Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, with pride I rise to pay tribute to Michael Thomas, a multi-talented young man and professional football player, who is volunteering as an NFLPA extern in my office.

Before he joined the Miami Dolphins in 2013 to bolster its secondary as a free safety, Michael Thomas, who starred and attended Chester W. Nimitz High School in Houston, Texas, was rated the 75th best high school player in the nation by ESPN.

Michael went on to collegiate stardom at Stanford University earning All-Pac-12 Honorable-Mention after his senior year campaign with the Cardinal.

Michael Thomas is one of those rare individuals who has a knack for making good things happen.

In the very first game he played with the Miami Dolphins, Michael made the game-saving play against the New England Patriots with an end- zone interception of the great Tom Brady.

But what I find most exciting and inspiring about this winner is that Michael Thomas also earned his degree from Stanford University and continued his education by earning his MBA from the University of Miami Business School.

Michael Thomas comes to my Washington office as an extern during the Second Session of the 115th Congress to get hands on experience on how the legislative branch of the federal government works.

During his time in my office, Michael has made a difference by:

Attending committee hearings, meetings, and briefings;

Researching legislative proposals, advocacy documents, and policy analyses;

Contributing to my Budget Committee work; and

Drafting memoranda regarding important legislative priorities.

Michael Thomas has observed and contributed to the important legislative work that is performed every day in my office to advance a positive legislative agenda that puts children, families and the elderly first at the forefront of public policy initiatives and funding.

Michael's work in public service did not begin with his decision to become an extern, nor did it begin when he decided to take a knee in silent protest against a criminal justice system that too often appears to value some lives less than others.

Michael Thomas is determined to make a difference in the world of professional sports and in society at large, which inspired him and other athletes to engage in next-step initiatives beyond ``Taking A Knee.''

Michael's commitment to making the world just a little bit better is exemplified by his work on education reform in the city of Houston, as well as with the Miami Dolphins.

Michael Thomas is a leader and public entrepreneur in his own right.

He proposed that the Miami Dolphins create a ``Project Change Scholarship'' through the Dolphins Foundation, which made its first award this year.

Michael is now expanding this effort into a campaign to persuade every sports organization to adopt a similar scholarship program.

Michael is challenging all athletes to take an internship or externship in the office of one of their local, state, or federal government elected officials or agencies to gain a better appreciation for and understanding of the central importance of democratic norms, traditions, and institutions to democratic governance that is responsive, effective, innovative, and efficient.

There are present and future citizen-activists in every community in America and as Members of Congress we should actively encourage them to become and remain engaged in the important work of citizenship.

I am reminded of this pearl of wisdom from Margaret Mead: ``Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.''

I thank Michael Thomas for everything he is doing and has done to promote greater civic tolerance, understanding, inclusion and diversity, and commend him as an example and inspiration to young people everywhere who are asking not what their country can do for them, but what they can do for their country.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, because we are talking about need this morning, having seen Mr. Deutch in Florida, let me offer my deepest sympathy for the tragic loss of our children.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to be able to speak for many of those who cannot be on the floor today, and that is the millions of disabled Americans; and to be able to say that with all of the consternation and the uncomfortableness of some of the very important people in America: small businesses, the engine of our economy.

I have to stand and speak for the value of civil rights and the civil rights of Americans with disabilities who waited for centuries to not be looked upon in distaste and disgust.

I remember preceding the passage of the American with Disabilities Act. George H.W. Bush is a Texan, and I see often his passion for passing that bill.

There are 57 million Americans with disabilities. That translates to 1 in 5 Americans. There are 31 million Americans with physical disabilities.

I heard some of their comments: ``As an older woman with disabilities, I feel invisible.'' Or ``I am not living; I am just existing.''

The ``notice and cure'' framework included in this bill would fundamentally change the structure of the ADA's public accommodations title and remove any reasons for business to comply proactively with the law.

The same as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that we now suffer because we gutted section 4 and section 5, and we have voter suppression, and people are not having their civil rights in terms of voting.

You touch this in a way that you undermine the very existence of people living with disabilities. I am outraged, even though I am empathetic.

But if it is a problem of lawyers, State bars can regulate them and State courts can regulate them. You can punish or sanction lawyers who do not have the proper protocols.

Mr. Chairman, this is wrongheaded. I ask my colleagues to stand for civil rights for Americans with disabilities. This is not just an amendment. It is undermining the civil rights of those

who are living with disabilities. They have a right to live.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 620, the ``ADA Education and Reform Act,'' legislation that would infringe on important civil rights of Americans who live with physical disabilities.

I am deeply troubled that the House of Representatives is taking up H.R. 620, legislation that would remove any incentive businesses currently have to comply with this longstanding civil rights law and undermining protections that allow millions to live independently and in the dignified manner they deserve.

