Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of a meaningful and consequential piece of legislation, the Build Back Better Act.

This bill will strengthen our economy, create good-paying jobs, and make extraordinary investments that will improve child care, education, health care, child nutrition, and housing. Importantly, the legislation will take critical steps to address the climate crisis.

This legislation is a significant victory for children, families, caregivers, and early childhood educators. According to data from Oregon State University, every county in my home state of Oregon was a child care desert for infant and toddler care before the coronavirus pandemic, meaning that there is only one spot for every three children who need care. The $390 billion investment for early childhood care and universal preschool in the Build Back Better Act is fundamental to the long-term success and health of our kids and economy. These investments will help millions of parents, overwhelmingly women, return to work. Additionally, we will finally recognize the critical role of early childhood educators by making sure they are paid a living wage.

We have also provided substantial investments in our students by making higher education more affordable, including by increasing the value of the Pell Grant and expanding federal financial aid to eligible students with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), temporary protected status (TPS), and deferred enforced departure (DED) status. To help students succeed in school and transition into a rewarding career, the Build Back Better Act provides funding for retention and completion grants. The bill also supports our teaching workforce by investing in grant programs to help train new teachers and address the teacher shortage. Additionally, the legislation also supports communities of color through targeted investments in Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Tribal Colleges and Universities, Hispanic- Serving Institutions and other Minority Serving Institutions.

As Chair of the Education and Labor Committee's Civil Rights and Human Services Subcommittee, I know students will be better equipped to succeed when they are no longer

worrying about their next meal. The Build Back Better Act provides nine million more students free school meals through improving the Community Eligibility Provision, which is a significant step toward ending childhood hunger.

The Build Back Better Act provides for greater access to high- quality, affordable health care and lowers costs for many Americans, especially our nation's seniors. The bill extends the enhanced Affordable Care Act premium tax credits that were included in the American Rescue Plan, and lowers the cost of prescription drugs by finally allowing Medicare to negotiate prices for some drugs. The bill expands Medicare to cover the cost of hearing aids and makes home health care for elderly parents or loved ones with disabilities more affordable and accessible. It also includes significant resources for Older Americans Act meal programs and other senior services that I have long championed, particularly those supporting LGBTQ+ seniors and other underserved communities.

The bill will allow work authorization and provide important protections from deportation for many immigrants who have been building lives in this country and contributing to our communities for more than a decade. The legislation will not provide the crucial path to citizenship that I have been advocating for, but this is significant progress that we can continue to build on.

Importantly, we are facing a code red climate emergency and the Build Back Better Act is the most significant climate bill to come before the U.S. House of Representatives. It provides long-term extensions for renewable energy tax credits, and for the first time, energy storage projects will qualify for investment tax credits. This bill also invests $29 billion in nonprofit, state, and local institutions that support rapid deployment of low- and zero-emission technologies, with a particular focus on low-income communities that historically have not received these types of investments. This legislation combats methane emissions, which account for one-fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions, by creating a methane emissions reduction program to incentivize oil and gas companies to reduce their methane leaks.

The health of our ocean reflects the health of our planet. The Build Back Better Act makes a significant investment by providing $6 billion for habitat restoration projects to conserve, restore, and protect coastal and marine habitats, increasing these ecosystems' resilience to climate change. It also provides $500 million for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration climate research to improve our understanding of the interdependence of our nation's coasts, ocean, weather, and climate. Although there is still tremendous work needed to prevent national and global climate disaster, the Build Back Better Act makes transformational and unprecedented investments in combating climate change.

The Build Back Better Act will also improve conditions for working Americans. It provides nearly $20 billion in funding for education and career training opportunities for underemployed and dislocated workers and fosters greater collaboration between industry, labor, nonprofits, and educational institutions to equip workers with skills training and post-training employment opportunities.

This bill will also support families when they need to take leave from work. Currently, the U.S. is one of only six nations in the world without a national paid leave program. The Build Back Better act brings the United States in line with every other OECD country by providing workers with four weeks of paid family leave for childbirth, major illness recovery, and family caretaking responsibilities.

Oregonians have long experienced pronounced challenges from the lack of affordable housing. The Build Back Better Act includes $150 billion to build and upgrade affordable housing stock and enhance rental assistance for low-income Americans. It also includes critical updates to and expands the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, which will further incentivize affordable housing development. This funding will improve housing affordability, support people experiencing homelessness, and shrink the homeownership gap for people of color.

Data reported by the United States Census Bureau found that the Child Tax Credit expansion that was included in the American Rescue Plan has already slashed taxes for millions of families and contributed significantly to reducing child hunger and housing insecurity. The Build Back Better Act builds upon this success by extending the enhanced Child Tax Credit for another year.

And finally, The Build Back Better Act is fully paid for by making sure the wealthiest Americans and large corporations pay their fair share in taxes.

The Build Back Better Act's historic investments will improve the lives of families and individuals, create thousands of good-paying jobs, and help our country rebuild after the devastating COVID-19 pandemic. And with the provisions to address the climate crisis, it will help bring about a better, healthier, and more secure future for Oregonians and Americans. For these reasons, I look forward to voting in favor of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) gives the overall infrastructure in the United States a dismal C- rating--and many of ASCE's scoring categories, including roads, waterways, levees, transit, and wastewater, score lower than the nation's overall average. Our national infrastructure is crumbling, outdated, and in urgent need of significant upgrades. Additionally, the largest source of energy- related carbon dioxide emissions in the country comes from the transportation sector, which disproportionately affects low-income communities and communities of color. Though this legislation leaves out many of the crucial climate provisions in the House-passed INVEST in America Act, it still represents a robust and meaningful investment in a more connected and resilient nation.

The IIJA makes overdue investments in our nation's transportation sector. IIJA provides $110 billion for roads, bridges, and major projects, and makes some notable investments in clean transportation by providing more than $20 billion for electric vehicle

charging infrastructure--the single largest federal investment of its kind in history. These investments are necessary, because 43 percent of public roadways are in poor condition, 40 percent of the 600,000 bridges in the United States are at least 50 years old, and more than one-third of all bridges need repairs. In addition, the IIJA includes over $16 billion for waterway and coastal projects, including $2.25 billion for the Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP), which supports investments in projects to upgrade and modernize ports. Coastal communities like mine in Oregon understand how important these investments are to maintain and expand ports as hubs for commerce, employment, and transportation.

