Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to join my colleagues in condemning the President's cruel and inhumane family separation policy and its failure to reunite children with their families.

Over two months ago, the Attorney General of the United States announced this administration's inhumane and cruel child separation policy.

This policy was the function of hasty political considerations and incomplete calculations of the ramifications of what such an abhorrent policy would do to the children implicated, the parents who brought them to our country in the hopes of a better life, a nation that has watched in horror, and a global community aghast at the measures being taken pursuant to this ``zero tolerance'' policy.

I have returned from my second trip to the Southern border in as many months.

I was there to conduct effective oversight to reexamine whether families are being reunited and to determine what due process is available to these individuals in the United States Courts and where these individuals can seek corrective action for that which confronts them.

When I visited the border last month and the federal detention facilities that housed parents and children quarantined from one another, what I witnessed was horrific and unforgettable.

One baby, 9-month-old Roger, had been taken from his 19-year-old sister after she was prosecuted for crossing the border illegally.

Their mother is dead, and they were coming here to find family.

Little Leah, just one year old, was taken from a grandmother and a sister.

The pain was no less visceral when speaking with mothers wondering where their children have gone.

In South Texas I met Gabby, from Honduras, who had a 45 day-old baby taken from her, and while housed at the facility had not yet been treated or given medical attention.

To be sure, these children are not alone.

To date, thousands of children remain separated from their parents.

In fact, once this administration realized that the optics of this child separation policy were not favorable, the administration attempted to disperse the quarantined children to faraway corners from where they were separated--South Texas--and away from their parents.

Indeed, one of the locations proposed to house these children was a shelter in my congressional district--the 18th District of Texas-- ironically, on Emancipation Avenue.

The goodness and decency of the residents of my district, gleaned from their opposition to this policy, was immediately and abundantly clear.

Citizens organized throughout our community to make their opposition to this plan known loud and clear.

Congressional action must reflect the passionate activism of our fellow Americans.

Upon returning to the Congress, together with my colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee, and its Ranking Member Jerry Nadler, we introduced H.R. 6135, ``Keep Families Together Act.''

This bill promotes family unity by prioritizing keeping families together.

It would prohibit the Department of Homeland Security (``DHS'') from separating children from their parents except in extraordinary circumstances.

The bill requires an independent child welfare agent official to review any such separation and return the child if no harm to the child is present.

Thereafter I wrote to the President and was joined by 57 of my colleagues, asking him to end this policy, but also additionally to: Order the immediate cessation of the zero-tolerance policy for criminal illegal entry;

Reinstate the highly successful family case management program, which avoids the cascading ills associated with the President's child separation policy, while accounting for the law enforcement concerns at the heart of border enforcement;

Conduct a census of all accompanied immigrant children as well as a count of all unaccompanied immigrant or refugee children housed at facilities unknown to Congress;

Restore eligibility for asylum status for those fleeing gang violence or domestic violence;

And prohibit federal agencies from assisting any State from terminating the parental rights of any person whose child was removed.

To date, the President has not responded to this letter.

Indeed, it appears as if the President's lack of response to the letter I led is indicative of the administration's overall tact towards legitimate inquiries for oversight, like that which is prescribed by Article I of the Constitution.

Despite the fact that a federal judge ordered the reunification of children under age 5 by a date certain, last week the Department of Homeland Security indicated that only about 50 percent of these children were reunited by the date prescribed by the court, and that at least 2,551 of all of children remain separated from their parents.

The lack of empathy and compassion symbolized by both the policy and the failure to reunite these children with their parents is wrong, but sadly consistent with other instances where the administration lacked compassion towards those seeking asylum.

Notably, last month also brought news that the administration plans to foreclose the ability of asylum seekers to cite gang violence or domestic violence as an acceptable reason to seek asylum.

While this policy shocks the conscience, it is of no surprise that it would emanate from an administration which boasts as its Attorney General a stalwart opponent of immigration and a Chief of Staff who, while he was DHS Secretary, believed that separation of children from their parents was an effective means of deterring immigration writ large.

The ad hoc procedures the government has created to respond to the judicial decree to unite these families offer further proof that it never intended for families to be brought back together.

It is unconscionable that there had been no plan for the orderly reunification of these children with their families.

As we face the July 26 deadline for the Federal Government to reunite the thousands of innocent separated children, we must stand fast in continuing to demand justice.

Yesterday, the Trump administration told the court that it had reunited or ``appropriately discharged'' 1,187 of the 2,551 children ages five and older who were forcibly separated from their parents.

The administration has also reunited 58 out of 103 children who are under the age of five and whose reunions were required by the first deadline, July 10.

The administration identified 1,634 class members who are eligible for reunification and are in various stages of the process.

However, in the same federal court filing, the Trump administration has claimed that the separated children of 917 parents are either not eligible, or ``not yet known to be eligible,'' for reunification.

For parents whose eligibility the government is challenging based on a prohibitive criminal history or unfitness finding, more information is clearly needed.

As the ACLU have argued in court--the government's word alone on this determination is not sufficient, which is why they have asked the court to order the government to provide details about the nature of the charge, conviction, or warrant for each parent.