There are about 57 million Americans with disabilities; that number translates to 1 in 5 Americans.

There are 31 million Americans with physical disabilities who use a wheelchair, cane, crutches, or a walker.

And for that I commend former President George H. W. Bush, along with many members of Congress, for their leadership in passing the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, legislation that made our country's public spaces more accessible to those with disabilities.

H.R. 620 would require disabled persons to notify businesses of a violation of the ADA's public accommodation provisions contained in title III of the act, and wait up to 180 days to remedy that alleged violation before a lawsuit could be filed, presenting a direct undermining of the civil rights of Americans with disabilities.

The ``notice and cure'' framework included in this bill would fundamentally change the structure of the ADA's public accommodations title and remove any reasons for business to comply proactively with the law.

H.R. 620's notice and cure provisions will have the effect of inappropriately shifting the burden of enforcing compliance with a federal civil rights statute from the alleged wrongdoer onto the discrimination victim.

Moreover, it would undermine the carefully calibrated voluntary compliance regime that is one of the hallmarks of the ADA, a regime formed through negotiations between the disability rights community and the business community when the ADA was being drafted 28 years ago.

H.R. 620 would, instead, perversely incentivize a public accommodation to not comply with the ADA unless and until it receives a notice of a violation pursuant to H.R. 620's notice provision.

Finally, the bill does nothing to address the problem that its proponents seek to address, which is the purported concern with the filing of meritless lawsuits by certain plaintiffs' attorneys, a problem (to the extent that it is actually a problem) that is one of state law, not the federal ADA.

This is not the first time in this Congress, or even this year, that I witness the Republicans, allegedly a party for state's rights, completely undermine the established idea that tort law should be left for states to legislate without interference from federal mandates.

H.R. 620's proponents have never adequately articulated why federal law must be amended to address a problem driven by state law.

Also, the bill makes no attempt to distinguish between meritorious and non-meritorious lawsuits and would, instead, impose its harmful and unnecessary requirements on all ADA claims, regardless of potential merit.

I remain adamantly opposed to any effort to weaken the ability of individuals to enforce their rights under federal civil rights laws and I am concerned that H.R. 620 would undermine the key enforcement mechanism of the ADA and other civil rights laws, namely, the ability to file private lawsuits to enforce rights.

Joining me and my colleagues in opposition is a broad coalition of 236 disability rights groups, including:

American Foundation for the Blind,

the Bazelon Center for Mental Health,

the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation,

the National Council on Independent Living,

the National Disability Rights Network,

the Paralyzed Veterans of America,

Vietnam Veterans of America,

the AFL-CIO,

the Anti-Defamation League,

Human Rights Campaign,

the NAACP, and

the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

Additionally, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights opposes the bill because it would ``remove incentives for businesses to comply with the law unless and until people with disabilities are denied access'' which ``would lead to the continued exclusion of people with disabilities from the mainstream of society and would turn back the clock on disability rights in America.''

Likewise, the American Civil Liberties Union opposes H.R. 620 because it would ``fundamentally alter [the] way in which a person with a disability enforces their civil rights and would severely limit access to places of public accommodations.''

For the foregoing reasons and those discussed below, we strongly oppose H.R. 620 and respectfully dissent from the Committee report.

While it is very important to protect small and growing businesses, we can do so without jeopardizing the rights of disabled individuals to have a day in court.

I do not believe that we have crossed the T's and dotted the I's with all the information that we should have in trying to improve our situation and address the concerns of many small businesses.

Small businesses are the heartbeat of America and the backbone of successful communities, which is why I have served as one of their strongest advocates during my tenure in Congress.

But the reality is that H.R. 620 does not help small businesses, it only hurts the disabled.

I do, however, hope that we can achieve this balanced goal through a different avenue.

So today I stand with Ranking Member Nadler, Congressman Langevin and all those who stand for civil rights and for the rights of Americans with disabilities.

For these reasons I oppose H.R. 620.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, first of all, the American Bar Association supports this legislation.

Secondarily, the gentleman is talking about lawyers, not the disabled. Let the State bars and let the State courts regulate these lawyers. Sanction them, just like we have sanctions in the Federal court system.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the rule which makes in order H.R. 620, the ``ADA Education and Reform Act,'' legislation that would infringe on important civil rights of Americans who live with physical disabilities.

I am deeply troubled that the House of Representatives is taking up H.R. 620, legislation that would remove any incentive businesses currently have to comply with this longstanding civil rights law and undermining protections that allow millions to live independently and in the dignified manner they deserve.

There are about 57 million Americans with disabilities; that number translates to 1 in 5 Americans.

There are 31 million Americans with physical disabilities who use a wheelchair, cane, crutches, or a walker.

And for that I commend former President George H.W. Bush, along with many members of Congress, for their leadership in passing the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, legislation that made our country's public spaces more accessible to those with disabilities.