Widespread and dependable public transit systems are necessary to create more equitable communities and reduce carbon emissions. Public transportation provides communities with affordable commuting options that facilitate access to employment, school and daycare, vital health care services, and more. The Department of Transportation reports that nearly half of the total carbon footprint of the typical American family with two cars comes from car transportation. The IIJA provides more than $39 billion to support public transit, which will help reduce congestion and carbon emissions. This investment is estimated to support repairs for more than 24,000 buses, 5,000 rail cars, and thousands of miles of tracks, all of which will help connect communities and support emissions reductions. The bill also includes $5 billion for low- and zero-emission buses--including school buses--which will help cut emissions that hurt vulnerable communities and students.

Climate change is increasing the intensity and frequency of severe weather events like the fires, heatwaves, and droughts that the Pacific Northwest has experienced over the last year. We must improve our nation's infrastructure to withstand and protect people and property from these extreme weather events. The IIJA includes $65 billion for power and grid infrastructure resilience and expansion. This includes funding to support efforts to harden the electric grid against disruptive weather events, as well as funding to promote innovative demonstration projects that will improve grid resilience. The legislation also provides more than $3 billion for wildfire risk reduction efforts, including funding for firefighting resources, and $3 billion for the U.S. Forest Service to implement ecosystem restoration projects that can help minimize the spread of wildfires.

Though broadband access has steadily inclined for the overall population, Americans who are non-white, less educated, lower income, and residents of rural communities disproportionately have limited broadband access. The 19 million Americans that lack access to consistent, quality broadband, may have greater difficulty realizing certain employment, educational, and social opportunities. To help remedy this disparity, the IIJA invests $65 billion for broadband investment, including funding for state grants, additional support for rural communities and Tribes, and support to accelerate broadband uptake through digital literacy training.

By making crucial investments in our nation's infrastructure, this bill will create new, good-paying jobs and will help support our nation through the recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. It represents a significant commitment toward a more connected and resilient nation, and I applaud the House and Senate for passage of this historic legislation.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 716, I call up the bill (H.R. 3992) to amend the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 to prohibit employers from limiting, segregating, or classifying applicants for employment, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 3992, the Protect Older Job Applicants Act of 2021.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Protect Older Job Applicants Act of 2021.

Protecting all workers from workplace discrimination is of the utmost importance. Unfortunately, older workers have disproportionately been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic with more workers over the age of 65 leaving the workforce in 2020 than in any year over the last six decades.

The Protect Older Job Applicants Act of 2021 would help address discrimination older workers face in the hiring process, and it is an especially important step toward helping older workers reenter the workforce as the Nation recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Currently, the disparate impact provision in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the ADEA, covers older employees seeking relief from age discrimination, but not older job applicants. The bill we are considering today would clarify the disparate impact provision and make clear that older job applicants, not just older employees, are protected.

This bill is a commonsense fix to the ADEA that would help protect workers from ageist hiring practices. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a Statement of Administrative Policy in support of H.R. 3992, the Protect Older Job Applicants Act of 2021.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 3992--Protect Older Job Applicants Act of 2021--Rep. Garcia, D-TX,

and 62 cosponsors

The Administration supports House passage of the Protect

Older Job Applicants (POJA) Act of 2021. The legislation

would amend the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)

of 1967, which prohibits, among other actions, age-based

discrimination in hiring, to specifically prohibit employers

from limiting, segregating, or classifying job applicants on

the basis of age.

The POJA Act of 2021 provides a critical clarification to

support older Americans during recruitment and hiring,

ensuring the ADEA's nondiscrimination protections extend

fully to older job applicants.

Workplace age discrimination, including at the application

stage, prevents people from fully accessing the American

dream and limits the contributions that they can make to our

shared prosperity. Ensuring equitable access to employment is

a priority for the Administration. The Administration

supports this legislation that protects older job applicants.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the record on a couple of points. In fact, the committee did have a hearing on this subject on March 18, 2021, in the Subcommittee of Civil Rights and Human Services. It was a hearing called ``Fighting for Fairness: Examining Legislation to Confront Workplace Discrimination.''

Additionally, my colleague's argument simply misstates the law with regard to places like college campuses or online recruitment. For example, employers will always have the freedom to choose the time, place, and manner in which they recruit. Whether it be on a college campus or LinkedIn, employers face no risk of liability if they can show it was based on reasonable factors other than age, such as a larger pool of highly trained individuals from which to recruit.

The argument that anyone who wasn't available to be recruited on LinkedIn or enrolled in college would be able to sue an employer for age discrimination is a misunderstanding of this law, Mr. Speaker.

Finally, Title VII has outlawed disparate impact discrimination since 1972. If there are any doubts that these sorts of laws would wipe out recruiting practices, we would have seen those consequences. In fact, this law is to correct a couple of circuits that have gone a different way from the rest of the country. In 9 out of 11 circuits, it is already the law. So any parade of horribles that my colleague is suggesting, we would have seen that already and we have not.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia), the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to note that the reality is that there is substantial evidence that older workers are routinely harmed by plausibly neutral but age-discriminate hiring practices.

For example, in 2017, the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco conducted a study on age discrimination and hiring by sending similar resumes to 13,000 job openings in 12 cities, totaling 40,000 applicants. For all five job position types they studied, the callback rate was higher for younger applicants and lower for older applicants, consistent with age discrimination in hiring.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers on the underlying bill, and I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close. I do want to note with regard to my colleague's remarks, I believe there is a House rule about not impugning the motives of people who are here on this distinguished floor of the House of Representatives.

Older workers are suffering from a higher rate of long-term unemployment versus their younger peers. According to AARP, this has produced devastating consequences during the COVID-19 pandemic, as 74 percent of workers aged 40 to 65 who have lost a job in 2020 reported being unemployed for more than 6 months.

Again, Mr. Speaker, this is already the law of the land except for people in two Federal circuits here in the United States. This bill is intended to make a uniform law across the country.

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

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

Passing the bipartisan Protect Older Job Applicants Act should be a priority of every Member of Congress. Republicans and Democrats worked together just a few months ago to advance the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act. This bipartisan effort was a major step toward ensuring older workers can assert legal claims to hold employers accountable for disparate treatment that results in age discrimination.

However, we cannot defeat age discrimination in employment if we leave older job applicants behind. Without equal protections, older workers are still being denied job opportunities because of hiring practices that, while not intentionally discriminatory, ultimately exclude workers based on their age.

Providing job applicants with the tools to seek justice for discriminatory hiring practices is not just the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do. In 2018 our economy missed out on as much as $850 billion in gross domestic product because older workers who wished to switch jobs, grow in their jobs, or reenter the workforce were denied that opportunity.

