Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today as the Co-Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (the Helsinki Commission) to remember the great Russian human rights activist Sergei Kovalev and to include in the Record an opinion column by Vladimir Kara-Murza from Wednesday's Washington Post.

MOSCOW--``Our opposition was not political; it was moral

incompatibility with the regime,'' Sergei Kovalev, a leading

figure in the Soviet dissident movement, explained in an

interview for a documentary I made in the early 2000s. ``At

some point you realize that it is shameful to remain

silent.''

Last week, Kovalev died in his sleep at the age of 91. His

funeral on Friday was attended by thousands of Muscovites who

filed past his casket at the Sakharov Center, an institution

named for his friend and mentor, Andrei Sakharov, and

designated by Vladimir Putin's government as a ``foreign

agent.'' Several Western countries sent their diplomats to

pay respects. No Russian government official attended.

Perhaps it was better this way. I doubt Kovalev would have

appreciated hypocritical gestures of condolence from a regime

led by a KGB officer who has brought back many of the

authoritarian practices Kovalev spent his life fighting.

Like many in the Soviet dissident movement, Kovalev joined

the human rights struggle from the academic world. A

successful biophysicist and head of a laboratory section at

Moscow State University, he had a PhD and more than 60

research papers to his name. But he could not remain silent

in the face of a resurgent totalitarianism of the Brezhnev

era that saw both domestic repression and aggressive

posturing abroad. For Kovalev, the defining moments were the

show trial of writers Andrei Sinyavsky and Yuli Daniel and

the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, both in the second

half of the 1960s.

His activism brought his scientific career to an end, of

course. From then on, Kovalev dedicated his life to

documenting, publicizing and confronting abuses committed by

his government against his fellow citizens. A founding member

of the Initiative Group for the Defense of Human Rights in

the USSR--the first human rights group in the country--and

the Moscow chapter of Amnesty International, Kovalev served

as the editor of the Chronicle of Current Events, the

samizdat news bulletin that reported on human rights

violations throughout the Soviet Union. During Kovalev's

subsequent trial on charges of ``anti-Soviet agitation,'' the

KGB tried to prove the slanderous nature of the Chronicle's

reporting--but ended up confirming its accuracy. Not that it

changed the outcome: Kovalev was sentenced to seven years of

imprisonment followed by three years in internal exile. His

trial was held behind closed doors with a preselected

``audience.'' Sakharov tried, unsuccessfully, to enter the

courtroom and ended up standing outside the door throughout

the trial. At the very same time, in Oslo, Sakharov's wife,

Elena Bonner, was accepting his Nobel Peace Prize, which he

dedicated to ``all prisoners of conscience in the Soviet

Union and in other Eastern European countries''--including

Kovalev, whom he mentioned by name.

The collapse of communist regimes in Eastern Europe saw

many former dissidents go into politics to help steer their

countries toward democracy. Poland's Lech Walesa and

Czechoslovakia's Vaclav Havel were only the best-known

examples. In Russia, to its chagrin, this was more the

exception than the norm--but Sergei Kovalev was among those

exceptions. Four times he was elected to the Russian

parliament. He was also Russia's first human rights

ombudsman, co-wrote the human rights clauses in the

constitution and served as Russia's representative on the

U.N. Human Rights Commission and the Parliamentary Assembly

of the Council of Europe.

Throughout it all, he stayed true to the principles that

had defined his dissident period. He sought to make politics

moral and never compromised his conscience. With the start of

Russia's military campaign in Chechnya, he tried to use his

position to prevent bloodshed--including by personally

leading negotiations that saved the lives of more than 1,500

hostages during a terrorist siege in the summer of 1995. But

while President Boris Yeltsin had genuine respect for

Kovalev, he chose advice from elsewhere. When it became clear

that the war would not stop, Kovalev resigned his official

positions and sent Yeltsin a sharply worded open letter. The

president responded personally, thanking Kovalev for his

service and expressing sympathy for his motivation. This was

a different Russia.

Kovalev spent the last part of his life as he did the

first: in opposition to a regime increasingly intolerant of

domestic dissent and increasingly aggressive toward others.

While Russia still had a real parliament, Kovalev remained a

member--voting against Putin's confirmation as prime minister

in 1999 and warning of a coming ``authoritarian police state

led by . . . the well-preserved Soviet security services'' in

early 2000. That was a time when many in Russia and in the

West were still harboring illusions about Putin. When legal

opposition politics became all but impossible, Kovalev

returned to being what he knew best, a dissident. His last

public appearance, earlier this year, was at a virtual event

commemorating Sakharov's centennial.