As of July 20, the Trump administration reported that it had 37 children in government custody who have ``not yet been matched'' to a parent from whom they were taken.

Additionally, when asked in court, the administration was not able to provide a count of the number of parents who were released from ICE custody and whose locations are still unknown.

This is the all-important question: where are the parents whom the government has already deported?

For the separated children under five years old, there were an estimated 12 parents who had already been deported by the time of the court's June 26 order requiring reunion.

In a status update on the ongoing court-ordered family reunifications filed Monday, the government said 463 parents of separated children aged five and older are indicated as no longer in the U.S. according to their files.

These cases are apparently ``under review.''

As a mother, I am devastated and disappointed that the administration represented what they did not know and could not do.

They did not know the true number of the children separated, they could not reunite these children, and there is still no plan for their reunification.

It is beyond comprehension that a governing body in this nation could create a humanitarian crisis and be so uninformed as to abdicate its responsibility to rectify the situation.

Beyond any future government measures that reunite the separated families, Human Rights Watch reports that making any of these families truly whole, including by addressing the trauma our government callously inflicted on them, will take much longer.

Is this review from a leading human rights body truly reflective of our nation, which just a half-century ago declared never to ``witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world?''

Did the President plan to make orphans of thousands of children who came here with loving parents?

These are question that should haunt this country for years.

Under no circumstance can we allow the barbaric separation of families to continue.

This policy is one of the most un-American policies implemented under the Trump Administration in our name.

This policy must galvanize the country to act.

Americans from all walks of life must band together to say with one voice: not in my name.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to denounce the President's unjustified assault on our nation's thousands of dedicated federal employees.

In his inaugural address, President John F. Kennedy proclaimed a call to duty--``Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.''

Millions from all corners of our nation throughout our history--in peace and in war, in prosperity and in hardship--have answered this call with their full measure of dedication.

They are our public servants.

They showed up to serve and to lead.

They work long hours ensuring that our government has the greatest wealth of knowledge and expertise to best address the needs of our citizens.

They risk lives at the front lines of disaster zones so that no American is left in distress.

They lead the way while making sure nobody falls behind.

By any stretch of the imagination, these men and women should be celebrated as heroes for their altruistic dedication to service.

But the President, far short of ensuring that these federal employees have the best environment for which to carry out their commitment to serving their nation, has gone great lengths to attack these servants as part of a faux ``swamp.''

As a candidate, Trump falsely told voters that the federal bureaucracy was awash in ``waste, fraud and abuse.''

By abusing his power to issue executive orders, the President ordered to roll back civil-service protections that federal employees have enjoyed for a generation, making it easier to fire poor performers, curtailing time employees can be paid for union work, and directing agencies to negotiate tougher union contracts.

The orders require agencies to negotiate union contracts in less than a year.

They direct managers to move more aggressively to discharge employees involved in even minor misconduct, limiting to one month a last-chance grace period for improvement that now can last up to 120 days.

The orders also require agencies to begin charging unions for space in federal buildings they now use for free.

And, the orders limit federal employees to spending no more than a quarter of their workday on ``official time''--paid time to do union business, a benefit Congress approved for federal unions in 1978, when the House and Senate overwhelmingly passed the Civil Service Reform Act.

According to the Civil Service Reform Act, the U.S. government allows employees to ``organize, bargain collectively, and participate through labor organizations of their own choosing in decisions which affect them.''

The rationale is that such participation promotes the public interest, contributes to the effective conduct of public business, and enables the amicable settlement of disputes between employees and employers.

Section 7131 of that bill provides federal employees with ``official time'' to engage in representational activities, discussions of grievances, dispute resolution, labor relations training, labor- management relations, and new department initiatives, among other things.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission implemented the legislation by adopting rules that ``require managers and supervisors to allow complainants who are employees 'a reasonable amount of official time, when in official duty status, to prepare their EEO complaint and to respond to agency and EEOC requests for information.' ''

In one fell swoop, Trump cut the federal union representatives of their time assisting colleagues with filing grievances, addressing sexual harassment claims, and resolving workplace problems.

For a president who has been the object of numerous grievance complaints and sexual harassment claims, the hypocrisy of limiting time to pursue such claims is shocking.

As a sign of the concerted war on federal employees, there also have been several other efforts to limit unions.

This year, for example, the U.S. Department of Education eliminated official time as part of its new labor contract.

Organizations representing these federal employees have argued this contract is completely unfair.

In this spirit I would like to commend the efforts of one such organization, the American Federation of Government Employees, or AFGE.

As the largest union for government employees, they have risen to the occasion to provide federal employees with the passionate defense that they deserve.

AFGE has challenged the executive order on official time as a violation of the right to freedom of association guaranteed by the First Amendment.

I was proud to have joined the amicus curiae brief in support of AFSCME's position in the case of Janus v. AFSCME, which supported and defended the need for unions and collective bargaining.

Eighty years ago the American labor movement was little more than a group of dreamers, and look at it now.

From coast to coast, in factories, stores, warehouse and business establishments of all kinds, industrial democracy is at work.

Employees, represented by free and democratic trade unions of their own choosing, participate actively in determining their wages, hours and working conditions.