The Protect Older Job Applicants Act addresses this gap in an important ADEA protection and helps older workers eliminate barriers that prevent them from fully contributing to our economy.

More broadly, this legislation will deliver on the promise of the ADEA and help ensure that all older workers, regardless of whether they are looking for a job or already have one, are equally protected against age discrimination under the law in every part of the country.

I want to again thank Ms. Garcia for her leadership. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2119, the bipartisan Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act. As policymakers, we have an obligation to do all we can to address the domestic violence epidemic and to support survivors.

In 2021, the annual Domestic Violence Counts Report from the National Network to End Domestic Violence, found that more than 76,000 adults and children nationwide received potentially lifesaving services from emergency shelters and hotlines in one 24-hour period. Tragically, during that same day, more than 11,000 survivors' requests could not be fulfilled because of a lack of resources. That is unacceptable.

We must better fulfill our responsibility to the millions of survivors who carry the trauma of experiencing domestic violence, and whose safety and well-being depends on access to these services.

There is a clear need to update and strengthen our Federal programs to prevent intimate partner violence and better serve survivors. This critical reauthorization includes a much-needed investment to increase funding for the Family Violence and Prevention Services Act, which will help close national resource gaps.

Additionally, communities of color, LGBTQ individuals, and people with disabilities face disproportionate rates of intimate partner violence while too often having limited access to services.

Importantly, this bill will make sure that resources do reach culturally-specific programs and community-based organizations that are better equipped to serve the needs of survivors who face historic violence and systemic inequities.

As chair of the Civil Rights and Human Services Subcommittee, I was honored to hold a hearing that examined evidence-based solutions to prevent and end domestic violence. Passing this legislation takes a critical step in fulfilling our obligation to eradicate intimate partner violence wherever and whenever it occurs.

Madam Speaker, I thank Congresswoman McBath and Chairman Scott for their leadership in working to update this important legislation to keep individuals and families safe, and I urge all of my colleagues to support the bill.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record letters in support of the bill from the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence and the National Network to End Domestic Violence.

National Resource

Center on Domestic Violence,

Harrisburg, PA, September 20, 2021.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bipartisan PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act.

Since 2010, the Affordable Care Act has required employers to provide nursing mothers with break time to express milk, as well as access to a private non-bathroom space for pumping.

Although this was a significant improvement for working moms--one that I didn't have when I was breastfeeding my babies--the law still left 9 million workers uncovered, including teachers, agriculture workers, engineers, and others.

This coverage gap is unacceptable, and it means that each year millions of parents who choose to breastfeed must

decide between the health of their child and maintaining employment. The coverage gap has also disproportionately harmed Black and brown women, who represent 12 percent of the workforce but nearly 20 percent of women of childbearing age who are not covered by the existing break time provision.

The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act will address this coverage gap by simply amending the Fair Labor Standards Act to provide protections to workers who are not currently covered.

As Representative Herrara Beutler explained, this is current law. We are just closing a gap that is leaving too many nursing moms out. It will also clarify that if a worker is not relieved of their duties during the time spent pumping, then those hours must count as hours worked.

Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the rights of women in the workplace and to help their families by joining me in voting for the bipartisan PUMP Act.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter in support of the bill from the United States Breastfeeding Committee.

Written Statement of Nikia Sankofa Executive Director of the U.S.

Breastfeeding Committee Before the United States House of

Representatives--September 24, 2021

Dear Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader McCarthy, and all

members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The U.S.

Breastfeeding Committee (USBC) submits this letter to the

U.S. House of Representatives in full support of the

Providing Urgent Maternal Protections (PUMP) for Nursing

Mothers Act (H.R. 3110).

The USBC is a coalition of more than 100 national

nonprofits, breastfeeding coalitions, community-based

organizations, and federal agency partners that support a

shared mission to drive collaborative efforts for policy and

practices that create a landscape of breastfeeding support

across the United States. We are committed to ensuring that

all families in the U.S. have the support, resources, and

accommodations to achieve their breastfeeding goals in the

communities where they live, learn, work, and play.

We know that the vast majority of people become parents

during their lifetime, and their needs and the needs of their

infants are neither surprising nor difficult to meet if we

plan appropriately. A simple and common-sense policy solution

to address ongoing workplace barriers and inequities is

within the reach of Congress through the Providing Urgent

Maternal Protections (PUMP) for Nursing Mothers Act (H.R.

3110), which strengthens the existing Break Time for Nursing

Mothers law and has bipartisan and bicameral support.

Human Milk: A Proven Prevention Strategy

Breastfeeding is a primary prevention strategy that builds

a foundation for life-long health and wellness, adapting

overtime to meet the changing needs of the growing child. The

evidence for the value of human milk feeding to overall

health is scientific, robust, and continually being

reaffirmed by new researcher.

Human milk feeding is proven to reduce the risk of a range

of illnesses and conditions for infants and mothers. Compared

with commercial milk formula fed children, breastfed infants

have a reduced risk of ear, skin, stomach, and respiratory

infections; diarrhea; and sudden infant death syndrome. In

the longer term, breastfed children have a reduced risk of

obesity, type 1 and 2 diabetes, asthma, and childhood

leukemia. Women who breastfed their children have a reduced

long-term risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease,

and breast and ovarian cancers. The American Academy of

Pediatrics recommends infants be exclusively breastfed for

about 6 months with continued breastfeeding while introducing

complementary foods for at least 1 year.

Barriers to Success

The great majority of pregnant women and new parents want

to breastfeed, but significant barriers in the community,

health care, and employment settings can impede breastfeeding

success. In 2017, the national breastfeeding initiation rate

among infants was 84.1 percent, representing a 13.8 percent

increase from 2001. However, by six months of age, only 25.6

percent of U.S. infants exclusively breastfeed. Despite

overall increases in breastfeeding initiation and duration,

deep racial, geographic, and socioeconomic disparities in

breastfeeding rates persist. Compared to national averages,

only 73.7 percent of Black infants and 80.7 percent of Native

American infants are ever breastfed, contributing to

inequalities in maternal and infant health outcomes.

Furthermore, a distressing 60 percent of mothers report that

they did not breastfeed for as long as they intended.

Structural and environmental barriers can make it difficult

or impossible for families to establish an adequate milk

supply to sustain human milk feeding at medically recommended

levels. For many families, rather than being a matter of

personal choice, infant feeding practice is informed by

circumstance.