H.R. 620 would require disabled persons to notify businesses of a violation of the ADA's public accommodation provisions contained in title III of the act, and wait up to 180 days to remedy that alleged violation before a lawsuit could be filed, presenting a direct undermining of the civil rights of Americans with disabilities.

The ``notice and cure'' framework included in this bill would fundamentally change the structure of the ADA's public accommodations title and remove any reasons for business to comply proactively with the law.

H.R. 620's notice and cure provisions will have the effect of inappropriately shifting the burden of enforcing compliance with a federal civil rights statute from the alleged wrongdoer onto the discrimination victim.

Moreover, it would undermine the carefully calibrated voluntary compliance regime that is one of the hallmarks of the ADA, a regime formed through negotiations between the disability rights community and the business community when the. ADA was being drafted 28 years ago.

H.R. 620 would, instead, perversely incentivize a public accommodation to not comply with the ADA unless and until it receives a notice of a violation pursuant to H.R. 620's notice provision.

Finally, the bill does nothing to address the problem that its proponents seek to address, which is the purported concern with the filing of meritless lawsuits by certain plaintiffs' attorneys, a problem (to the extent that it is actually a problem) that is one of state law, not the federal ADA.

This is not the first time in this Congress, or even this year, that I witness the Republicans, allegedly a party for state's rights, completely undermine the established idea that tort law should be left for states to legislate without interference from federal mandates.

H.R. 620's proponents have never adequately articulated why federal law must be amended to address a problem driven by state law.

Also, the bill makes no attempt to distinguish between meritorious and non-meritorious lawsuits and would, instead, impose its harmful and unnecessary requirements on all ADA claims, regardless of potential merit.

I remain adamantly opposed to any effort to weaken the ability of individuals to enforce their rights under federal civil rights laws and I am concerned that H.R. 620 would undermine the key enforcement mechanism of the ADA and other civil rights laws, namely, the ability to file private lawsuits to enforce rights.

Joining me and my colleagues in opposition is a broad coalition of 236 disability rights groups, including:

American Foundation for the Blind, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health, the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation, the National Council on Independent Living, the National Disability Rights Network, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, Vietnam Veterans of America, the AFL- CIO, the Anti-Defamation League, Human Rights Campaign, the NAACP, and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

Additionally, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights opposes the bill because it would ``remove incentives for businesses to comply with the law unless and until people with disabilities are denied access'' which ``would lead to the continued exclusion of people with disabilities from the mainstream of society and would turn back the clock on disability rights in America.''

Likewise, the American Civil Liberties Union opposes H.R. 620 because it would ``fundamentally alter [the] way in which a person with a disability enforces their civil rights and would severely limit access to places of public accommodations.''

For the foregoing reasons and those discussed below, we strongly oppose H.R. 620 and respectfully dissent from the Committee report.

While it is very important to protect small and growing businesses, we can do so without jeopardizing the rights of disabled individuals to have a day in court.

I do not believe that we have crossed the T's and dotted the I's with all the information that we should have in trying to improve our situation and address the concerns of many small businesses.

Small businesses are the heartbeat of America and the backbone of successful communities, which is why I have served as one of their strongest advocates during my tenure in Congress.

But the reality is that H.R. 620 does not help small businesses, it only hurts the disabled.

I do, however, hope that we can achieve this balanced goal through a different avenue.

So today I stand with Ranking Member Nadler, Congressman Langevin and all those who stand for civil rights and for the rights of Americans with disabilities.

For these reasons I oppose the rule governing H.R. 620.

Mr. Speaker, as we address Women's History Month in the month of March, I raise the attention of my colleagues to a set of circumstances that we have seen relating to the administration and its personnel policies, but the real issue is the affirmation of opposition to domestic violence and abuse.

Thousands of women and some men lose their lives to domestic abuse and domestic violence. Thousands live in silence and absolute fear. Children see their mothers and fathers killed. To have insensitivity to the importance of anyone who has engaged in domestic violence and domestic abuse be ignored sends a wrong signal to the girls and young women in this country.

We must join together in a bipartisan manner to ensure that the Violence Against Women Act is reauthorized in March, and we must pronounce that domestic violence and domestic abuse is wrong for men, women, and families. It is something that should be condemned and not condoned.

No matter how important a position you may hold, it is important for America's leadership to denounce this kind of vicious attack on families. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to bipartisanship on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain the importance of the pending legislation, which extends the Continuing Resolution passed by Congress on January 26, 2018 but expired at midnight, February 8, 2018, by an additional six weeks, or until March 23, 2018.

This crucial legislation rests upon three pillars.

First, the legislation before us provides $89.3 billion in aid to respond to the damage caused by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria, and the wildfires in California.