Their living standards are the highest in the world.

Our labor unions are not narrow, self-seeking groups.

They have raised wages, shortened hours and provided supplemental benefits.

Through collective bargaining and grievance procedures, they have brought justice and democracy to the shop floor.

But their work goes beyond their own jobs, and even beyond our borders.

Our unions have fought for aid to education, for better housing, for development of our national resources, and for saving the family-sized farms.

They have spoken, not for narrow self-interest, but for the public interest and for the people.

Unions are as important as they ever were--because corporations are just as dedicated to their bottom line, regardless of the consequences for workers.

David Cox Sr., President of the AFGE, understood that ``Federal employees understand what is needed to improve the internal workings of their agencies far better than private consultants.

``Federal workers and their representatives should play an important role in the development of organizational changes involving federal agencies and the services they provide.''

``Neglecting to seek input from employee representatives in the development of government-wide reorganization plans is counterproductive to any genuine effort to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of government.''

AFGE General Counsel David Borer astutely remarked that ``These executive orders are clearly at odds with what Congress has mandated by law,'' and that ``These directives from the White House display a shocking lack of respect for the Constitution and represent a serious overreach of the president's executive powers.''

Indeed, these executive orders are not merely an affront to the blood and sweat of America's public servants--as great as that may be.

AFGE has also challenged the President's executive orders on the grounds that they exceed the president's authority under the U.S. Constitution by violating the separation of powers and exceeding current law.

The president has used our federal employees not only to frame them as a scapegoat for our nation's problems, but also to subvert Congress' place as an equal branch of government--an attack on our system of checks and balances befitting of a banana republic.

This constitutional crisis should concern us all.

This attack on our federal employees disrupts the effectiveness of our government, labor rights across the nation for all professions, and the integrity of our very system of government.

I urge all of my colleagues to reflect the dedication that these federal employees have shown in serving our nation, and work to resist the arbitrary, despotic attacks that the President has levied against them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5385, the GME Support Reauthorization Act of 2018.

H.R. 5385 amends the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the program of payments to children's hospitals that operate graduate medical education programs.

Americans across our nation need care, and the Children's Hospital GME (CHGME) program has been utilized by hospitals across our country to train doctors who can provide that necessary aid.

I represent the 18th District of Texas which is home to the Methodist Hospital System, one of the largest medical institutions in the world.

H.R. 5385 will allow Houston to continue to recruit and train many talented doctors.

CHGME was created in 1999 because Congress recognized that a dedicated source of support for training in children's hospitals was necessary to strengthen the pediatric workforce.

Since then, CHGME funding has enabled children's hospitals to dramatically increase training overall, and in particular grow the supply of pediatric specialists--the area of greatest shortage in children's health care.

If CHGME is allowed to expire, we will lose the progress we have made in this field.

According to data from a 2017 Children's Hospital Association survey, pediatric specialty shortages continue to affect children's ability to receive timely, appropriate care.

The funds generated from this legislation. will help train the medical professionals we desperately need.

In a time when there are growing health disparities within our nation, it is important to address the needs of underserved urban areas.

The more medical professionals we train, the greater the likelihood that these underserved communities will have access to proper medical care.

CHGME funds the training of pediatric providers at eligible children's hospitals.

The 58 children's hospitals that receive CHGME funding train approximately half of the nation's pediatricians, more than 7,000 annually.

We should provide the funds necessary to train students in a profession that will benefit society.

We must train the very professionals who will one day save the life of a child.

I support this legislation because it will increase the quality of medical training in the United States.

I believe that H.R. 5385 improves upon a system that sets the bar for medical care internationally.

By passing H.R. 5385, CHGME can continue to succeed in bolstering research potential at these institutions as well as helping to cure a problem that supersedes political boundaries: children's illness.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 5385.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate four outstanding Houston residents on their reception of the Benjamin A. Gilman International Scholarship.

I offer my sincere congratulations to Ms. Jessica Espaillat, Ms. Daphne Hernandez, Ms. Maria Palomares Carranco, and Ms. Nereyda Reyes for their remarkable achievement of receiving the Benjamin A. Gilman International Scholarship.

The Benjamin A. Gilman International Scholarship builds young, well- rounded and diverse leaders who have the skills to contribute to our national security and public diplomacy efforts.

The scholarship program was established with the support of the late Congressman Benjamin A. Gilman of New York, whose leading contributions to study abroad educational programs continue to help many students develop the ability to communicate and understand the economic, social and political connections among nations.

The scholarship was established to provide recipients with the tools to develop international knowledge and language skills, as well as gain valuable career-enhancing experiences in their experiences abroad.

The Gilman program has enabled more than 25,000 outstanding Americans of diverse backgrounds to engage in a meaningful educational experience abroad, providing them with skills critical to our national security and economic competiveness.

Houston's contribution to this impressive list of talented individuals includes:

Ms. Jessica Espaillat, of the University of Houston, who studied abroad in Japan;

Ms. Daphne Hernandez, of Colby College, who studied abroad in Japan;

Ms. Maria Palomares Carranco, of the University of Texas at Austin, who completed her studies in Mexico; and

Ms. Nereyda Reyes, of Texas A&M University at College Station, who spent her time abroad studying in Belgium.