More than half of mothers enter or return to the labor

force before their children turn one year old, with as many

as one in four women returning within just two weeks of

giving birth. When back at work or school, many discover that

they are unable to pump breast milk as frequently as

necessary or they have no choice but to pump in an unsanitary

or unsafe location, such as a bathroom. Economically-

marginalized women and non-white women are more likely to

return to work earlier than their more affluent white

counterparts. Without necessary accommodations, they are too

often unable to produce enough milk for a caregiver to feed

their child during separations and may not be able to

maintain their milk supply.

Breastfeeding families throughout the United States are

facing barriers that make it difficult or impossible to start

or continue breastfeeding--but it does not have to be this

way. Public health initiatives, including legal and policy

interventions and approaches designed to enable more infants

to breastfeed, have the potential to markedly improve

population health.

Current Laws and Simple Accommodations Across Industries

The Break Time for Nursing Mothers law (Break Time law),

passed in 2010, provides critical protections to ensure that

employees have reasonable break time and a safe, private

place to pump breast milk. All the same strategies that

businesses use for any other type of break time, such as rest

breaks, meal breaks, or medical breaks can be utilized to

support breastfeeding employees.

Businesses of all sizes and in every industry have found

simple, cost-effective ways to meet the needs of their

breastfeeding employees as well as their business. The

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office on

Women's Health hosts the Supporting Nursing Moms at Work

resource, which provides a critical link between the need for

workplace support for breastfeeding families and the need for

implementation guidance for their employers. The online

resource provides a user-friendly tool that employers can use

to identify and implement industry-specific solutions to

providing time and space accommodations that work from farm

fields to grocery stores, and restaurants to offices. These

examples are already helping employers and employees identify

practical solutions that work for their business.

In many workspaces, compliance is as simple as placing

butcher paper or a curtain over a window in a managers'

office. In outdoor worksites, pop up tents or the cab of a

construction vehicle are used to meet the needs of

breastfeeding employees. To be functional, the pumping space

simply needs to be furnished with seating and a flat surface

such as a desk, small table, or shelf for the breast pump. As

long as the space is available each time the breastfeeding

employee needs it, the employer is meeting the requirements

of the law. If there are no breastfeeding employees, the

employer does not need to maintain a space.

Gaps in Current Law and Impact on Families

Unfortunately, the placement of the Break Time law within

section 7(r) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) resulted

in nearly 9 million women--nearly one in four women of

childbearing age--being excluded from coverage. Those left

unprotected include teachers, software engineers, and many

nurses, among others. Without these protections,

breastfeeding employees face serious health consequences,

including risk of painful illness and infection, diminished

milk supply, or in ability to continue breastfeeding.

Over the past decade we have learned how to make

breastfeeding and employment work, but the significant

coverage gaps in the Break Time for Nursing Mothers law mean

that workplace breastfeeding accommodation implementation is

radically inconsistent. Employees of the same company and in

the same building frequently do not have access to the same

accommodations, and to figure out who must be accommodated

can be complicated for businesses.

In addition, little recourse is available for employees who

are covered by the Break Time law to ensure they can use

their rights. Section 7(r) of the FLSA does not specify any

penalties if an employer is found to have violated the break

time for nursing mothers requirements. This means that in

most instances, an employee may only bring an action for

unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation and an

additional equal amount in liquidated damages. According to

the Request for Information on the Break Time for Nursing

Mothers provision, which includes the Department of Labor's

preliminary interpretations of the law, ``Because employers

are not required to compensate employees for break time to

express breastmilk, in most circumstances there will not be

any unpaid minimum wage or overtime compensation associated

with the failure to provide such breaks.

A Bipartisan Solution to Simplify Existing Law: the PUMP for Nursing

Mothers Act

A policy solution with bipartisan support, the PUMP Act

would support breastfeeding employees while clarifying

implementation for employers across the nation. The bill

would strengthen the 2010 Break Time law by closing the

coverage gap and providing remedies for nursing mothers that

are available for other violations of the FLSA.

The Break Time for Nursing Mothers provision is written

with language that provides

immense flexibility and does not require the construction of

a permanent, dedicated lactation space. The PUMP for Nursing

Mothers Act would maintain this flexibility. More than half

of all states have enacted legislation that impacts

breastfeeding employees. For many of these states, the PUMP

for Nursing Mothers Act would have little to no impact on

employer requirements.

For over ten years, the U.S. Breastfeeding Committee has

worked with organizations and government agencies on this

issue. We have documented the experiences of workers and

employers, seen the innovative solutions created by

businesses of all sizes, and identified the legislative gaps

that need to be addressed. After more than a decade of

raising awareness and mobilizing action, one thing is clear:

America needs the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act.

By aligning federal law with the needs of families and

ensuring that employers have the comprehensive resources and

support that they need, we can create a better tomorrow

together.

Thank you for your consideration.

Nikia Sankofa,

Executive Director,

U.S. Breastfeeding Committee.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Women's Health Protection Act because the right to abortion, a right grounded in privacy, is under attack.

When people have the freedom to make their own personal decisions about whether and when to become a parent, they are more likely to attain their educational goals, maintain job mobility, achieve economic security. But unfortunately, politicians in many States, and in this very body, want to invade privacy and deny autonomy.

We cannot take the right to choose for granted. I urge passage of this vital legislation because we refuse to be dragged back to the dangerous days before Roe v. Wade. I urge everyone to support the Women's Health Protection Act.

Madam Speaker, 1 year ago today, I joined my colleagues on the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis and we released our bold, comprehensive, science-based climate action plan. Our plan is a roadmap for solving the climate crisis, and I am thrilled that we are advancing many of its provisions this week as part of the INVEST in America Act.

The transportation sector is the largest source of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in the country, and the pollution disproportionately affects low-income communities and communities of color. We must take bold action to mitigate the climate crisis, and that includes advancing the INVEST in America Act.

This bill would help decarbonize our transportation sector by investing in electric vehicle charging infrastructure, zero-emission buses, and transit. It will increase the resilience of our communities by strengthening predisaster mitigation efforts, supporting the use of natural infrastructure, and restoring fish passages. And importantly, this bill also invests in the people who will rebuild our Nation's infrastructure.

By passing the INVEST in America Act, we can protect our planet, create good-paying jobs, and truly begin to build back better. I thank Chairs Castor, DeFazio, and Pallone for their leadership.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S.J. Res. 13, a resolution to repeal a harmful rule from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that threatens to delay or potentially deny justice for individuals who face workplace discrimination.