Second, the Continuing Resolution pending before us is necessary to finalize and implement a bipartisan and bicameral budget agreement gives parity to defense and non-defense discretionary funding and provides $117 billion more funding for needed non-defense investments in the areas of education, public health, infrastructure, community development, and disaster relief than proposed under the Trump FY 2018 budget.

Third, I will be advocating for a nay vote on the Previous Question in order to bring to the floor a crucial legislative fix for debate and vote that will provide permanent legal residence and a path to citizenship to the more than 800,000 Dreamers, including the 124,000 who live in Texas, whose lives have been turned upside down because of this Administration's cruel, unwise, and reckless termination of DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

And in connection with legislation to protect Dreamers, I will insist that the Administration rescind the revocation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haiti, El Salvador, and Honduras, or failing that, TPS for those countries be extended by congressional legislation.

Mr. Speaker, 44,800 residents of Texas are TPS holders from El Salvador (36,300), Honduras (8,400), and Haiti, who combined are parents of 53,800 U.S.-born children in Texas and 14,000 of whom have home mortgages.

These TPS holders are integral members of the Texas's social fabric, having lived in Texas an average of 20 years, and contribute an aggregate $2.2 billion to the Texas economy.

This legislation provides $89.3 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations to help states, communities, businesses, and individuals respond and recover from Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, and the California wildfires.

This amount represents a doubling of the woefully inadequate $44 billion disaster relief package proposed by the Administration and a substantial increase over the $81.1 billion disaster relief funding approved by the House.

Ever since the widespread and catastrophic destruction of Hurricane Harvey occurred, I have been working closely with Senator Cornyn and other federal, state, and local officials, along with my colleagues in the Texas congressional delegation to secure the help necessary for the areas affected by Hurricane Harvey recover and rebuild.

The $8 billion increase in disaster relief funding reflected in this legislation is due in strong part to the efforts of Senator Cornyn, with whom I worked very closely to ensure that the interests of Houston and Harris County were promoted and protected.

I have witnessed firsthand the pain of storm-weary Houstonians who lost their homes, their belongings, and in many cases their jobs.

Right now, at this very moment, hundreds of thousands of Texans--in Port Arthur, in Port Aransas, in Rockport, in Houston and Harris County--remain homeless or are living in substandard homes with blue tarp roofs and infected with mold.

They are struggling and hurting.

So this is personal to me.

That is why right now my highest priority is to ensure that funding that has been made available expeditiously gets in the hands of local governments so that relief can deliver the resources and services so desperately needed.

That is why I am working with the Texas General Land Office Commissioner and have advocated for the immediate release of the $5 billion that was approved in September 2017 and wrote the HUD Secretary to expedite promulgation of the proposed regulations necessary to release the funds, which finally were published this week in the Federal Register for notice and comment.

And that is why on September 6, 2017, ten days after Hurricane Harvey struck, I introduced the first Hurricane Harvey disaster recovery legislation.

I was joined by 44 colleagues in introducing H.R. 3686, the ``Hurricane Harvey Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2017,'' which provides $174 billion in disaster relief for the areas affected by Hurricane Harvey, the worst superstorm ever to strike the mainland United States.

The $174 billion in funding provided by H.R. 3686 represents a comprehensive response commensurate to the challenge; specifically that legislation would provide relief in the following amounts:

1. Housing and Community Development Fund: $50 billion

2. FEMA Disaster Relief Fund: $35 billion

3. Army Corps of Engineers--Construction: $15 billion

4. Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies: $13 billion

5. Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program: $33 billion

6. Small Business Disaster Loans Program: $2 billion

7. Emergency Conservation Activities: $650 million

8. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: $321 million

9. National Aeronautics and Space Administration: $50 million

10. Legal Services Corporation: $10 million

11. Army National Guard: $10 million

12. Army Corps of Engineers--Civil Investigations: $150 million

13. Coast Guard: $450 million

14. National Park Service Historic Preservation Fund: $800 million

15. EPA Environmental Programs and Management: $2.5 billion

16. EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund: $7 million

17. Leaking Underground Storage Tank Fund: $15 million

18. State and Tribal Assistance Grants: $600 million

19. Employment and Training Services: $100 million

20. Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund: $2.5 billion

21. Airport and Airway Trust Fund: $90 million

22. Federal-Aid Highways Emergency Relief Program: $6.5 billion

Although, the disaster relief funding provided in the legislation before us is not as robust as the package I have proposed, it is a significant improvement over what was initially offered by the Administration and will provide much needed assistance to disaster victims in desperate need of help.

I wish to thank the leadership of the Appropriations Committee, in particular T-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Diaz-Balart, and Energy and Water Appropriations Ranking Member Kaptur for including in the legislation before us the following beneficial measures that I requested, including:

1. Authority to establish and implement a $1 billion pilot program to provide small business disaster recovery grants, modeled on H.R. 3930, the ``Hurricane Harvey Small Business Recovery Grants Act,'' legislation I introduced on October 3, 2017 and is co-sponsored by 16 of our colleagues.