Kovalev described himself as an idealist--an indispensable

quality in a seemingly hopeless struggle against a ruthless

authoritarian system. The main lesson from Kovalev and his

fellow dissidents was that one can choose not to remain

silent even in the most difficult circumstances. And that, in

the end, the struggle might not be as hopeless as it seems.'

Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer the thanks of a grateful nation for the life and work of former Washington Post Metro editor Harry M. Rosenfeld who guided the newspaper in its Pulitzer Prize-winning Watergate coverage. Mr. Rosenfeld died last week at the age of 91. A survivor of Berlin's Kristallnacht in 1938, he and his family immigrated to New York City in March of 1939, just months before World War II began. After graduating from Syracuse University and a stint in the U.S. Army, Mr. Rosenfeld joined the New York Herald Tribune syndicate and rose to managing editor before joining The Post. Editor Ben Bradlee made him assistant managing editor for metropolitan news where he inherited a staff of hungry reporters covering local beats, among them Carl Bernstein. Mr. Rosenfeld later hired a very persistent Bob Woodward. The double-byline stories of Woodward and Bernstein, covering scandal and corruption in the Nixon administration, eventually led to Nixon's 1974 resignation. He ended his career as the editor of newspapers in Albany, New York. I offer my condolences to his wife Anne and his three daughters and his extended family. Mr. Rosenfeld's enduring sense of justice and demand for accountability helped change American history and inspired a generation of journalists. His passion for the truth and for journalism was an inspiration and a model to be emulated. His was a life well led.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to wish the best good fortune to a transformational educator, Dr. Marjorie Hass, who is leaving as President of Rhodes College in Memphis to become President of the Council of Independent Colleges, a Washington-based association of independent colleges and universities. There she will be a leading voice in national discussions of issues in higher education. In her four years at Rhodes, Dr. Hass has inspired the students, faculty and staff to maintain the stellar reputation it has gained over 173 years as one of the nation's top liberal arts institutions. Trained as a philosopher and guided by her Jewish faith, Dr. Hass has been a thoughtful decision maker as a college president, maintaining high standards in leadership development and academics. In the last four years, Rhodes has been named one of the nation's most innovative liberal arts colleges by U.S. News & World Report, a ``best value'' college by The Princeton Review, and Tennessee's best liberal arts college by Niche, the lifestyle and culture magazine. Dr. Hass taught philosophy for over a decade at Muhlenberg College in Pennsylvania, where she also directed the Center for Ethics, and holds bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees in philosophy from the University of Illinois--Champaign-Urbana. Before coming to Muhlenberg College, Dr. Hass served as president of Austin College in Sherman, Texas, where she worked to ensure talented students could succeed regardless of their financial background. Dr. Hass is married to Dr. Lawrence Hass, a former philosophy professor and sleight-of-hand magician, and she has two grown children, Cameron and Jessica. After her contributions to Rhodes and to our city, I look forward to seeing Dr. Hass testifying before the education committees on Capitol Hill in her new leadership position and wish her the best in this new chapter of her life.

Mr. Speaker, we are not normal. We are not over the pandemic. We are not over coronavirus and COVID-19.

Many people in our country, over a majority in my State of Tennessee, have not been immunized, have not had the vaccine.

I urge everyone to get vaccinated.

When I was a young child, 5 years old, I got polio. Four months before I got polio, my father gave the polio vaccine to second graders in a test in Tennessee. He gave it to my brother in the second grade. He took some vaccine home to give to me, but decided it was outside of his call and didn't do it. I got polio. It has affected me every day of my life since, and it affected my father as well.

I urge everybody to get the vaccine, not to regret it. Keep your children, your family, and your neighbors safe and free from illness.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Memphis playwright, Katori Hall, who was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for Drama on Friday for her play ``The Hot Wing King,'' which is set in a kitchen in Memphis. Ms. Hall won the prestigious national recognition as a nominee for a Tony Award for ``Tina: The Tina Turner Musical,'' a Broadway musical about the singer from Nutbush, Tennessee. In its citation, the Pulitzer Board ``The Hot Wing King'' a ``funny, deeply felt consideration of Black masculinity and how it is perceived, filtered through the experiences of a loving gay couple and their extended family as they prepare for a culinary competition.'' Ms. Hall, a graduate of Craigmont High School, first gained national acclaim for her 2006 play ``The Mountaintop,'' set in Room 306 of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spent his last night in 1968. That play, which debuted in London, won the Laurence Olivier Award for Best New Play. Hall is the creator of the cable television blockbuster ``P-Valley,'' set in a Mississippi Delta strip club. I wish her well in what is already a very promising career.