This is truly a wonderful accomplishment for the recipients, and I offer them my best wishes as they embark on the next steps of their educational journeys.

My office is always open to the scholarship recipients, and I encourage them to contact me for any help they may need with their future educational goals.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4100, the Foundation of the Federal Bar Association Charter Amendments Act of 2017.

H.R. 4100 amends title 36 of the United States Code to revise the Federal charter for the Foundation of the Federal Bar Association, to prohibit the use of race, color, religion, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation, or national origin in determining eligibility for service as an officer or director.

The Federal Bar Association is the nation's premiere association for practitioners of federal law and as such should be open to all regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Currently, the FBA recognizes the importance of nondiscrimination and has adopted a diversity statement that includes race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

Diversity statements are valuable but they do not carry the weight of law.

The addition of a nondiscrimination provision to the FBA Charter is an important action and when gender identity is an enumerated protected characteristic in the law, transgender people will be protected from discrimination.

Discrimination on the basis of gender identity is a form of sex discrimination, and laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex protect transgender people.

Numerous federal circuit and district courts opinions have held that our nation's nondiscrimination laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex protect transgender people from discrimination, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

The EEOC determined in Macy v. Holder that Title VII's prohibitions on sex discrimination also prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity.

This decision is binding on the federal government with respect to employment practices.

Our laws work best when there are clear expectations.

While gender identity will be covered by the sex nondiscrimination provision, it is better to enumerate gender identity.

Listing out protected characteristics helps those making determinations about membership understand their obligations and those seeking membership understand their rights.

By passing H.R. 4100, we can prevent discrimination by ensuring gender identity is a protected characteristic.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 4100.

Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress we know well, perhaps better than most, how blessed our nation is to have in reserve such exceptional young men and women who will go on to become leaders in their local communities, states, and the nation in the areas of business, education, government, philanthropy, the arts and culture, and the military.

We know this because we see them and benefit from their contributions every day. Many of them work for us in our offices as junior staff members, congressional fellows, or interns and they do amazing work for and on behalf of the constituents we are privileged to represent.

Mr. Speaker, I believe there is no higher calling than the call to serve a cause larger than ourselves. That is why I ran for public office. I was inspired to serve by President Kennedy who said, ``Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,'' and by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who said, ``Everybody can be great because anybody can serve. . . . You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love.''

By this measure, there are several other great young men and women who served as volunteers this year in my offices. They may toil in obscurity but their contributions to the constituents we serve are deeply appreciated. That is why today I rise to pay tribute to 13 extraordinary young persons for their service to my constituents in the 18th Congressional District of Texas and to the American people. They are:

Callie Lucia from Texas Christian University; Kelly Clifford from New York University; Matthew Marion from the University of Colorado; Farah Mechref from Texas Tech University; Chaniqua Nelson from Howard University; Zohair Alam from the University of Houston; Sabri Siraj from Arizona State University; Naomi Stelivan from Fisk University; Andy Hong from Brown University; Mariam Boguifo from Texas Tech University; Rishal Jagtap from Langley High School; Ritwik Jagtap from Langley High School; and Fangxin `Amy' Yu from The Madeira School.

Mr. Speaker, the energy, intelligence, and idealism these wonderful young people brought to my office and those interning in the offices of my colleagues help keep our democracy vibrant. The insights, skills, and knowledge of the governmental process they gain from their experiences will last a lifetime and prove invaluable to them as they go about making their mark in this world.

Because of persons like them the future of our country is bright and its best days lie ahead. I wish them all well.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that such thoughtful committed young men and women can be found working in my office, those of my colleagues, and in every community in America. Their good works will keep America great, good, and forever young.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow will be a great day. We will introduce the reauthorization of the historic Violence Against Women Act. We are excited about this introduction because so many women had an opportunity for almost a year and a half, close to 2 years, to discuss, to invest, to make suggestions, and to bring together this collaboration endorsed by the national task force, a bipartisan group of 35 organizations, from religious organizations, to Native American organizations, to organizations that have been on the front lines of protecting women or seeking to stop the violence against women.

We have expanded the rape prevention section, for the rising need for that section as it relates to the #MeToo movement, sexual assault, and sexual harassment.

We are excited by the confidentiality provisions that indicate that Federal and State agencies that are receiving grants must maintain the confidentiality of those who have been victims.

Mr. Speaker, we invite the entire House of Representatives to join us on this historic occasion and support the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which will be introduced in the very near future, tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1376, the ``Electronic Message Preservation Act of 2017,'' which helps ensure the preservation of federal agency electronic messages.

Mr. Speaker, it is critical that we are able to preserve records of activities and to have appropriate systems to manage and preserve those reports relating to Presidential records, and for other purposes.

According to CBO, enacting H.R. 1376 would not increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2029.

First, such regulations as a minimum must require the electronic capture, management, and preservation of such electronic records in accordance with the Federal Records Act.

Second, they must also require such records to be retrievable through electronic searches.

Third, it is imperative to include timelines for federal agency implementation of the regulations that ensure compliance as expeditiously as practicable.

