders, frontline public health workers, teachers, transit workers, and other essential workers that all Americans depend on.

Mr. Speaker, the COVID-19 pandemic, as did the videos of the unjustified killings of George Floyd, Breanna Taylor, Ahmed Arbrey, and so many others, laid bare for the nation to see the stark racial and ethnic inequalities exacerbated by the virus.

In my home state of Texas, as of the end of September 2020, there have been more than 760,000 cases of COVID-19 and 16,000 deaths.

According to the Texas Department of State Health Care Services, 70 percent of the confirmed fatalities were people of color.

In Texas, COVID-19 mortality rates are 30 percent higher for African Americans and 80 percent higher for Hispanics overall.

The differences become much larger when accounting for age; for example, in the 25 to 44-year-old age group, African American mortality rates are more than four times higher than White rates, and the Hispanic rates are more than seven times higher.

One factor in Hispanic and African American populations being more likely to contract COVID-19 is employment in occupations associated with public contact and that cannot be done remotely.

The sad fact is that most workers in these occupations are less able to be absent from their job or to have paid time off.

In Texas, people of color are more than 40 percent of cashiers, retail salespersons, child care workers, licensed practical nurses, more than 50 percent of bus drivers and transit workers, medical and nursing assistants, personal care aides, and home health aides, and more than 60 percent of building cleaners and housekeepers.

In addition, Hispanic and African American populations in Texas are less likely to have health insurance and to have a regular health care provider, so less likely to seek or receive early care for symptoms, especially in the first months of the epidemic.

And African American and Hispanic populations are also more likely to have an underlying health condition that makes them more vulnerable to the effects of COVID-19.

To respond and mitigate the devastation wrought by COVID-19 on Americans, and especially marginal and vulnerable communities of color, I have introduced H.R. 330, the ``Delivering COVID-19 Vaccinations to All Regions and Vulnerable Communities Act'' or ``COVID-19 Delivery Act,'' which I invite all Members to join as sponsors.

Under the COVID-19 Delivery Act, FEMA will be authorized and directed to lead the effort for vaccine delivery from the receipt from manufacturing facilities to delivery to designated inoculation sites (hospital, clinic, doctors' offices, school, places of worship, community centers, parks, or neighborhood gathering locations.

The legislation directs FEMA to develop and deploy a fully staffed and resourced 24-7 advanced real-time tracking system that allows FEMA to monitor shipments of vaccine units that can provide end-to-end transparency on the temperature, real-time location, origin, and destination data, anticipated time of arrival, and report on changes and update recipients on the progress of their delivery and report on changes that may impact expected delivery or the viability of the vaccine while in transit.

FEMA will provide an advanced communication system that allows public health departments to communicate their vaccine readiness, capability of receiving vaccines, delivery locations, details of facility capability of storing, securing, personnel authorized to receive deliveries, logistics for delivering vaccines to patients, report on vaccine receipts, condition of vaccines, patient reactions, feedback on how to improve the process.

H.R. 330 authorizes FEMA to secure transportation for delivery or use of vaccines, and, when requested, security for the vaccine delivery sites or inoculation locations to ensure the life and safety of personnel and patients who seek to provide or receive vaccinations are free of interference or threat.

Finally, the COVID-19 Delivery Act directs FEMA to conduct public education and patient engagement through the provision of inoculations of persons in areas and locations where vulnerable populations are under performing in getting vaccinations.

Mr. Speaker, I see the disparities in the lives of so many of my constituents who suffer disproportionately from medical conditions that make COVID-19 deadly.

They work low wage or no wage jobs to make ends meet, and they have no health insurance and rely on community health centers or public health services for routine care.

I call them friends and neighbors because they are that to me.

No one is benefiting from the COVID-19 economy.

The U.S. poverty rate has grown at a historic rate over the past five months, with 7.8 million Americans falling into poverty after the expanded $600 a week in unemployment assistance expired at the end of July.

This represents the greatest increase since the government began tracking poverty sixty years ago.

In the city of Houston, nine key service sectors, accounting for 70 percent of all jobs, hemorrhaged more 1,343,600 jobs, which to average folks is another way of saying that more than 1.34 million persons lost their livelihoods.