Madam Speaker, there is hardly anything this Congress can do that will be more important than having a bipartisan commission to look at the insurrection that occurred in this Capitol on January 6. There was an attempt to overturn our Constitution and to displace the electoral college and the peaceful transition of power that makes our country unique and special among the countries of the world.

This wouldn't have happened but for the President at the time telling people to come to Washington on January 6--no other date but the day of the electoral college--to fight like hell or you won't have a government anymore and telling them he would walk with them to the Capitol and told them where to go.

This cannot happen again. If we don't have this commission and reveal the truth, it will happen again. There is only one reason you wouldn't vote for this, Madam Speaker: if you can't handle the truth. Get the truth out.

Madam Speaker, I thank my most capable and socially aware counsel to my subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, who brought this issue to my attention long before the tragedy in Atlanta, the attacks that have been launched upon people of Asian-American descent in New York, California, and other places in this Nation.

We held a hearing after the awful attacks in Atlanta, but it was because of the earlier attacks and the fact that attacks on any Americans because of their racial or national background is totally improper and wrong. Religion, race, national origin should not be a basis for any discrimination.

I am pleased that these bills are being offered, that they are going to pass this House, and that, hopefully, they will pass the Senate. The reportage will be better, enforcement will be better, and maybe we will see an end to this intolerance.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

This meaningful legislation will protect pregnant workers who have suffered because of insufficient workplace protections, a story far too familiar to many workers in my district in Memphis, Tennessee.

In 2018, I was shocked to read of the disturbing workplace abuses in an XPO Logistics warehouse in Memphis, which was reported in The New York Times. Warehouse workers were denied minor and reasonable accommodations, like less taxing workloads and shortened work shifts. These were pregnant workers.

As a result, several women suffered miscarriages, some of which happened while they were still on the warehouse floor.

I, along with Congresswoman DeLauro and 97 of my colleagues, wrote to the Education and Labor Committee to urge the 115th Congress to take decisive action and consider the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

I also participated in the Education and Labor Committee's subcommittee hearing on this bill last Congress.

Many pregnant workers are being forced to choose between maintaining a healthy pregnancy and losing their jobs at a time when both their healthcare and their economic security are crucial.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will ensure that pregnant workers get accommodations when they need them without facing discrimination or retaliation in the workplace by putting in place a clear, explicit pregnancy accommodation framework similar to the accommodation standard that has been in place for decades for workers with disabilities.

I urge passage of this bill. I include in the Record the Better Balance report on the need for this law in spite of inaction by the State and the need for the 14th Amendment to be invoked. About eight States are included here.

May 13, 2021.

A Better Balance Legal Analysis of State Actor Pregnancy-Related Gender

Discrimination

Decades after Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination

Act (``PDA''), pregnant workers continue to face pernicious

and unconstitutional gender discrimination at the hands of

their employers, including state actors.

Evidence of persistent discrimination by state actors

against pregnant workers in need of accommodation warrants--

and indeed demands--Congress's exercise of its Section 5

power under the Fourteenth Amendment to remedy and deter

violations of equal protection.

In the 21st century, sex discrimination against pregnant

workers often takes the form of reliance on insidious gender

role stereotyping concerning women's place in the home and in

the workplace. Too often, such stereotypes--such as, that

motherhood and employment are irreconcilable--force pregnant

women ``to choose between having a child and having a job.''

Stereotyping surrounding pregnancy and motherhood is

pervasive, and biases can be intentional, implicit,

unconscious, or structural. For instance, a study published

in June 2020 surveying pregnant women who work in physically

demanding jobs found that 63 percent of women surveyed

worried about facing negative stereotypes related to their

pregnancy, and many avoided asking for accommodations,

sensing instead that they needed to overexert themselves

physically in order to avoid stereotyping. As a result, the

study's authors recommended ``creat[ing] better social

support for utilizing pregnancy accommodation.'' Those

pregnant women who are let go or pushed out for needing

accommodation face a double burden based on stereotyping:

After losing critical income at the very moment their growing

family needs it most, they must then fight to re-enter a job

market that assumes new mothers are less competent and

committed than fathers and their childless peers.