Mr. Speaker, enacting H.R. 1376 will help preserve records of activities by requiring NARA to oversee and issue guidance on managing federal records, including email messages.

CBO estimates that any net changes in direct spending by those agencies would be insignificant.

Enacting this bill would not affect revenues.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 1376 and standing true to our nation's commitment to advancing security in managing and preserving records.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3906, the ``Innovative Storm water Infrastructure Act of 2018.''

H.R. 3906 directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a stormwater infrastructure funding task force to study and develop recommendations to improve the availability of public and private sources of funding for stormwater infrastructure.

Houston area residents understand the importance of infrastructure that can mitigate the effects of storm water.

After making landfall, circled back and held in place for nearly four days, Hurricane Harvey dropped an unprecedented amount of rain in the Houston area--so much rain, in fact, that the flood area itself began to act like an inland sea, feeding moisture back into the storm to be dropped as yet more rain.

Hurricane Harvey brought more than 64 inches of rain to the Houston area, flooding 203,000 homes, 13 Superfund sites, and more than 800 wastewater treatment facilities.

The damage caused by Hurricane Harvey exceeds $125 billion.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, second only to Hurricane Katrina.

Nine out of 19 of the official river gauges in Harris County, Texas, recorded all-time-high water levels.

Nederland, Texas recorded 60.58 inches of rainfall, making Hurricane Harvey the highest total rainfall ever recorded in the continental United States. Rainfall within a tenth of an inch of that total was recorded in Groves, a neighboring community.

These both exceed the previous U.S. rainfall record of 52 inches, set by Hurricane Hiki in Hawaii in 1950.

Eighteen locations in southeastern Texas broke previous tropical rainfall records in the contiguous United States, which was set by Tropical Storm Amelia in Medina, Texas in 1978.

Six to ten feet was the maximum water levels above the ground, which occurred near the areas where Harvey made landfall.

Fifty-seven tornadoes were reported during the Hurricane Harvey storm, about half of which occurred near or south of the Houston metro area.

At its peak on September 1, 2017, one-third of Houston was underwater.

Over 300,000 structures flooded in southeastern Texas, where extreme rainfall hit many areas that are densely populated.

Hurricane Harvey is the largest housing disaster to strike the U.S. in our nation's history.

Hurricane Harvey damaged 203,000 homes, of which 12,700 were completely destroyed.

Texans continue to work to recover, but thousands still are not able to return to flood damaged homes.

Next month marks a year since floodwaters swamped America's fourth- largest city, the extent of this environmental assault is beginning to surface, while questions about the long-term consequences for human health remain unanswered.

As disasters become more frequent and populations living in vulnerable areas increase, interest in the health effects of exposure to the combination of natural and technological disasters has grown.

According to experts, when rain falls on the roofs of our homes, streets, and parking lots in cities and their suburbs, the water is unable to soak into the ground as it should.

When a rainstorm occurs, rainwater hits the streets and gravity takes it on the path of least resistance.

Stormwater drains through gutters, storm sewers, and other engineered collection systems and is discharged into nearby water bodies.

Across the country, in every community, rain mixes with chemicals, oils, and other harmful pollutants to flood into our waterways.

Further, higher flows resulting from heavy rains can also cause erosion and flooding in urban streams, damaging habitat, property, and infrastructure.

H.R. 3906 will establish a stormwater infrastructure funding task force program such as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater Program (NPDES).

This program is designed to prevent stormwater runoff from washing harmful pollutants into local waterbodies.

Some 500 chemical plants, 10 refineries and more than 6,670 miles of intertwined oil, gas and chemical pipelines line the nation's largest energy corridor.

Nearly 500 Million gallons of industrial wastewater mixed with storm water surged out of just one chemical plant in Baytown, east of Houston, on the upper shores of Galveston Bay.

Benzene, vinyl chloride, butadiene, and other known human carcinogens were among

the dozens of tons of industrial toxic substances released into surrounding neighborhoods and waterways following Harvey's torrential rains.

In addition, NPDES will study and develop recommendations to improve the availability of public and private sources of funding for stormwater infrastructure.

The EPA Administrator will ensure that these programs promote the use of innovative stormwater control infrastructure in and coordinate the integration of innovative stormwater control infrastructure into permitting programs, planning efforts, research, technical assistance, and funding guidance.

Mr. Speaker, a stronger investment in stormwater prevention programs allows for the implementations of cutting edge solutions and puts our communities in a path to healthier waters.

I urge my colleges to join me in voting for H.R. 3906.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5238, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1234 Saint Johns Place in Brooklyn, New York, as the ``Major Robert Odell Owens Post Office.''

Mr. Speaker, this bill is an opportunity for us all to pay tribute to a great American, a fighter for justice and equality, one of the most passionate advocates for educational opportunity, and a man who served in this body with distinction, Major Owens of New York.

Major Owens was born June 28, 1936, in Collierville, Tennessee.

He was educated at Morehouse College, from which he received his baccalaureate degree, and Atlanta University from which he earned a Master of Science degree.

Major Owens later moved to New York where he worked as a librarian before accepting an appointment from Mayor John V. Lindsay to serve as Director of the New York City Community Development Agency.