As chair of the Education and Labor Committee's Civil Rights and Human Services Subcommittee, I am pleased to co-lead the House companion to this resolution because far too many workers still experience workplace discrimination. The Civil Rights Act helps workers seek redress by directing the EEOC to engage in conciliation, which provides an opportunity for settlement before going to court.

But the EEOC's new rule added burdensome requirements, and it gives employers unfair advantages in the conciliation process. Under the rule, the EEOC discloses confidential information, analysis, and even the identities of workers to employers, increasing the likelihood of retaliation.

By passing this resolution, we can direct the EEOC to revert to its prior practices, which were upheld by the Supreme Court.

Madam Speaker, I want to note that in the Mach Mining decision from the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015, the Court held that ``Every aspect of the Title VII's conciliation provision smacks of flexibility. To begin with, the EEOC need only to `endeavor' to conciliate a claim, without having to devote a set amount of time or resources to that project.''

We can direct the EEOC to revert to those prior practices that were upheld and that better support the needs of workers.

Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Scott for his leadership, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Scott for yielding and for his leadership on this important legislation. I rise in strong support of the bipartisan Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act.

My home State of Oregon has one of the most rapidly aging populations in the country, and I have heard from many workers, particularly those in the technology industry, who believe they have been dismissed or denied employment because of their age. In fact, 6 in 10 older workers say they have experienced age discrimination, and 90 percent say that it is common.

My office has helped older workers who have filed age discrimination complaints before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, but the burden of proof is very high and often results in uncertain outcomes.

Congress recognized the need to protect older workers from pervasive age discrimination when it enacted the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. But decades later, in 2009, the Supreme Court, in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, imposed a much higher burden of proof for workers to prove age discrimination under the ADEA. Because of the Court's holding in Gross, workers now must prove that age discrimination was the decisive cause for their employer's adverse action rather than just a motivating factor in their employer's adverse action.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, I joined Chairman Scott in reintroducing the bipartisan Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act. This needed bill is a commonsense legislative fix that will simply restore the pre-2009 standard in age discrimination claims and, importantly, align the burden of proof with the same standards for proving discrimination in other areas, such as those based on sex, race, religion, and national origin.

As we discussed during the joint Civil Rights and Human Services Subcommittee and Workforce Protections Subcommittee hearing earlier this year, Americans are living longer and working longer. We must make sure they are protected from age discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Leadership Council of Aging Organizations in support of the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act.

Leadership Council of

Aging Organizations,

May 13, 2021.

Dear Member of Congress: The Leadership Council of Aging

Organizations (LCAO) is a coalition of 69 national nonprofit

organizations concerned with the well-being of America's

older population and committed to representing their

interests in the policy-making arena. We are writing to urge

you to vote for passage of the Protecting Older Workers

Against Discrimination Act (POWADA, H.R. 2062, S. 880).

POWADA is bipartisan and bicameral legislation introduced in

the House by Representatives Bobby Scott (D-VA) and Rodney

Davis (R-IL). In the Senate, the bill is sponsored by

Senators Bob Casey (D-PA), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Patrick

Leahy (D-VT) and Susan Collins (R-ME).

Age discrimination is pervasive and stubbornly entrenched.

It often starts in the hiring process when employers

circumvent anti-age discrimination laws by using such tactics

as setting a maximum number of years of experience that a

prospective employer will consider. Whether it starts at the

hiring process or not, six in 10 older workers say they have

experienced age discrimination and 90 percent of them say it

is common. It is even more pervasive among older women and

African American workers--nearly two thirds of women and

three-fourths of African Americans say they have seen or

experienced workplace discrimination. The COVID-19 pandemic

has wreaked havoc on employment for everyone, with older

workers taking a harder hit. Older workers experienced a 1.1

percent higher unemployment rate from April through September

of 2020 than their mid-career counterparts (9.7 percent were

unemployed versus 8.6 percent). The rates were worse for

older workers who were black, female, or who did not have a

college degree.

Courts have not taken age discrimination as seriously as

other forms of discrimination and older workers have fewer

protections as a result. Over ten years ago, the Supreme

Court decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services Inc.

(2009), set a higher standard of proof for age discrimination

than previously applied, and much higher than for other forms

of discrimination. Since Gross, court decisions have

continued to chip away at protections. As a result plaintiffs

now must prove that age was a determinative cause for their

employers adverse treatment of them. Before the Gross cases

it was enough for plaintiffs to prove that age was one of the

motivating factors.

POWADA would restore the standard of proof in age

discrimination cases to the pre-2009 level and treat age

discrimination as unjust as other forms of employment

discrimination. Moreover, because courts have applied Gross'

higher burden of proof to retaliation charges and to

disability discrimination, POWADA would also amend the Age

Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VIT's provision on

retaliation, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Please vote to restore fairness for older workers by

passing the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination

Act (H.R. 2062, S. 880).

Sincerely,

AARP, AFL-CIO, Alliance for Retired Americans, AMDA--The

Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine,

American Postal Workers Union Retirees Department,

American Society on Aging, Association for Gerontology

and Human Development in Historically Black Colleges

and Universities, Association of Jewish Aging Services,

Asociacion Nacional Pro Personas Mayores, Caring Across

Generations, Center for Eldercare Improvement, Altarum,

The Gerontological Society of America, Justice in

Aging, LeadingAge, Medicare Rights Center, National

Active and Retired Federal Employees Association,

National Adult Day Services Association, National

Alliance for Caregiving, National Association of Area

Agencies on Aging, National Association of Nutrition

and Aging Services Programs, National Association of

Social Workers, National Caucus and Center on Black

Aging, National Committee to Preserve Social Security

and Medicare, National Council on Aging, National

Indian Council on Aging, National Senior Corps

Association, Pension Rights Center, Social Security

Works, Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to stand up for older workers and to support this bipartisan, bicameral bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Casten for yielding. And thank you to Chair Castor, chair of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, for her leadership throughout this process. It really has been science-based and meaningful.

Mr. Speaker, as we work to build back better, we have not just the opportunity but the imperative to take bold climate action. By strengthening investments in climate-centric infrastructure, we can create good-paying jobs, reduce emissions, and support frontline communities.

Last month, I had this great opportunity. I got to ride on a new electric bus at Meadow Park Middle School in Beaverton, Oregon. Thanks to the Portland General Electric's School Bus Electrification Project, the Beaverton School District is working to electrify its bus fleet.