As the Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed, such sex

role stereotyping is a problem of constitutional magnitude.

Indeed, the constitutional right to be free of invidious sex

stereotyping ``at the faultline between work and family'' is

now well-established For instance, in Nevada Department of

Human Resources v. Hibbs, the Court rejected the ``sex-role

stereotype'' that ``women's family duties trump those of the

workplace. Craig v. Boren, the Court rejected ``outdated

misconceptions concerning the role of females in the home

rather than in the 'marketplace and world of ideas.' '' And,

in Califano v. Westcott, the Court rejected ``the baggage of

sexual stereotypes that presumes the father has the primary

responsibility to provide a home and its essentials, while

the mother is the center of home and family life.''

Yet state employers continue to participate in and foster

unconstitutional sex discrimination, including gender-role

stereotyping, by failing to provide reasonable accommodations

to allow pregnant women to be both mothers and wage earners.

The problem is pervasive. To offer just a handful of

examples:

In Alabama, Devyn Williams, a correctional officer trainee,

informed her employer, the Alabama Department of Corrections,

that she was pregnant. Corrections officials immediately

began to discuss how to terminate Williams, with one deputy

commissioner commenting in an email, ``Let me guess, we have

to pay this person [Williams] through the entire

pregnancy[?]''. At officials' urging, Williams provided a

doctor's note recommending she be excused from the state's

monthly physical training session due to her pregnancy. Upon

receipt of the note, one corrections official emailed the

others, ``[t]his [doctor's note] will give us grounds to

separate [Plaintiff] from service.'' The state promptly fired

Williams. In one sense, Williams was lucky: Alabama officials

had the poor judgment to document their animus. Their emails

made explicit the unconstitutional sex stereotypes motivating

their refusal to accommodate. Employers do not always put the

animus underlying their failures to accommodate in

discoverable emails. The PDA has failed to root out such

intentional yet ``subtle [forms of] discrimination that [are]

difficult to detect on a case-by-case basis,'' thanks in part

to a proof structure that demands onerous and lengthy

litigation. (Williams was still litigating her case nearly

five years after she requested accommodation.)

In Oklahoma, Clarisa Borchert, a childcare attendant,

informed her employer, a state university child care center,

that she was pregnant. When Borchert's doctor recommended a

20-pound lifting restriction--which Borchert believed would

allow her to continue to care for infants--the state told her

that she would not be permitted to work ``with restrictions

of any kind.'' The gender-based animus underlying the state's

blanket refusal to accommodate Borchert's pregnancy was

revealed by the ``daily disparaging comments'' made by

Borchert's boss and other employees about her pregnancy. For

instance, in response to Borchert's ``severe and ongoing

nausea and vomiting caused by her pregnancy,'' her boss told

her to ``get over it'' and accused her of feigning illness,

telling Borchert that she ``wasn't

really sick.'' Soon thereafter, the state issued Borchert a

Separation Notice.

In New York, Lakia Jackson, a nurse technician, informed

her employer, a state university, that she was pregnant.

Jackson repeatedly requested assistance changing patients,

which her state employer denied because, in the words of her

supervisors, the university ``does not accommodate pregnant

women.'' As a result of the strain of changing one patient,

Jackson had to be rushed to the emergency room and ``nearly

[went] into pre-term labor.'' In defense of its refusal to

accommodate Jackson's pregnancy, her state employer invoked a

common sex stereotype about pregnant women: that she was

simply ``using her pregnancy as an excuse for not doing her

work.'' The state terminated her shortly thereafter.

In Tennessee, Amber Burnett, a veterinary assistant,

informed her employer, a state university, that she was

pregnant. When Burnett alerted her employer that she could

still work but that her physician had advised minimal or no

contact with diseased animals placed in isolation, her

employer told her that ``she should begin looking for another

job.'' Shortly thereafter, the state terminated her. In

justifying the termination, the state claimed concern for the

potential for harm to Burnett's pregnancy--a rationale that

the Supreme Court recognized decades ago is rooted in

impermissible sex discrimination.