2. $75 million for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Investigations account, which is to be used in areas affected by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, and can be used to finance the $3 million Houston-Area Watershed Assessment Study.

3. This is a highly successful conclusion to the multi-year struggle I waged to secure House approval of this project and funding with the Jackson Lee Amendments to the Energy and Water Appropriations Act for Fiscal Years 2016, 2017, and 2018.

4. The bill also includes helpful legislative language to ensure that in awarding CDBG-Disaster Relief funds to states, the Secretary of HUD should to the maximum extent practicable award grants to units of local government and public housing authorities that have the financial and administrative capacity to manage a grant awarded under the program.

5. The bill also includes a provision for which I advocated expressly providing that religious nonprofit organizations and houses of worship have the same opportunity to qualify for disaster assistance as their secular counterparts.

Let me describe briefly some of the major provisions contained in this disaster relief funding package before us:

FEMA Disaster Relief Fund: $28 billion to provide critical funding to assist the ongoing federal disaster response to allow up to $4 billion to be provided for Community Disaster Loans (CDLs).

Emergency Food Assistance Program: $24 million to provide an additional 35 million pounds of food for food banks in states affected by natural disasters.

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC): $14 million.

$7.6 million to repair 12 Food and Drug Administration sites damaged by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, including repair of scientific equipment such as those used to test foods for chemical contamination.

Economic Development Assistance Programs: $600 million in additional funding to provide grants to communities directly impacted by Hurricane Harvey, Irma, and Maria, as well as others disasters declared in 2017.

This funding will support immediate relief efforts and longterm recovery projects, including repairing and replacing basic infrastructure needs that are vital for local economic recovery.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: $400 million, with $100 million allocated for improving weather forecasting capabilities and data collection efforts to better protect lives and property in the wake of future hurricanes, and with $200 million for fishery disasters causing severe economic harm in coastal communities following Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration: $81 million to repair facilities damaged at the Kennedy and Johnson Space Centers.

Legal Services Corporation: $15 million for mobile resources, technology, and disaster coordinators necessary to provide storm- related services to the population in affected areas.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: $17.39 billion, including $15 billion for flood control and storm damage reduction construction projects and $135 million for high priority Investigation studies for risk reduction from future floods and hurricanes.

Of this $135 million, $75 million is to be allocated for the Army Corps of Engineers' Investigations account, which is to be used in areas affected by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, and can be used to finance the $3 million Houston-Area Watershed Assessment Study I have worked to secure and which has been previously approved by the House.

The bill also included $608 million to finance needed federal dredging projects, such as Houston Shipping Channel and $810 million to prepare for and mitigate future flood, hurricane, and other natural disasters.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), will receive $28 billion allocated to the Community Development Fund to repair homes, support local business, and rebuild infrastructure while mitigating future risk.

Also included in the legislation is authority for HUD to adjust Section 8 voucher funding for public housing agencies adversely affected by disasters in 2017.

Mr. Speaker, George Bush Intercontinental Airport, located in my congressional district, will benefit from the $10.3 million to repair Transportation and Security Administration facilities, security equipment, and access control equipment at airports damaged by the hurricanes.

The Texas Gulf Coast will benefit from the $835 million allocated to the U.S. Coast Guard; $4 million of which for site assessments to determine environmental compliance and restoration needs.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will receive $23.5 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund to support response and recovery efforts.

Other important provisions in the FEMA appropriations:

1. Ensure that religious nonprofit organizations are given the same opportunity to qualify for certain disaster assistance as their secular counterparts.

2. Extend the period of time that local government revenue loss as a result of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria can be considered for the purpose of Community Disaster Loans.

3. Authorize the President to increase the federal cost share for certain disaster assistance from 75 to 85 percent if recipients have taken steps to make themselves more resilient against disasters.

The Environmental Protection Agency will receive $6.2 million for the Superfund program to help repair damage sustained to remedies at Superfund sites; $7 million for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank program to repair damage to storage tanks to prevent spills and contaminants from leaking into the environment; and $50 million for debris removal and technical assistance to inspect and clean up hazardous waste facilities.

Department of Labor: $100 million for disaster response economic recovery through the Dislocated Worker National Reserve.

Department of Health and Human Services:

1. $200 million for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;

2. $50 million for National Institutes of Health;

3. $650 million for Head Start; and

4. $162 million for the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund, including $60 million for Community Health Centers and $20 million for Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration.

Department of Education will receive $2.7 billion for Hurricane Education Recovery, including:

1. $2.46 billion to restart operations at elementary and secondary schools;

2. $100 million for institutions of higher education, and students at those institutions;

3. $25 million for education services for homeless children; and

4. $35 million for Project SERV for education-related services to help students recover from traumatic events, including natural disasters.