The electric buses are quieter; they are less expensive to maintain; and, importantly, they reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is good for the health of our children, our community, and our planet. We can and must help more school districts and transportation systems electrify not just in Oregon but across the country.

With the American Jobs Plan, we can create millions of good-paying jobs, combat the climate crisis, revitalize American manufacturing, and make long-overdue investments in our Nation's infrastructure.

As the House works to advance the American Jobs Plan, we can use as a roadmap the climate action plan from the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis. Our bold, comprehensive science-based plan includes investments in zero-emissions buses, transit, electric vehicle charging stations, and pedestrian and bike infrastructure, all to decarbonize our transportation sector.

Mr. Speaker, I want to give credit to Chairman DeFazio, my wonderful colleague from Oregon, for his leadership. He has included many of these provisions in his surface transportation reauthorization, the Investment in America Act. I look forward to supporting it when it comes to the floor in the coming weeks.

Mr. Speaker, I tell my colleagues that climate-resilient infrastructure is about much more than just roads and bridges. June is National Ocean Month, and as co-chair of the House Ocean Caucus and the Congressional Estuary Caucus, I want to highlight how the power of our ocean can and must be part of the solution, which is recognized in our plan for solving the climate crisis.

I recently led a bipartisan group of colleagues in calling for a $10 billion investment in coastal restoration and resilience projects in the American Jobs Plan, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to deliver these needed investments to coastal communities.

Addressing the climate crisis presents an economic opportunity, a tremendous economic opportunity. We can create millions of good-paying, high-quality union jobs that will help working families and displaced workers recover from the economic collapse caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mr. Speaker, the American Jobs Plan meets the moment to not only build back but to build back better. By advancing the American Jobs Plan, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to rebuild a resilient clean energy economy, create good-paying jobs to boost our economic recovery, and begin to repair the legacy of environmental racism and pollution that has

disproportionately burdened low-income communities and communities of color for decades.

As we build the infrastructure of the future, we cannot repeat the injustices of the past. Instead, we must pass and implement comprehensive climate policies, such as those set out in the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis' climate action plan.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3233, the National Commission to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol Complex Act.

On January 6, 2021, our democratic republic came under direct attack in an attempt to block the certification of Joseph R. Biden as the duly elected President of the United States of America. Donald Trump and others sought to subvert the will of voters when they incited violent rioters to invade the U.S. Capitol with the hope of overturning a legitimate election. Criminals and domestic terrorists, many espousing racist and hateful ideologies, desecrated the sacred center of the people's government. This was terrifying and infuriating for those whose lives were in danger and for the millions of Americans who watched in horror. I am grateful for the actions of the U.S. Capitol Police and DC Metropolitan Police officers who put their lives on the line to protect this institution and the people who work here. I also mourn for the lives that were lost.

Many questions remain about the actions of those involved and the security response that day, as well as in the days prior to and following the violent attack on the Capitol. The country deserves answers. This independent, bipartisan commission will investigate and report the facts surrounding the events of January 6. It will provide a full and fair accounting of the mistakes made and lessons learned. And, importantly, the commission will recommend steps that Congress and the federal government can take to prevent future violence and strengthen our democratic institutions.

Our Nation is resilient, and the Constitution will endure because of the commitment of those who have sworn to support and defend it. In keeping with my oath, I look forward to acting on the findings of the National Commission so the country emerges stronger from this dark chapter of its history.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1447) to amend the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act of 2009 to establish an Ocean Acidification Advisory Board, to expand and improve the research on Ocean Acidification and Coastal Acidification, to establish and maintain a data archive system for Ocean Acidification data and Coastal Acidification data, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1447, the bill now under consideration.

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

I rise today in support of the Coastal and Ocean Acidification Stressors and Threats, or COAST, Research Act, my bipartisan bill to help coastal communities adapt to the climate crisis by expanding scientific research, monitoring, and adaptation of ocean and coastal acidification.

I want to thank all of the staff on both sides of the aisle, from the committee and my personal staff, especially Maxine Sugarman, for all their work on this bill.

Every person on this planet benefits from a healthy ocean. The ocean covers more than 70 percent of the planet's surface. It supplies much of the oxygen that we breathe and regulates our climate. It is linked to the water we drink, and it is home to more than half of all life on the planet. The power of its waves generates clean energy. The ocean drives our economy, feeds, employs, and transports us. But despite our intrinsic connection, for too long the ocean has taken the heat for us.

According to the Fourth National Climate Assessment, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are now higher than at any time in the last 3 million years. Approximately one-third of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere dissolves into our ocean and estuaries, causing them to become more acidic.

Ocean and coastal acidification make it difficult for shellfish, coral, and other marine organisms to build their shells and skeletal structures. Some finfish, including endangered salmon in the Pacific Northwest, lose their sense of smell necessary for identifying prey, reproducing, and navigating their habitats. Our understanding of the long-term consequences of ocean acidification is still limited, but we do know that the changes in ocean chemistry are already affecting the fishers and shellfish farmers who depend on the ocean's resources to support themselves and their families and the Tribes that have treaty rights and deep cultural and historical connections to diminishing species.

The most effective strategy for mitigating ocean acidification is reducing anthropogenic sources of carbon dioxide pollution worldwide. I have joined with colleagues on the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis in releasing a bold, comprehensive, and science-based Climate Action Plan to reach net-zero emissions no later than mid-century and net-negative thereafter. But there are also actions that we can take immediately to improve conditions, lessen exposure to ocean acidification, and manage local pollution and conditions that can exacerbate acidification.

This bill, which I introduced with my fellow co-chair of the House Oceans Caucus, Representative Young from Alaska, and with Representatives Pingree and Posey, would improve scientific research on ocean and coastal acidification in the context of other environmental stressors and direct Federal agencies to assess adaptation and mitigation strategies. Funding has lagged behind the needs of the scientific community for years, and this bill would provide a modest, but important, increase for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Science Foundation to scale up research efforts. Importantly, the bill also expands the definition of ocean acidification to include estuaries and recognize mechanisms that cause changes in coastal chemistry.

NOAA is already leading interdisciplinary efforts to expand our understanding of changing ocean conditions in its role as chair of the Interagency Working Group on Ocean Acidification. In fact, this year marks the 10th anniversary of the NOAA Ocean Acidification Program, and I hope my colleagues will join me in applauding their work to truly advance regionally coordinated scientific research.