In North Carolina, Lauren Burch, a special agent, informed

her employer, the state alcohol enforcement agency, that she

was pregnant. On her doctor's advice, Burch requested light

duty status to avoid ``situations that would put her at risk

for physical altercations.'' Her state employer approved the

request but assigned her to a worksite that ``required a

daily, six-hour round-trip commute'' (for which she was

provided ``no work credit for travel time'' and was forced to

use ``her personal vehicle at her own expense''). The state

refused to grant her an assignment with a shorter commute--

despite Burch's doctor's recommendation that she travel no

more than 1.5 hours--and pushed her onto unpaid leave.

In Illinois, Tracy Atteberry, a police officer, informed

her employer, the Illinois State Police, that she was

pregnant. Upon the advice of her doctor, she requested light

duty, which the state denied, despite providing light duty to

other non-pregnant employees with medical needs. Instead, the

state forced Atteberry to use up her personal time prior to

giving birth to her child.

In Oregon, Maricruz Caravantes, a caregiver, informed her

employer, a state agency, that she had a high-risk pregnancy.

Upon the advice of her doctor, Caravantes requested--and was

denied--assistance with lifting patients, causing her to

``seriously injure[]'' her back.

In Kansas, Deanna Porter, a psychiatric aide, informed her

employer, a state hospital, that she was pregnant. When

Porter's doctor advised that she avoid lifting more than 40

pounds, the state refused to allow Porter to work with the

lifting restriction in place and sent her home. Shortly

thereafter, she was terminated.

Due to a combination of gaps in the law and narrow judicial

interpretations, Congress's efforts through the PDA to

eradicate ``the pervasive presumption that women are mothers

first, and workers second'' have ``proved ineffective for a

number of reasons.'' First, as described in A Better

Balance's report, ``Long Overdue,'' two-thirds of women lose

their PDA pregnancy accommodation claims in court. A high

percentage of these losses can be traced to courts' rejection

of pregnant workers' comparators or to workers' inability to

find a comparator, under the Supreme Court's Young framework.

The Young standard also has done little to create clarity in

the law, sowing confusion among lower courts, juries, and

litigants alike. As A Better Balance co-president Dina Bakst

testified earlier this year:

[R]ecent decisions further illustrate how steep a barrier

Young and its comparator standard have erected to proving

pregnancy discrimination in court. Workers, especially low-

wage workers--and particularly women of color--typically do

not have access to their coworkers' personnel files and do

not otherwise know how they are being treated. Often, this

information is rightly confidential, which means a pregnant

worker would be unable to find the information needed to show

they are entitled to an accommodation.

Second, litigating accommodation cases under the PDA has

proven so onerous and timeconsuming as to be wholly

ineffective in the lives of real women. As noted above, Devyn

Williams was still litigating her accommodation case nearly

five years after she requested accommodation. Such delay has

devastating consequences for pregnant workers who need

accommodation promptly, not five years later. As our co-

president testified:

Most pregnant workers do not have the resources, time, or

desire to engage in timeconsuming and stressful litigation to

attempt to obtain such information. They want, and need, to

be able to receive an accommodation promptly, so they can

continue earning income while maintaining a healthy

pregnancy.

Finally, even when pregnant workers win their PDA

accommodation cases, it is because they are lucky enough to

find the perfect comparator or, like Devyn Williams, to have

a state employer foolish enough to document their gender

animus in a ``smoking gun'' email--the kinds of evidence

courts have deemed necessary to prevail under the PDA. The

many pregnant women who lack such evidence--but who

nevertheless are denied the accommodations they need due to

their state employers' animus and stereotypes--do not bring

suit at all, a reality A Better Balance often hears from

workers on its legal helpline. If a standard is so onerous as

to prevent workers from seeking justice, that means current

law offers no adequate remedy for a pernicious,

unconstitutional form of discrimination.

The PDA's failure to combat states' record of

unconstitutional gender discrimination demands further action

by Congress. Where, as here, ``Congress ha[s] already tried

unsuccessfully'' to remedy violations of equal protection and

such ``previous legislative attempts ha[ve] failed,'' then

``added prophylactic measures'' are justified and, indeed,

imperative. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) is just

such a measure.

The PWFA is narrow, tailored, and targeted to combat gender

discrimination, including invalid sex role stereotypes about

the place of ``mothers or mothers-to-be'' in the work sphere.