He also served as a faculty member in the Department of Public Administration at Medgar Evers College.

In 1974, Major Owens was elected to the New York State Senate and was reelected to serve a second term in 1978.

In 1982, Major Owens won a competitive primary to fill the seat of retiring Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm, the first African American woman elected to the House of Representatives and the first woman ever to seek the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.

As the Member of Congress for the 11th Congressional District of New York, Major Owens represented a diverse district centered in Brooklyn, including low income areas of Brownsville and parts of Bedford- Stuyvestant, the large Hasidic community of Crown Heights, the heavily Caribbean areas of Flatbush and East Flatbush, and the more affluent neighborhoods of Park Slope and Prospect Park.

Affectionately known as the ``Education Congressman'' by his constituents, Major Owens fought tirelessly throughout his twelve terms in Congress to protect and expand educational opportunity for all Americans, especially those from economically and socially disadvantaged backgrounds.

As he often reminded his colleagues in the House, education was ``the kingpin issue.''

In an article he published in Black Issues in Higher Education, he wrote: ``We have to believe that all power and progress really begins with education.''

Major Owens served on the House Committee on Government Reform and the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

As the Ranking Member on the Education and Workforce Subcommittee for Workforce Protections, Congressman Owens helped lead the fight for minimum wage increases, blocked the attempt to eliminate cash payments for overtime, fought against efforts to roll back or repeal Davis- Bacon, and to weaken the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

As Chairman of the Education Subcommittee on Select Education and Civil Rights (1988 to '94), Congressman Owens was one of the earliest and strongest supporters of the Americans With Disabilities Act, which was enacted into law in 1991.

In recognition for his work to pass the ADA, Major Owens was awarded an honorary degree by Galludet University, the world's premier higher education institution serving deaf an hard of hearing people.

Major Owens loved serving in this body and he was a valued member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus.

As Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus Task Force on Haiti, he led the successful three-year fight which restored the democratically elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Mr. Speaker, Congressman Owens was a legislator's legislator.

Major Owens touched so many lives in so many helpful ways that he will always be remembered by people he served so ably and selfless for more than thirty years.

H.R. 5238 will honor the memory of this great man by enshrining his legacy on a public building in his district.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5238, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1234 Saint Johns Place in Brooklyn, New York, as the ``Major Robert Odell Owens Post Office.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of the 49th anniversary of the first Apollo Moon landing.

On July 20, 1969, the spaceship was a long way from home.

Blasting off from Cape Kennedy four days prior, Commander Neil Armstrong, Command Module Pilot Michael Collins, and Lunar Module Pilot Edwin ``Buzz'' Aldrin had been hurled from the cosmic shores of our orbit at an escape velocity of 24,200 miles per hour.

With them were cameras, scientific instruments, and the now famous three-by-five foot U.S. flag to be planted on the surface of the Moon.

They also carried two other U.S. flags--to be brought back and flown over the houses of Congress--the flags of the 50 States, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories, the United Nations flag, as well as those of 136 foreign countries.

But what they carried that fateful day was more than a collection of instruments and national symbols.

They carried the faith of mankind--of going where no human had gone before.

They also carried courage--not only the courage that is the absence of fear, but rather the resolute determination to fulfill the national destiny.

And more than courage they carried hope--that despite the bloodshed and weapons of mass destruction that defined the Cold War, humanity could stand together with bated breath for this new, brave step into the future.

On the afternoon of July 20, at 3:08 PM Eastern, more than 200,000 miles away from Earth, Aldrin and Armstrong fired the lunar module's descent engine for the first time.

While Armstrong flew the landing craft, Aldrin gave him altitude readings: ``Seven hundred and fifty feet, coming down at 23 degrees . . . 700 feet, 21 down . . . 400 feet, down at nine . . . Got the shadow out there . . . 75 feet, things looking good . . . Lights on . . . Picking up some dust . . . 30 feet, 2 1/2 down . . . Faint shadow . . . Four forward. Four forward, drifting to the right a little . . . Contact light. Okay, engine stop.''

When the 68-inch probes beneath three of the spacecraft's four footpads touched down, Armstrong shut off the ship's engine.

At 4:18 PM, the craft settled down at an angle of no more than four or five degrees on the right side of the Moon as seen from Earth.

From Tranquility Base, Armstrong immediately radioed Mission Control: ``Houston, the Eagle has landed.''

At 10:56 PM, Armstrong put his left foot to the Moon.

It was the first time in history that man has ever stepped on anything that has not existed on or originated from Earth.

``That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind,'' Armstrong radioed.

Mr. Speaker, we gather here today not only to chronicle the extraordinary voyage of Apollo 11, but also to remember the efforts of thousands of America's brightest who stretched the bounds of human imagination with this accomplishment.

I am tremendously proud to say Houston's very own Johnson Space Center, then named Manned Space Center, was pivotal in guiding the spaceships Columbia and Eagle to their place in history.

Even after the Gemini and Apollo Missions, Houston has been the international hub of manned space flight ever since.

Johnson Space Center scientists, engineers, astronauts and other staff members have been tasked with controlling flights from Skylab and the Apollo-Soyuz missions through the Shuttle program and beyond.