Notably, this legislation forgives loans made to four Historically Black Colleges and Universities in response to Hurricane Katrina.

Also notably, the CR allocates $14 million for the Government Accountability Office to conduct oversight and evaluate distribution and use of disaster funding across agencies to ensure responsible use of taxpayer funds.

Department of Veterans Affairs: $4.1 million to repair damages to the Veterans Benefit Administration Office in Houston, Texas and the Puerto Rico National Cemetery.

Department of Transportation: $30 billion to repair damaged infrastructure and help communities recover from natural disasters.

Federal Highway Administration will receive $1.3 billion and the Federal Transit Administration will receive $330 million, both for their Emergency Relief Programs.

Mr. Speaker, there is much more work to be done in my city of Houston, and across the areas affected by the terrible, awesome storm that will be forever known simply as Hurricane Harvey, and by Hurricanes Irma and Maria.

But the disaster relief funding package before us today represents a solid start toward completing the necessary work that must be undertaken to restore the affected communities to their previous greatness.

As I conclude, I am remembering a heroic DREAMER, Alonso Guillen, who came to the U.S. from Mexico as a child, and died in my congressional district when his boat capsized while he was rescuing survivors of the flooding caused by Hurricane Harvey in the Houston area.

There is no heart in ending DACA and leaving the fate of 800,000 young persons in limbo and constant fear of deportation from the only country they have ever known, and the only nation to which they have ever pledged allegiance.

The way to end this crisis is to bring H.R. 3440, the Dream Act of 2017, to the floor right now and vote for it so it can pass both houses of Congress with a veto-proof majority.

A Dreamer seeking to earn her college degree and aspiring to attend medical school to better herself and her new community is not a threat to the nation's security.

Law abiding but unauthorized immigrants doing honest work to support their families pose far less danger to society than human traffickers, drug smugglers, or those who have committed a serious crime.

President Obama was correct in concluding that exercising his discretion regarding the implementation of DACA enhances the safety of all members of the public, serves national security interests, and furthers the public interest in keeping families together.

According to numerous studies conducted by the Congressional Budget Office, Social Security Administration, and Council of Economic Advisors, DACA generates substantial economic benefits to our nation.

For example, expanding DACA is estimated to increase GDP by $230 billion and create an average of 28,814 jobs per year over the next 10 years.

That is a lot of jobs.

In exercising his broad discretion in the area of removal proceedings, President Obama acted responsibly and reasonably in determining the circumstances in which it makes sense to pursue removal and when it does not.

Because of President Obama's leadership and visionary executive action, 124,000 undocumented immigrants in my home state of Texas have received deferred action.

91 percent of these immigrants are employed or in school and contribute $6.3 billion annually to the Texas economy and $460.3 billion to the national economy.

Instead of wasting time scapegoating DREAMERS, we should instead seize the opportunity to pass legislation that secures our borders, preserves America's character as the most open and welcoming country in the history of the world, and will yield hundreds of billions of dollars in economic growth.

THE SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins of Georgia). All time for debate has expired.

Pursuant to House Resolution 734, the previous question is ordered.

The question is on the motion by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Mr. Speaker, as school children rise across America to go to a place of work for them, but a place of joy, of learning, I rise today to reenforce the importance of education in the State of Texas.

The Texas education administrator, along with the Governor of the State of Texas, will be receiving a letter from me reaffirming the plea of local officials--both governmental and educational officials--to give Texas school children, because of the devastation of Hurricane Harvey, a waiver for 2 years for them to be able to improve their scores and to keep the schools open that the parents and the community want to have open.

Many of my school districts--seven of which I represent--have faced the tragedy of Hurricane Harvey: the displacement or relocation of their children and the devastation of their schools, including the Houston Independent School District. It has historic schools.

So my plea is that this is, likewise, a Federal issue. I was a strong supporter of the SUCCESS Act where we look at different elements, other than testing. Let's look at the holistic aspect of the school children of Houston. Let's give them a waiver. Let's understand Hurricane Harvey. Let's fix the schools and keep them open.

That is my fight, and that is my commitment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 772, the so-called ``Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act of 2017,'' which would deprive American consumers of the full benefit of the Menu Labeling Rule promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration scheduled to go into effect on May 7, 2018.

The Menu Labeling Rule provides consumers with nutritional information on the foods they purchase which is critically needed given rates of obesity and diabetes at crisis levels across the country.

Mr. Speaker, more than two-thirds of adults and one-third of children are considered to be overweight or obese.

Additionally, on average, Americans consume roughly one-third of their calories, and nearly half of their total food spending, on food prepared outside the home.