By requiring reasonable accommodation of pregnant workers

only where doing so would not cause employers undue hardship,

the PWFA is carefully crafted to deter and quickly remedy

unconstitutional sex discrimination in the hiring, retention,

and promotion of young (potentially-pregnant) women and soon-

to-become mothers. Moreover reasonable accommodations for

pregnancy are inherently time-limited, and the vast majority

of accommodations pregnant workers need, like the right to

carry a water bottle or sit on a stool at a retail counter,

are low-cost or no-cost. The minimal (or non-existent)

economic cost of a pregnancy accommodation is one reason

major industry groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,

champion the PWFA.

We urge Congress to pass this much-needed legislation:

I remind the House that we were under attack on January 6.

Earlier this week a freshman Republican said that January 6 could have

been seen as just a typical tourist day in the Capitol.

Well, let me tell that gentleman that on typical tourist days in the Capitol, 100 policemen aren't beaten by people who try to enter the Capitol when it is closed to public attendance because of the coronavirus.

On typical tourist days, people don't put excrement on the walls of the Capitol of the United States.

On typical tourist days, people don't urinate on the floors of the Capitol of the United States.

On typical days, people don't batter down the windows on the outside to breach the Capitol.

On typical days, people don't batter down the doors and the glass entering the Speaker's lobby, resulting in one person's death. And if that person wasn't dead, they would have breached the floor of the House and God knows what they would have done if they could have found a person in the House.

They were hollering, ``Hang Mike Pence,'' ``Nancy Pelosi, where are you? We are here.'' That was an insurrection. That was an attack on our Constitution. It should never be forgotten by anybody who was serving in the Congress, by any American because our liberty, our Constitution, our country, our values were on the line.

Mr. Speaker, in the beginning of this week because of the routine inspection by the Department of Transportation in Arkansas, it was discovered that the Hernando De Soto Bridge that crosses the Mississippi River between Memphis and Arkansas had a major crack in a structural beam. As a result, that bridge which carries 50,000 cars across it and much of America's commerce along I-40 is closed, and it may be closed for as much as months--not days or weeks, but months.

Traffic is diverted to a 1949 bridge, the Memphis-Arkansas Bridge, which is currently serving the need, but it is difficult, and it is causing traffic problems in Memphis.

Mr. Speaker, 700 barges are stopped on the Mississippi River--370 going south and 330 going north--which cannot go under the bridge for fear that the bridge could fall and not support its own weight and damage the barges.

I am calling on the Department of Transportation to get involved, to lend its expertise, and to lend money and finances to get this bridge open. This is a national tragedy, and it shows why we need an infrastructure bill immediately.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairwoman Waters for her important work on this bill and for helping with my amendment to be included therein.

The amendment that I have is cosponsored by Representatives Ocasio- Cortez and Bonamici. It adds a section to the law that says, if you have got a debt that is beyond the statute of limitations, that debt collection companies can't go after you.

There is a statute of limitations because sometimes over a period of time, the facts become kind of vague in people's minds. So the proof isn't strong, and they want to make sure that this could be an appropriate subject matter for a court case.

Also, sometimes debts are sold and debt collection agencies buy them, and they don't really know the facts, the amounts, and all of that. So if a debt is over the statute, this prohibits the debt collectors from going after someone.

I think I found this about 8 years ago in an AARP magazine, which I read, and they said how awful this was. And I thought it was, too. It took 8 years to get it here because it took a Democratic team to bring it to the floor to look out for debtors.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all the support we have got from my cosponsors, and I hope we pass the bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay my respects to a great civic leader of Memphis, Arnold E. Perl, who passed on Tuesday. A labor and employment lawyer for more than 40 years, Mr. Perl served on the Memphis and Shelby County Airport Authority, including 16 years as its chairman, where he advocated the idea of an aerotropolis linking the airport to the commerce of our city. He was also a past General Counsel of the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry as well as Secretary and General Counsel of the Greater Memphis Regional Chamber. Mr. Perl served as the Chairman of the New Arena Public Building Authority, which built the $250 million FedEx Forum. Very active in the Jewish community, he served as the 45th President of Temple Israel from 2006 to 2008. Mr. Perl also served on the Board of Trustees of the University of Tennessee from 1996 to 2002 and was supportive of the Hope Scholarship funded by the state lottery I worked to establish as a state senator. For his efforts founding the Japan-Tennessee Society and his contributions to Japanese-American relations, he was honored in 2007 with membership in the Order of the Rising Sun by the Emperor of Japan. In 2006,