A September 2015 Government Accountability Office report suggested that an independent national ocean acidification program could advance our understanding of changing ocean conditions. The COAST Research Act designates NOAA as the lead Federal agency responsible for implementing the Federal response to ocean and coastal acidification, further empowering the Ocean Acidification Program to scale up its efforts with its first reauthorization in more than a decade.

Additionally, the COAST Research Act increases our understanding of the socioeconomic effects of ocean and coastal acidification and, importantly, it engages stakeholders. The bill creates an advisory board of representatives of the shellfish and crab industry, finfish industry, seafood processors, recreational fishing, academia, nongovernmental organizations, State, local, and Tribal governments, and regional coastal acidification networks. The regionally balanced board will advise NOAA and the Interagency Working Group on coastal and ocean acidification research and monitoring activities. This collaborative process will help make sure that vulnerable and affected communities, industries, and coastal and ocean managers have the tools they need to adapt and mitigate the effects of coastal and ocean acidification.

For example, at Oregon State University, Dr. Burke Hales developed the ``Burke-o-Lator,'' a device the size of a piece of carry-on luggage, that can analyze when shellfish growers across the Pacific Northwest should grow larvae based on the ocean acidity and the effects on calcium carbonates needed for shell formation. Other research at Oregon State has demonstrated how growing particular seagrasses and kelps can help counteract ocean acidification. These examples help demonstrate what is possible when we invest in science and research to help coastal communities adapt to the climate crisis.

The COAST Research Act directs NOAA to maintain a system to process, store, archive, and provide access to data on ocean and coastal acidification from federally funded research, including existing global or national datasets, and research from State and local agencies, Tribes, academic scientists, citizen scientists, and industry organizations. These efforts will help provide for the long-term stewardship and standardization of ocean acidification data and better help communities adapt and mitigate the worst effects.

Madam Speaker, the health of our ocean reflects the health of our planet. Today, we have the opportunity to help it become more resilient by passing the bipartisan COAST Research Act.

I thank Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking Member Lucas and my co- sponsors for their leadership. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

I reference letters from Earthjustice, Ocean Conservancy, Wild Salmon Center, Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association, Integrated Ocean Observing System Association, Surfrider Foundation, Oregon Coordinating Council on Ocean Acidification and Hypoxia, Consortium for Ocean Leadership, Oregon State University, Northwest Association of Networked Ocean Observing Systems, and Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, in support of the COAST Research Act.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record several of the above- referenced letters.

Oregon State University,

Corvallis, Oregon, 10 February 2021.

Re The Coastal and Ocean Acidification Stressors and Threats

(COAST) Research Act.

Hon. Suzanne Bonamici,

House of Representatives.

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Bonamici: We write to offer Oregon

State University's support for The Coastal and Ocean

Acidification Stressors and Threats (COAST) Research Act.

As marine habitats face new and daunting pressures

threatening their sustainability, the COAST Research Act

identifies the growing need for strategic and robust

investments in ocean acidification (OA) research, monitoring

and stakeholder collaboration.

Oregon State University is committed to interdisciplinary

approaches to address the national and global challenges

facing our

oceans and coast communities. OSU has a deep history of

global leadership in oceanography and engages in nationally

ranked oceanographic monitoring programs and world-leading OA

research. Further, the university recognizes that Oregon's

estuaries and coastal regions are home to some of the world's

most productive ecosystems and economically vital shellfish

farms.

The university is encouraged that the COAST Research Act

expands the definition of OA to include coastal and estuarine

systems, and identifies OA as being affected by a combination

of factors, including hypoxia. The university believes that

by expanding federal definitions of OA and by increasing

funding opportunities, researchers and managers will be able

to best utilize resources to find solutions to address OA.

The university also is encouraged that this legislation

recognizes the need for federal engagement to continue

important investments to understand and address ocean and

coastal acidification. Doing so will enhance the integration

of OA research, monitoring and adaptation strategies across

principal federal research agencies, including the National

Science Foundation, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric

Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration.

Oregon State University understands that effective and

collaborative partnerships and communication are essential

for our state and nation to find adaptive and mitigation

solutions to address OA. For example, the proposal to

establish an Ocean Acidification Advisory Board will be

essential for facilitating the important work still to be

done.

The world's ocean belongs to everyone, and ocean health is

critical to our future. In the coming decades, it will be

essential for the nation and its universities to work

collaboratively to improve and sustain the health of our

oceans. Doing so, we will assure human wellness,

environmental health and economic prosperity for future

generations.

In closing, Oregon State University believes that the COAST

Research Act proposes important new strategic tools to expand

understanding and address the problems facing our oceans and

coastal communities.

Sincerely,

Edward Feser, Ph.D.,

Provost and Executive Vice President.

Irem Tumer, Ph.D., ASME Fellow,

Vice President for Research.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Natural Resources,

Washington, DC, April 19, 2021.

Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson,

Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairwoman Johnson: In recognition of the goal of

expediting consideration of H.R. 1447, the ``Coastal and

Ocean Acidification Stressors and Threats Research Act of

2021,'' the Committee on Natural Resources agrees to waive

formal consideration of the bill as to provisions that fall

within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural

Resources.

The Committee on Natural Resources takes this action with

the mutual understanding that, in doing so, we do not waive

any jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or

similar legislation, and that the Committee will be

appropriately consulted and involved as the bill or similar

legislation moves forward so that we may address any

remaining issues within our jurisdiction. Our Committee also

reserves the right to seek appointment of conferees to any

House-Senate conference involving this or similar

legislation.

Thank you for agreeing to include our exchange of letters

in the Congressional Record. I appreciate your cooperation

regarding this legislation and look forward to continuing to

work with you as this measure moves through the legislative

process.

Sincerely,

Raul M. Grijalva,

Chair,

House Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree), a cosponsor of the COAST Research Act.

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

The basic chemistry of our ocean is changing at an unprecedented rate. We know that even if carbon dioxide emissions were halted today, many of the residual effects on our oceans will continue to occur over the course of the next few decades.

Without intervention, ocean acidification is projected to become more intense and increasingly common, especially on the Pacific Coast. We must support vulnerable communities, industries, coastal and ocean managers by strengthening research on how they can best prepare for and, when possible, adapt to ocean and coastal acidification.

By passing the bipartisan COAST Research Act, we are taking one important step forward in advancing ocean climate action.

I, again, thank Chairwoman Johnson; Ranking Member Lucas; and my co- leads on this bill, Representative Young, Pingree, and Posey for their support.