For this reason, access to nutritional information at the point of sale is an important tool for consumers to make informed nutrition decisions.

Unfortunately, H.R. 772 will undo the important progress made to implement federal menu labeling standards and will lead to consumer and industry confusion.

Consumers deserve transparency and industry deserves certainty, and the bill will lead to less of both.

Specifically, I oppose the bill because it:

1. Increases consumer confusion and allows deceptive portion sizes;

2. Removes consumer's right to information regardless of the location of purchase;

3. Removes the American people and the FDA's ability to ensure compliance; and

4. Delays needed transparency and undoes years of work by the FDA.

Current law requires menu boards to display calorie information for foods in portions that people would realistically be expected to eat.

However, H.R. 772 would permit establishments to display misleading calorie counts, such as by listing a single sandwich as ``4 servings.''

H.R. 772 removes the requirement that menu labeling be available at all points of purchase.

In a business sells 51 percent of sales online, restaurants would not be required to provide nutritional information to the remaining 49 percent of consumers.

Consumers should not lose access to nutritional information based on where they decide to purchase their meal.

This bill removes the responsibility of businesses to certify they remain compliant with menu labeling requirements and shields establishments from any civil lawsuits for noncompliance.

This removes important tools to hold businesses accountable and ensure Americans receive the transparency they want and deserve when eating out.

Since 2010 when menu labeling requirements were placed into law FDA has worked extensively with stakeholders to enact the law in a manner that works for both consumers and businesses.

Most recently, in November 2017, FDA published additional guidance to help answer remaining questions related to compliance and ensure all covered establishments have the tools they need to comply.

H.R. 772, however, would require FDA to expend significant resources to revise the final menu labeling rule, leading to extensive delays and greater confusion given that many businesses have already begun implementation of the menu labeling requirements as they currently stand.

Under H.R. 772, changes to menu labeling requirements would make access to information on menu labels more difficult for consumers.

Americans must be able to know what is in their food to make healthy choices.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the final rule enacted by the Food and Drug Administration.

It was the result of a deliberate multi-year process that included input from officials in the food industry, government and public health.

This bill is unnecessary as the FDA's recent guidance already addresses the bill's concern.

Chain food service establishments have had years to prepare for compliance with the requirements.

Many of these establishments have already changed their menus in anticipation of the May 5, 2018 deadlines.

The May 7, 2018 deadline is actually the third extension of previous deadlines, dating back to December 1, 2016.

Consumers must be able to have all available information to make informed, healthy choices for themselves and their families.

I urge all Members to vote against this ill-advised and anti-consumer measure.

Mr. Speaker, I think most of the world today saw the leader of the Democratic Caucus, Nancy Pelosi, stand on her feet with compassion and passion for the 800,000 DREAMers, those who are desperately in need of a solution, and 140,000 in the State of Texas. We pray that her standing and reading those stories will move this body to do what is right.

FEMA Needs to be Completely Reorganized

Mr. Speaker, I also want to do what is right for my constituents. FEMA needs to be completely reorganized. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, we are seeking to divide FEMA into the emergency component and the long-term recovery.

So many of my constituents have received FEMA denial letters. They don't know what to do with those letters even though we have advocated for them to appeal. It is important for FEMA to address the question of these letters throughout the hurricane-devastated areas, including throughout Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Florida, and beyond.

People are hurting. FEMA must assess these denials. They must reach out

again for review, and they must stand up for a long-term recovery of an amazing, devastating flood like Hurricane Harvey that had 51.22 inches, 21 trillion gallons of water, and Houston underwater for a period of days.

We must help the American people and Texans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1997, the ``Ukraine Cybersecurity Cooperation Act,'' legislation that will lead to greater cooperation between the United States and Ukraine on matters of cybersecurity and require State Department reporting to Congress on best practices to protect against future cyber-attacks.

In recent years, Ukraine has been the target of an increasing number of cyber-attacks that have infiltrated state institutions and critical infrastructure to the effect of undermining its democracy.

It is past time we step up to work with our ally Ukraine in furtherance of our mutual interest in cyber security, the modern battlefield.

Ukraine is a frontline for nation state-directed cyber-attacks, which are potential harbingers of attacks on the United States.

Helping Ukraine strengthen its cyber defenses will not only protect Ukraine from future attacks, but it will also help the United States develop new and more effective technologies and strategies.

As a former member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I am pleased to stand in support of the effort to advance the strategic interests of both the United States and Ukraine on a bipartisan basis.

Cybersecurity is a complex and serious national and economic security issue for any nation.

For years, Ukraine has been under siege from nation-state cyber- attacks that have sought to weaken its government and undermine hopes for an open and democratic society.

The United States must play an important role in this fight.

By not adequately responding and adapting to these cyber-threats in Eastern Europe, our nation is both letting down an ally as well as failing to take proactive steps to protect itself.