Johnson Space Center is the training base and home for our nation's astronauts and the site of Mission Control, where a talented cadre of flight controllers monitors the work of our women and men in space.

Mr. Speaker, I remind this body that the American space flight program is not merely a collection of scientific achievements.

I celebrate the legacy of Mary Jackson, NASA's first black female engineer who joined the Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia in 1958.

Her pioneering work not only contributed immensely to the success of the Mercury space program--the predecessor to Gemini and Apollo--but also to influenced the hiring and promotion of women and people of color in NASA's science, engineering, and mathematics careers.

Not only African American women were involved, but also men and women of all races and trades--White, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American engineers, physicists, manufacturers, mathematicians, physicians, divers, sailors, and thousands more.

Armstrong and Aldrin may have walked on the moon, but all of America was with them in spirit.

I celebrate the legacy of President John Kennedy, who in 1961 in my home city of Houston declared to the world that ``We choose to go to the moon within the decade and do the other things, not because they are easy but because they are hard.''

I invoke the words of astronomer and writer Carl Sagan, who eloquently wrote on the scope and audacity of the President's proclamation:

``The Moon was a metaphor for the unattainable: `You might as well ask for the Moon,' they used to say. For most of our history, we had no idea what it was.

``We would use rockets not yet designed and alloys not yet conceived, navigation and docking schemes not yet devised, in order to send a man to a world not yet explored--not

even in a preliminary way, with robots--and we would bring him safely back, and we would do it before the decade was over.

``This confident pronouncement was made before any American had even achieved Earth orbit.''

To anyone who might doubt America's ability to make good on this commitment, President Kennedy said, ``this country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them. This country was conquered by those who moved forward--and so will space.''

He, like the Apollo program, represented the best of America's can-do spirit; an idea of tomorrow, a relentless march toward achieving the full promise of America, and an understanding that we, the people--all of us--have a place in that future and a role to play in bringing it about.

The Apollo program was certainly a pinnacle of American scientific triumph.

In that summer of 1969, we decided to use technologies developed to hold humanity captive under the specter of nuclear war to capture the imagination of humanity.

In that summer of 1969, we conveyed to the world an optimism about technology and an enthusiasm for the future.

In that summer of 1969, we reached for the stars and three Americans--Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins--nearly had them in their grasp.

But our best days are not behind us.

For as long as we have been able to stand on two legs, we have been voyagers.

We had emerged from the caves and come down from the trees; we conquered continents; weathered oceans; we have connected the world in no way it had ever been connected before.

So you ask today, Mr. Speaker, what comes next?

I urge my colleagues on this most special anniversary to continue supporting our space program, celebrate the sciences, and encourage innovation and international scientific cooperation.

I ask that we work together, like that moment on July 20th, 1969, and stand together, arm in arm, to take the next small step forward--a giant leap for mankind.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 16, 2018, I was unavoidably detained attending to representation duties in district and state and was not present for Roll Call Votes 329 and 330. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:

On Roll Call 329, I would have voted AYE. (On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 4946, designating the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1075 North Tustin Street in Orange, California, as the ``Specialist Trevor A. Win'E Post Office.'')

On Roll Call 330, I would have voted AYE. (On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass

H.R. 4406, designating the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 511 East Walnut Street in Columbia, Missouri, as the ``Spc. Sterling William Wyatt Post Office Building.'')

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2345, the ``National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act,'' which provides resources to improve suicide hotlines in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, it is critical that we address the public heath crisis of suicide in the United States.

Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States--each year, 44,965 Americans die by suicide, more than half by firearm.

On average, 123 Americans commit suicide each day.

The 2016 annual age-adjusted suicide rate in my state of Texas was 12.57 per 100,000 individuals, which was similar to the national average for that year.

However, there has been a steady increase in suicides in the decade since 2007, when the suicide rate was 10.48 per 100,000.

Suicides in Texas have increased by 23 percent over the past 15 years.

The steady increase coincides with new data that names suicide as the second leading cause of death among people ages 10-34 in America.

Even more alarming are rates of suicide among our veterans--those who have given the ultimate sacrifice and deserve protection tantamount to their service.

According to a Veterans Affairs study released last year, risk for suicide was 22 percent higher among veterans when compared to U.S. non- veteran adults.

After adjusting for differences in age, risk for suicide was 19 percent higher among male veterans when compared to U.S. non-veteran adult men.

After adjusting for differences in age, risk for suicide was 2.5 times higher among female veterans when compared to U.S. non-veteran adult women.

But the victims of suicide are more than mere statistics.

They are our parents, children, siblings, and loved ones.

They are our co-workers, our peers, and our servicemen and women.

They deserve more.

There are many organizations and individuals working tirelessly to ensure all of our fellow citizens receive the aid they need.

I commend the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, a network of 161 crisis centers that provides a 24/7, toll-free hotline available to anyone in suicidal crisis or emotional distress.

There are five such centers in Texas, including one in my home city of Houston.

The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline reports that it experienced an increase of 100 percent in calls between 2014 and 2017, revealing just how prevalent suicide has become.