I know Mr. Young from Alaska talked about his salmon. We would compete with salmon in the Pacific Northwest. We also have the prize dungeness crab, and Ms. Pingree has her lobsters. It is so critical for these industries that we pass this bill and advance ocean climate action.

I, once again, urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bipartisan bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2533) to provide for a study by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine examining the impact of ocean acidification and other stressors in estuarine environments.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2533, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Congressman Posey's National Estuaries and Acidification Research Act. I am an original cosponsor of this bipartisan bill, which would direct the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to conduct a study that examines the science of ocean and coastal acidification in estuaries and provide recommendations to improve future research and management to inform mitigation decisions.

As co-chair of both the House Oceans Caucus and Congressional Estuary Caucus, I know that acidification is not only affecting the open ocean, estuaries and nearshore waters are also absorbing tremendous amounts of carbon pollution and becoming more acidic.

Our understanding of ocean acidification and its interactions with other environmental stressors, such as hypoxia, harmful algal blooms, and warming waters, is rapidly evolving, but is still limited in scope.

Ocean and coastal acidification are often present in the context of other coastal processes, like runoff, erosion, and upwelled water from the oceans, making it difficult to measure its individual effects on estuaries.

Our estuaries and nearshore waters are also experiencing the consequences of our inaction to address the climate crisis, and research has not kept pace with the needs of coastal communities. The NEAR Act will help address significant research gaps and the urgent need to improve our understanding of the ecological and socioeconomic effects of ocean and coastal acidification.

I thank Congressman Posey for his leadership on this bipartisan bill and his efforts to preserve our Nation's estuaries. I also thank Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking Member Lucas for making this bill a priority.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space,

and Technology,

Washington, DC, April 16, 2021.

Chairman Raul M. Grijalva,

Committee on Natural Resources,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Grijalva: I am writing to you concerning H.R.

2533, the ``National Estuaries and Acidification Research Act

of 2021,'' which was referred to the Committee on Science,

Space, and Technology as lead committee and sequentially

referred to the Committee on Natural Resources on April 14,

2021.

I appreciate your willingness to work cooperatively on this

bill. I recognize that the bill contains provisions that fall

within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural

Resources. I acknowledge that your Committee will waive

further consideration of H.R. 2533 and that this action is

not a waiver of future jurisdictional claims by the Committee

on Natural Resources over this subject matter.

I will make sure to include our exchange of letters in the

Congressional Record and will support the appointment of the

Committee on Natural Resources conferees during any House-

Senate conference. Thank you for your cooperation on this

legislation.

Sincerely,

Eddie Bernice Johnson,

Chairwoman.

Mr. Speaker, this is a commonsense bill to address the urgent need for research on ocean and coastal acidification in estuaries.

I appreciate the partnership and leadership from Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and Congressman Posey to protect the health of our oceans and estuaries.

Mr. Speaker, I once again urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bipartisan bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 210) to coordinate Federal research and development efforts focused on STEM education and workforce development in rural areas, including the development and application of new technologies to support and improve rural STEM education, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 210, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 210, the Rural STEM Education Research Act. I thank Ranking Member Lucas for introducing this important bill.

Every State in the country is filled with students who have an incredible curiosity for STEM and the potential to make important contributions in these fields. But too often, students are left behind and are unable to fulfill their vast potential simply because of where they live.

Students in rural areas have long faced obstacles to receiving a high-quality STEM education. Lack of broadband access, for example, has long been a barrier.

Schools in rural communities often struggle to access the equipment and facilities needed to provide students with hands-on STEM experiences. Research shows that hands-on experiences help inspire scientific curiosity and a love of STEM in students.

Teachers are trying their best, but they have limited resources and support. To make matters worse, the COVID-19 pandemic and the transition to remote learning have further exacerbated these inequalities.

Students and teachers in rural communities have worked hard to adapt, but they need help. We have an opportunity not just to recover from what was lost during the pandemic but to ensure a better STEM education future for rural students.

The Rural STEM Education Act provides for research and development to increase access to STEM education opportunities in rural schools and to provide teachers with the resources they need to teach more effectively.

The bill also directs NIST to develop a prize competition to advance research and development in support of expanded broadband access.

This bill further provides for assessments of Federal investments in rural STEM education to be conducted by the National Academies and the Government Accountability Office.

This bill is an important step toward improving STEM education in rural communities across America and will help build a 21st century STEM workforce that will help the U.S. remain a global leader in science and technology.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 210, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee and the Committee on Education and Labor, I want to thank Mr. Lucas for mentioning not only broadband but also place- based learning. I represent several rural school districts, and I appreciate this legislation.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I once again thank Ranking Member Lucas for his work on this legislation. I thank Chairwoman Johnson for supporting it, and I urge its adoption.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 144) to forestall the loss of research talent by establishing a temporary early career research fellowship program, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 144, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 144, the Supporting Early- Career Researchers Act. I commend Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking Member Lucas for introducing this bill, which I am pleased to cosponsor.

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected all aspects of our lives, and the U.S. research enterprise has not been spared. As research labs and universities around the country took action to mitigate the spread of the virus in their labs and on their campuses, research productivity decreased dramatically. We still do not know the full financial consequences incurred by these institutions or their full costs in terms of lost science.

Compounding these declines in research productivity, women researchers and researchers from groups historically underrepresented in STEM have been particularly disadvantaged during the crisis because of childcare and other factors.

Facing unprecedented financial difficulties, many research universities instituted hiring freezes, and faculty job openings declined by nearly 70 percent. This limited job market has a greater effect on early-career researchers who may have their career derailed before it truly begins. Already, some early-career researchers are having to choose between applying their training and talent to an academic career and supporting their families.

Early-career researchers play a vital role in the U.S. research ecosystem. They are not only highly productive researchers, they also play a significant role in training the next generation of undergraduate and graduate STEM students. Their departure from research careers, if we do not stop it, will have a profound and long-lasting consequence on U.S. innovation and competitiveness in the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, as increasing numbers of Americans receive COVID-19 vaccines and the research enterprise continues its recovery, we must make the retention of early-career researchers a priority. The Supporting Early-Career Researchers Act directs the National Science Foundation to establish a new $250 million post-doctoral fellowship program to support early-career researchers.

This program will help prevent a significant loss of STEM talent. More than 40 organizations have endorsed this legislation. I, again, thank Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking Member Lucas for their continued deliberation on this important issue, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on getting this bill signed into law.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 144, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the bipartisan Supporting Early-Career Researchers Act.

I thank Mr. Lucas and Chair Johnson, and I yield back the balance of my time.