Houston workers lost jobs in the following areas:

Healthcare: 391,000; Retail: 393,600; Food services: 267,000; Finance: 166,000; Private Education: 63,400; Arts and Entertainment: 37,400; Accommodations: 28,700; Air Transportation: 20,200; Other Services: 115,800.

In addition to these positions, jobs were also lost in other areas, the largest of which was the construction industry, which shut down 30,700 jobs.

Professional and business services followed, with 25,300 jobs lost, although 13,900 were in temporary and provisional jobs in employment services; upstream oil lost 12,300 in March/April; and non-oil manufacturing lost 7,700 jobs.

Americans out of work due to COVID-19 have generated 86 million jobless claims, with new claims being filed in recent weeks topping 800,000.

Millions of Americans who lost their jobs during the pandemic have fallen thousands of dollars behind on rent and utility bills, a clear warning sign that people are running out of money for basic needs.

If this is not enough evidence of what is happening just look at the miles of vehicles lined up outside of food distribution centers for assistance, we see nightly on our television screens and in our communities.

Moody's Analytics warned in November 2020 that 9 million renters said they were behind on rent, according to a Census Bureau survey.

The Bureau of the Census reports that twenty-one percent of all renters are behind on their rent, of which twenty-nine percent are African American families and seventeen percent are Hispanic households.

According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia's analysis of persons who were employed prior to the pandemic, 1.3 million of these households are now, on average of $5,400 in debt on rent and utilities, after the family breadwinners lost their jobs.

The new COVID-19 relief legislation passed last week by Congress, and reluctantly but finally signed by President Trump restores unemployment assistance, but cuts that assistance from $600 a week to $300 a week without consideration of the facts on the ground, which are that millions of Americans remain out of work due to COVID-19 public health policy, and have been without sufficient income since August 1, 2020.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that as of February 23, 2021, 28.3 million cases of COVID-19, resulting in more than 503,000 deaths, had been reported in the United States.

What the costs will be to our nation from this destruction of lives and livelihoods have yet to be fully calculated.

It is a tragedy that too many households who have lost a member to COVID-19 are struggling to accept these deaths, but it is also the friends, co-workers, business owners, professionals, students, teachers, wives, husbands, brothers, sisters, aunts, cousins, and grandparents who also are feeling these losses because someone that mattered to them is no longer here.

Each of these lives impacted dozens of other lives, too many of whom were not allowed to be present with them during their final moments on this earth, but whose suffering is too often overlooked because we unduly preoccupy ourselves with only the immediate family.

I strongly support H.R. 1319, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 and urge all Members to join me in voting for its passage.

Mr. Speaker, none of us can rise to the floor of the House and talk about the cruciality of the American Rescue package and the absolute imperative nature of this particular legislation passing without acknowledging 500,000 lives--not numbers, but names of mothers and fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers, aunts and uncles and cousins, sisters and brothers, just plain good friends, and loved ones that extend beyond one's family. And then for the love of this country, just our fellow Americans.

Mr. Speaker, these are hardworking people, many of them essential workers on the front lines. Unfortunately, with the horrific and insulting effort that was made by the last administration, essential workers were out and about in grocery stores and delivery trucks, first responders, and no one attempted to stop the community spread. We had no testing protocol, and it was in my Congressional district that I worked with United Memorial Hospital to ensure that we had testing sites and opened the first testing site in my Congressional district to reach hard-to-serve areas on March 19.

Mr. Speaker, since that time, we have done 55 with UMMC, a small hospital that I call, ``the little red engine that can.'' But that was all done by the energy and determination in a city that was clearly one of the hotspots as part of the State of Texas, complete inertia by our leadership until we began to see the high numbers of loss of life in the African-American and Latinx community.

Mr. Speaker, I am on the floor today to reinforce my continued and emphatic support for the American Rescue Plan, because I don't see the 500,000 lives as just numbers, I see them as persons who are in need.

This plan will mount a national vaccination program that includes setting up community vaccination sites nationwide. It will also take complementary measures to combat the virus, including scaling up testing and tracing, addressing shortages of personal protective equipment--a real fight against COVID-19 and all of its variants, including the UK, South Africa, and one that is just starting up. It delivers immediate relief to working families. It will give the $1,400--that will make it $2,000, increase in the minimum wage as well, and continued unemployment.