The helpline answered more than 2 million calls in 2017, up from approximately one million calls in 2014. In 2015 and 2016, the helpline answered more than 1.5 million calls each year.

Those on the front lines of the suicide prevention efforts deserve more help.

H.R. 2345, the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act, would require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to coordinate with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and consult with the Department of Veterans Affairs for suicide prevention efforts.

The Act would lead to the examination of the feasibility of designating a three-digit dialing code for a national suicide prevention and mental health crisis hotline system.

Further, the Act directs the FCC to study and report to Congress on the effectiveness of the current National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, including how well it addresses the needs of veterans.

Mr. Speaker, our citizens and our suicide prevention centers deserve decisive action against suicide.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 2345 to reduce the incidence of suicides in America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 959, the Nursing Workforce Reauthorization Act of 2018.

It is undeniable that nurses play a critical role in our society's function, as they are trusted healthcare professionals who are the heart and soul of the healthcare system.

H.R. 959 amends the Public Health Service Act by extending support for nursing workforce programs and grants through the fiscal year 2022.

This bill will reauthorize the Title VIII nursing workforce development programs.

Further, eligibility for advanced nursing education grants will be expanded to include education programs for clinical nurse leaders and all combined registered nurse and graduate degree programs.

The Nursing Workforce Reauthorization Act bolsters nursing education at all levels, strengthens nursing education and funds institutions educating nurses to practice in rural and medically underserved communities.

For nearly six decades, the nursing workforce development programs have helped fortify the workforce by increasing the number of students, faculty, and practicing nurses.

Unfortunately, health inequities, inflated costs, and poor health care outcomes are intensifying because of today's shortfall of appropriately prepared licensed vocational/practical nurses (LVNs/ LPNs), registered nurses (RNs), advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs), and nurse faculty.

This trend must be ameliorated, as the importance of nurses cannot be understated.

Nurses are extremely vital components to quality healthcare and patient education.

Nurses are the primary professionals delivering quality health care in the nation, as there are over 4.2 million Registered Nurses in practice today.

Moreover, the nurse workforce is expected to continue to grow, due to the current technological advancements for treatments, preventive care needs, and the rising demand from new health reform enrollments.

It is imperative that the nursing shortage in society be eliminated, as the need for qualified, experienced nurses is rising and will continue to do so.

Insufficient federal investments in nursing education, training, and the overall workforce will only be a detriment to our nation's quality of healthcare.

H.R. 959 ensures that nursing workforce development programs will continue to address the specific needs of the nursing and nurse faculty workforce as well as patients in our communities.

By modernizing the current nursing workforce development programs, through technical training and further financial funding, nurses will be able to fulfill the needs of their patients at the highest level.

Further funding and training for nurses at all levels ensures that all types and levels of nurses have concrete training and are able to deliver high quality healthcare.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 959, which will strengthen the future of nursing and the health of the nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5954, the Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act of 2018, which amends title 18 of the United States Code to clarify the meaning of the terms ``act of war'' and ``blocked asset.''

Mr. Speaker, it is vital that we correctly classify terrorist activities.

H.R. 5954 (1) clarifies ambiguities in the Anti-terrorism Act of 1992 (ATA's) ``act of war'' exception that allow designated foreign terrorists and their supporters to avoid liability; (2) closes a loophole that prevents victims of narco-terrorism from enforcing their judgments against terrorist assets that have been blocked by the Treasury Department; and (3) addresses lower court decisions that have allowed entities that sponsor terrorist activity against U.S. nationals overseas to avoid the jurisdiction of U.S. courts.

This will amend the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) to make it easier for plaintiffs to pursue claims under that statute.

H.R. 5954 has three principal provisions.

First, it would clarify and narrow the ``act of war'' exception to liability under the ATA.

Second, the bill would provide that ATA plaintiffs may reach the assets of a defendant That have been blocked pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act to satisfy an ATA judgment.

Third, H.R. 5954 would establish that for purposes of any ATA civil action, a defendant is ``deemed to have consented'' to personal jurisdiction in such civil action regardless of when the act of international terrorism at issue took place if the defendant accepted U.S. foreign assistance funds or, in certain circumstances, the defendant maintains an office or other facilities within U.S. jurisdiction.

H.R. 5954 legislation is necessary to allow injured persons to pursue their claims and I offer my support.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5954.

Mr. Speaker, there are three items that I think are important for our colleagues.

A number of Members traveled to Texas to physically assess where we were in the reunification of these children and their families. Let me just say that those who are tasked with trying to do this dastardly, difficult task are putting their best foot forward, but they are dealing with a policy that is broken and chaotic. I witnessed the attempt to reunify families. There were about 20 children in the room, and we witnessed four reunifications, and each of us would have our heart broken, because children are still in shock, some didn't recognize their parents. I believe that this is a chaotic system that this administration must fix immediately.

I also want to bring to the attention of my colleagues about the Medicare payments to doctors, unequal payments. I am absolutely opposed. Give doctors a fair assessment of their treatment.

And, finally, do we realize, Mr. Speaker, that those immigrants who joined the military are now being kicked out? Do we have any heart? They have sacrificed their lives to wear the uniform. We need to stand up against it, Mr. Speaker.