he published Simple Solutions: Harness the Power of Passion and Simplicity to Get Results with FedEx's Tom Schmitt about best practices in business leadership. Mr. Perl founded the law firm Young and Perl, was a partner in the law firm Ford and Harrison, and he later became a member of the law firm Glankler Brown. Memphis has lost a fine leader. I extend my condolences to his wife Mary Lynn, his daughters Stephanie Perl Marks and Laurie Perl Meskin and their husbands, his extended family and his many friends.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my friend Lynne Jordan Turley, a music and arts educator and a civic leader who lived a life full of purpose and meaning.

Lynne gave to others because she cared for them and wanted to make the world a better place. She did this through her profession as an educator, both in Memphis and in New York City, where she helped to produce educational texts.

She participated in civic affairs, both political and charitable. She was always for the candidate who supported the underdog and the downtrodden.

Civically, the Lynne and Henry Turley Memphis Center at Rhodes College will and has contributed to the betterment of our city. Lynne was a talented musician who played her piano and sang to the enjoyment of children and friends both in person and on her WKNO television program.

Lynne was a good friend to me both personally and politically. She was sweet and smart and cheery. She had good values that she shared and a big heart that was always open. Her journey from Selma to Memphis to New York and back to Memphis was eventful and exciting.

She was the perfect spouse for her husband Henry as she complemented his abilities and talents and the two were greater for having each other. She had a host of friends, a group known as ``the Wild Women'' who were very active in community affairs, got involved in politics and encouraged people to vote and make a difference.

When they set their minds to something, they got it done. There wasn't a bigger Memphis Grizzlies fan than Lynne, who loved going to every game and knew all the players, all the fans, and all the ushers. She loved them and they loved her.

I extend my deepest condolences to her husband and my dear friend, Henry; her extended family, and her many friends. She led an exemplary life and will be greatly missed.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate Mr. Courtney for yielding to me, and I appreciate him for bringing this bill. He has a long history of now 15 years of looking out for workers, laborers, and their fair place in our country, and I thank him for that.

Over the past 13 months, our healthcare and social service workers have gone over and beyond in their efforts to keep us healthy and free during this COVID-19 pandemic. This bill, the Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers Act, is one way Congress can help keep them healthy and look out for their safety.

This amendment is a simple one. It simply says that Alzheimer's and memory care facilities are added to the type of residential treatment facilities covered by this bill. Alzheimer's and memory care facilities are sometimes overlooked in the definition and should not be.

With our aging population, Alzheimer's and dementia is growing in prevalence. In the United States, more than 5.5 million people now are living with Alzheimer's. The number is expected to increase to 14 million people by 2060. Alzheimer's is the sixth leading cause of death in our country, but third among senior citizens, behind only cancer and heart disease. This increase in Alzheimer's diagnoses means more healthcare workers and social workers will be needed to help patients and their families to try to manage this disease and cope with the effects.

This bill doesn't only help the workers, but it helps the victims of these diseases that put them in the institutions by making it more likely that people will want to go into those professions and not fear for their health.

As anyone who has or had a loved one with Alzheimer's knows that Alzheimer's patients can become aggressive for many reasons. Sometimes it is just the inability to grasp a subject or to remember something or they are hungry or whatever, and they get violent.

That is the reason oftentimes they are put into long-term facilities caring for Alzheimer's patients, and that is going to continue to grow. They have these outbursts of aggression. Healthcare professionals and social service workers need to be protected similar to their colleagues that work in residential treatment facilities.

I appreciate your consideration. I appreciate this amendment being put in the en bloc. Hopefully, we pass it and pass the bill and we look out for healthcare workers and the people who are the beneficiaries of their work. And they will need more and more service providers as the years go on.

Madam Speaker, when we came to Congress, my class of 2006 was offered the opportunity to go to Harvard University for a seminar. We were told there that one of the greatest problems facing this country was the lack of workers, that our birthrate was declining, and that we need more people to come to this country and more workers to supply our workforce and our economy. Those situations have not gotten better.

These Dreamers are trained in America. They have been educated in America. They are talented. They are smart. We are not only doing the right thing by giving them this pathway to citizenship, but we are doing the right thing for America because we need their talent to make this country even greater.

That is why I support the Dreamers act.