Mr. Speaker, let me cite the city of Houston, that we have lost jobs in 9 key service sectors:

Healthcare, 391,000 jobs lost; retail, 303,600 jobs lost; food services, 267,000 jobs lost; finance, 166,000; private education, 63,000; art and entertainment 37,000-plus; accommodations, $28,000; air transportation, $20,200.

One of the reasons my motion passed in the Budget Committee to ensure the protection of the public funding where Harris County will receive $141 billion plus. The city of Houston will receive $141 billion plus, because we are desperate to provide these dollars for our public resources, our municipal workers, our healthcare workers, our firefighters, our paramedics, our law enforcement, police. We are all in need to continue this fight. We need this money to support struggling communities, as indicated with the loss of jobs in Houston and Harris County.

Mr. Speaker, the plan will provide crucial support for the hardest hit small businesses, and I am glad we have worked to target these small businesses, especially those owned by entrepreneurs from racial and ethnic backgrounds that experienced systemic discrimination, along with EIDL grants that my faith communities and nonprofits are asking about, and as well, the expanded eligibility for those entities and resources for jobs, to protect the jobs of first responders, as I indicated.

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear: We are hard hit. If we do not pass the American Rescue Plan, which I intend to support enthusiastically, we will end up with 4 million fewer jobs. It will take us more than a year to return to full employment. We will lower the lifetime earnings of our young generation. Millions of parents, particularly mothers-- women have been hurt by this even more--will be forced to stay at home, and another 4 years of suffering before real returns come.

Mr. Speaker, we had to experience this, but we are not going to continue to experience it. Let's support the American Rescue Plan as the Biden administration has asked us to do.

Madam Speaker, does anybody know what it means to be called names; to be thrown out of your apartment; to be thrown off of a job; and most sadly, to not be allowed to love the person that you love?

In the Hodges case, that was settled when they determined that no union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family. And then they ruled. They asked for equal dignity in the eyes of law; the Constitution grants them that right.

I rise in support of the Equality Act because I know what it means to be thrown out, to be looked at, and to be undermined. Our friends in the LGBTQ community every single day experience that. Trans women who are African American have been murdered.

This gives us equal dignity under the law. We could keep a job. If you are in that community, you can be married already, obviously, but you can keep a job. You can get healthcare; you can ensure that you can keep an apartment. You can walk in dignity.

We need the Equality Act as we have needed civil rights laws throughout this Nation.

If we are the place of ``We the People,'' if this Nation is based upon, we the people, then we will pass the Equality Act today. We will pass it now.

I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for his leadership and the gentleman from New York.

Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary and an original cosponsor, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, the ``Equality Act of 2021.''

Let me thank my colleague on the Judiciary Committee, Congressman David Cicilline of Rhode Island, for introducing this landmark legislation and his tireless efforts in making this day a reality.

Madam Speaker, our nation's long but inexorable march towards equality reaches another milestone today.

For as long as our national charters have been in existence, we have endeavored to ask ourselves: what do we mean when we say ``We the People?''

How expansive do we hold our pledge that all are entitled to the blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

To be certain our nation has come a long way, but as we debate this critical bill, I am reminded of the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015), and its powerful conclusion explaining the profound power of love and marriage, and the desire to be seen as equal in the eyes of the law:

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies

the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice,

and family. In forming a marital union, two people become

something greater than once they were. As some of the

petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a

love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand

these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of

marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it

so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for

themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in

loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest

institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the

law. The Constitution grants them that right.

Despite significant legal advances over the past several years, including marriage equality, LGBTQ Americans remain vulnerable to discrimination daily and too often have little recourse.

In the 116th Congress, the Equality Act had the bipartisan support of Members of Congress, with nearly 240 co-sponsors, as well as the strong support of the business community, and most important, the overwhelming support of the American people.

In the 117th Congress, the Equality Act was reintroduced with 223 original cosponsors.

More than 70 percent of American support the Equality Act.

This has been a long journey; the first Equality Act was introduced nearly 46 years ago.

It is long past time to secure the civil rights of LGBTQ people across the country and accord them full membership in the American family.

With the Trump Administration rolling back protections at the federal level and anti-equality opponents continuing to push discriminatory bills at the state level, LGBTQ people cannot wait another year for affirmation that they are worthy of the dignity of their peers and deserving of equal protection of the laws.

Today, too many LGBTQ Americans in too many places remain too vulnerable to discrimination daily with too little legal recourse.

Fifty percent of the national LGBTQ community live in states where, though they may have the right to marry, they have no explicit non- discrimination protections in other areas of daily life.

The Equality Act extends the full anti-discrimination protections of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other key pillars of fairness and justice in our country to LGBTQ Americans.

Sexual orientation and gender identity deserve full civil rights protections, not just in the workplace, but in every place: in education, housing, credit, jury service, public facilities, and public accommodations.

Today, there are only 21 states have explicit laws barring discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, housing, and public accommodations, and only 20 states have such protections for gender identity.

In most states, a same-sex couple can get married on Saturday, then be legally denied service at a restaurant on Sunday, and be fired from their jobs on Monday, and evicted from their apartment on Tuesday.

Madam Speaker, let me take a moment to discuss in more detail several of the important elements of the Equality Act.

The Equality Act amends existing federal civil rights laws to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in education, employment, housing, credit, Federal jury service, public accommodations, and the use of Federal funds.

It does so by adding sex in some places where it had not previously been protected,

and clarifying that sex includes sexual orientation and gender identity.

Specifically, H.R. 5, the ``Equality Act of 2021'' amends:

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to provide basic protections against discrimination in public accommodations by adding sex, including sexual orientation and gender identity;

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to provide basic protections against discrimination by recipients of federal financial assistance by adding sex, including sexual orientation, and gender identity;

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991, and the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 to make explicit protections against workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity;

The Fair Housing Act of 1968 to make protections against 1 housing discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity explicit;

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act to make protections against 7 credit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity explicit; and

The Jury Selections and Services Act to make protections against discrimination in federal jury service based on sexual orientation or gender identity explicit.

The march towards equality has been long and has awoken passions passion from many quarters for various reasons.

Well-intentioned people from all walks of life have had difficulty as progress washes over the debate surrounding protections for same sex individuals.

At times, the debate has seen input from members of the faith community, who strive to reconcile their love for all of God's sons and daughters, with the script of their sacred text.

I understand this tension, but I have carefully studied the text and am confident that passage of the Equality Act will not adversely affect any person's freedom of worship of the free exercise of their faith.

The Equality Act adds sexual orientation and gender identity to federal civil rights law and sex where it is missing.

But the same statutory exemptions that are already in place in the Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act will remain in place after enactment and the guarantees of the United States Constitution remain untouched.

The U.S. Constitution provides ample protections for religious freedom and nothing in this bill would, or could, infringe upon the protections afforded by the Constitution, as the principal sponsor of the bill, Congressman Cicilline, confirmed during a colloquy we held when the bill was marked up in the Judiciary Committee in the 116th Congress.

Specifically, the provisions relating to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (federal funding) include the original exemptions for discrimination based on religion.

Religious organizations (not just houses of worship) are free to limit participation in wide array of activities and services to only members of their faith.

This same exemption applies to public accommodations.

Houses of worship could be considered a place of public accommodation only if they offer their space or services for commercial public use.

This does not include religious services.

Nothing in this bill alters the ability of houses of worship or religious leaders to practice or carry out their faith.

No member of the clergy will ever be compelled to perform a religious ceremony that conflicts with their beliefs, including marrying same-sex couples.

The DOJ Title VI Manual and relevant and relevant case law clearly provide that a religious organization that is not ``principally engaged'' in providing social services is only bound by nondiscrimination requirements related to the program for which they receive funding if that funding is targeted in order to provide a specific program or service, i.e. disaster relief, rather than to the entity ``as a whole.''

Nothing in the Equality Act changes that rule.

There is a longstanding ministerial exemption in federal civil rights law that exempts religious organizations from complying with employment nondiscrimination provisions for ministers, rabbis and any other person who is ``carrying out the faith''.

The Equality Act does not alter that exemption in any way.

The Equality Act does not repeal the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

The Equality Act clarifies that RFRA cannot be used to defend discrimination in public settings or with federal funds.

The Equality Act does not alter or amend the RFRA standard for any other kinds of claims.

Federal civil rights laws and the United States Constitution provide many exemptions for religious organizations.

It bears stating again that the statutory exemptions that are , already in place in the Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act will remain in place and the United States Constitution remains untouched.

Courts have long-rejected religious claims as a reason to deny civil rights protections, including those based on race and sex, and the same analysis applies to all other protected characteristics.

Specifically, religious belief did not exempt restaurants or hotels from complying with the civil rights laws passed in the 1960s and cannot do so today.

RFRA explicitly contemplates that Congress would exempt certain laws from its application.

The clarifying language in the Equality Act is necessary to ensure that courts do not misinterpret the intended interaction between RFRA and our civil rights laws.

RFRA will still be available to address burdens on religious beliefs and practices in other contexts.

And any individual or organization that is concerned that their religious beliefs or practices are being unjustly burdened retains the ability to bring a claim under the First Amendment.

The time has come to extend the full blessings of equality and the majesty of the law's protection to all our brothers and sisters, including those in the LGBTQ community.

Madam Speaker, it been said that ``the moral arc of the universe is long but bends toward justice.''

Today, with passage by this House of H.R. 5, the Equality Act of 2021, we bend that arc even more in the direction of justice.

I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this life-changing and life-affirming legislation and urge all members to stand on the right of history and vote for its passage.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 546) to regulate monitoring of electronic communications between an incarcerated person in a Bureau of Prisons facility and that person's attorney or other legal representative, and for other purposes.

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

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

Madam Speaker, the first thing I would like to do is thank our distinguished chair of the Democratic Caucus, Mr. Jeffries, for working with us and moving forward on this bill, along with the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Nadler.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 546, the Effective Assistance of Counsel in the Digital Era Act requires the Federal Bureau of Prisons to establish a system that ensures the confidentiality of all privileged electronic communications between incarcerated individuals and their attorneys or legal representatives.

H.R. 546 is identical to bipartisan legislation sponsored by Representative Hakeem Jeffries last Congress. Last September, the House approved this bill by voice vote. However, the Senate failed to take up the measure prior to adjournment. As we move forward today, I hope that the House will approve this bill with broad support, again, so that the Senate will take swift action and President Biden can sign this much- needed proposal into law.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 546 addresses important constitutional protections for criminal defendants, and all of these I support. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides the right to counsel, to assist in the defense of those accused of criminal offenses. In order to represent their clients in an effective manner, defense attorneys must have the ability to communicate candidly with their clients.

The attorney-client privilege, which keeps communications between individuals and their attorneys confidential, exists in part to foster open communications. This privilege is a fundamental component of the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Constitution. Of course, this privilege does not protect communications between a client and an attorney made in furtherance of or in order to cover up a crime or fraud, also known as the crime-fraud exception. We understand that.

Outside of any custody setting, defendants are less constrained in their ability to have candid conversations with their attorneys. Generally, out-of-custody defendants can go to their attorneys' offices, speak with them freely on the phone, or send written or electronic correspondence without fear of interference or monitoring. To an extent, in-custody defendants also have these protections.

For example, in the Federal system, Bureau of Prisons' regulations ensure that inmates can meet with their attorneys without auditory supervision. Current regulations also allow confidential phone calls and letters between inmates and their attorneys. But these same protections do not apply to email communications for the nearly 152,000 individuals currently in Federal custody, including those in pretrial detention who have not been convicted of any crime.

I know that my colleagues can see that that is definitively a denial of the civil rights, civil liberties, and the criminal justice rights that these individuals should have access to.

H.R. 546 would ensure that all communications between attorneys and their clients remain confidential, including email.

Madam Speaker, over a decade ago, the Federal Bureau of Prisons recognized the growing importance of email, which is important in providing efficient and swift communications between inmates and individuals on the outside.

Since 2009, Bureau of Prisons' inmates have been able to access emails

through a system known as TRULINCS. However, TRULINCS requires inmates and their contacts to consent to monitoring of all communications, even email exchanges between inmates and their attorneys. That, I think we all understand, is unfair.

Madam Speaker, during the last decade, email has grown rapidly and is the primary means of communication between inmates and their attorneys. During the current pandemic, emails have become even more important given how difficult it is for attorneys to meet with their clients.

Without appropriate safeguards, the Bureau of Prisons risks severely hindering the effective representation of inmates by limiting attorney- client privilege for electronic communications. Therefore, H.R. 546 would require the Bureau to implement an adequate system to ensure that these attorney-client communications remain confidential--again, a constitutional provision or principle of the right to counsel.

H.R. 546 also includes additional protections, including the requirement of the contents of electronic communications be destroyed when an inmate is released from prison, as well as authorizing the suppression of evidence obtained or derived from access to information that is in violation of the provisions set forth in the bill.

Madam Speaker, this is an important bill. Its time is now. I commend our colleague, Representative Jeffries, for his effort and leadership in developing this bipartisan legislation. This proposal has already received broad support by the House during the last Congress, and now we must act swiftly to see it enacted into law, moving to the United States Senate, and seeing the United States Senate act quickly for it to be signed by President Joe Biden.

Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join us in support of this bill today, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary, Committee, I rise in strong support of H.R. 546, the bipartisan ``Effective Assistance of Counsel in the Digital Era Act,'' reintroduced by Congressman Jeffries of New York, legislation that ensures that email communications between people in Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) custody and their legal teams are protected with the same privilege as legal visits, letters, and phone calls.

This legislation was reported out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously in the 116th Congress and was passed in the House twice-- once as part of a COVID relief bill and later without objection on the House floor.

The principles of justice, fairness, and due process upon which our legal system is built necessitate confidentiality between the accused and their defense counsel.

Attorney client privilege is one of the oldest privileges for confidential communications and has been an important part of the American legal system for hundreds of years.

This privilege is critical when clients are in custody, and the form of communication--whether it be in person, by letter, by telephone, or by email--should have no bearing on that protection.

Currently, individuals held in BOP facilities are uniformly denied the ability to have privileged communications with their lawyers through TRULINCS, the only email system available to them.

In order to use the BOP system, incarcerated individuals must sign a waiver acknowledging that their communications may be monitored.

Without signing the waiver, they cannot use the email system, cutting off any opportunity to communicate electronically.

The need for access to privileged email is long overdue, and it is more critical than ever today.

As the COVID pandemic has raged across the country and spread through detention facilities, BOP has restricted in-person visits, and unmonitored calls and legal mail are more difficult to use.

But incarcerated clients' need to have access to their lawyers is undiminished, and in many instances is heightened by the delays and fears brought on by the pandemic.

Email is the safest and most cost-effective means of communicating.

The Effective Assistance of Counsel in the Digital Era Act remedies many of these concerns by striking the right balance between the government's limited interest in accessing certain email communications with a warrant and the need to properly protect communications subject to the attorney-client privilege.

This legislation will only require the Department of Justice to change procedures concerning attorney-client communications and still maintains the ability for United States Attorneys to access other emails.

Privileged communication is the cornerstone of attorney-client relationships and inseparable from the due process rights on which the U.S. legal system is founded.

It is past time for BOP to bring its policies into the 21st century and ensure that electronic communications between people in custody and their legal teams are protected.

I urge all Members to join me in voting for H.R. 546, the ``Effective Assistance of Counsel in the Digital Era Act.''

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the sponsor and author of this bill, the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries) an additional 1 minute.

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

Let me thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop) for his collegial response and his very important remarks on collaboration for important legislation like this.

Let me also thank the distinguished gentleman from New York for finding an Achilles' heel that would really and continues to undermine the true sense of attorney-client privilege and to respect that privilege, whether you are in custody or not, and also recognizes the increasing utilization of the digital world to file briefs, to make arguments, and, of course, to find that divide between those in-custody inmates incarcerated and those that are not in custody. We are now moving to extensive virtual court proceedings.

As we well know, individuals in custody are making a number of efforts to prove their innocence. They are appealing. They are seeking new trials. They, too, have rights that should be respected under both the Criminal Code and the Constitution.

So, again, I thank the gentleman for his thoughtfulness and all the bipartisan cosponsors that he has.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 546 would ensure that the attorney-client privilege, again, is safeguarded in all communications between criminal defendants and their attorneys. This bipartisan legislation addresses an issue that is essential to the fair administration of the criminal justice system.

During this ongoing pandemic, this measure has become even more urgent when there is even more reliance on electronic communications between attorneys and incarcerated individuals.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan legislation.

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