Standing strong with our trusted allies in the cause of freedom is liberty's best defense.

I am proud lo work with my colleague, Congressman Boyle, in encouraging cooperation between the United States and Ukraine on this front, and look forward to continuing to work with members of the Foreign Affairs Committee to keep our focus on this 21st century battle.

I urge all Members to support H.R. 1997, the ``Ukraine Cybersecurity Cooperation Act.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 724. This is an important resolution and I am proud to support it.

The recent wave of sexual harassment allegations has been an important moment for our country. The last many months represent a sea change in how we, as Americans, talk about and respond to allegations of sexual misconduct.

Fortunately, it has empowered women to share their story through the #MeToo movement. This movement has made the country realize that allegations of sexual harassment touch all pockets of society, including, sadly, the Congress of the United States.

These allegations have exposed numerous allegations against congressional offices. This is concerning because it tells us that those who come to our nation's capital and serve the country they love must contend with unwanted harassment.

Further still, and prior to this thoughtful legislation, victims of abuse had to contend with the separate and various office policies, if any at all, of every individual member. This is disorienting and unhelpful.

Congress must set the example. That is why I am proud to support H. Resolution 724.

H. Res. 724 would set mandatory anti-harassment and antidiscrimination policies for house offices.

Additionally, this Resolution would establish an Office of Employee Advocacy to provide legal assistance and consultation to employees of the House regarding procedures and proceedings under the Congressional Accountability Act.

And, critically, it would list sexual harassment as a violation of the House code of official conduct.

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to be able to speak with a moral voice about the problem of sexual harassment, then we must begin with this institution.

That is why I am proud to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the ranking member, Mr. Brady, and acknowledge his longstanding leadership and friendship, and as well the work that he does with the chairman and for his leadership as well.

This is a highlight on the floor of the House for the bipartisanship that it represents, the tone of which we are speaking, even though we know that this is a matter of urgency and we have seen the telling of situations that none of us would want to see repeated.

And forgive me for using more of a most recent set of circumstances just to capture the intensity of the moment, and that is, of course, the recent trial with a conspicuous and vile sex offender to the 200- plus young women athletes.

Now, this is not the circumstances here in the House of Representatives, but I think it captures the intensity of silence, because those young women had to live or thought that that was what they were obligated to do because they wanted to achieve greatness in their field, and they were stopped by the wall of silence and, therefore, could not find relief. The courts have finally given them relief, but through an enormity of pain.

I think it is important for the congressional standards to be such that it sets a wide net across the Nation to be able to ensure that the wall of silence is broken.

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 4924, to amend the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 to reform the procedures provided under such Act for the initiation, investigation, and resolution of claims alleging that employing offices of the legislative branch have violated the rights and protections provided to their employees under such Act, including protection against sexual harassment, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will provide a broader subpoena authority to the Office of Compliance, which adjudicates workplace disputes, and as well it would expand protections in other areas of antidiscrimination.

Let me say that this is a positive statement made by all of us, and I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 4924.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 4924, the ``Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 Reform Act,'' legislation to amend the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) of 1995 to reform the procedures provided under such Act for the initiation, investigation, and resolution of claims alleging that employing offices of the legislative branch have violated the rights and protections provided to their employees under such Act, including protections against sexual harassment, and for other purposes.

Legislative branch employees who allege sexual harassment or other workplace violations could use an accelerated claims process under H.R. 4924.

The bill would amend the 1995 Congressional Accountability Act (CAA; Public Law 104-1).

I celebrate and congratulate Jackie Speier and the women members of Congress who stood up. Thanks again to the Ranking Member and Chairman of the House Administration Committee.

The amendments include:

Eliminating a requirement for counseling and mediation before a legislative staffer could file a civil action in a U.S. district court;

Requiring members of Congress to pay for settlements and awards if they're the alleged offender;

Giving broader subpoena authority to the Office of Compliance (OOC), which adjudicates workplace disputes for most legislative branch offices;

Requiring the OOC to publish more information on claims, awards, and settlement payments and reimbursements from lawmakers;

The measure follows recent accusations that lawmakers sexually harassed or otherwise mistreated employees.

Some of those cases went through the OOC process and resulted in resignations and taxpayer-funded settlements.

The OOC approved more than $17 million in awards and settlements from fiscal 1997 through 2017.

Many of those cases originated outside of member-led congressional offices and didn't involve alleged sexual harassment.

The House is also slated to consider a separate resolution (H. Res. 724) that would apply only to House offices and employees.

That measure would establish an office to provide House employees with free legal assistance during the OOC process, and would bar the Office of Congressional Ethics from investigating an alleged workplace violation once a staffer files a claim with the OOC.

These comprehensive reforms will provide a positive change of culture within the Congress, and improve the overall process of both preventing and reporting any harassment in the future.

The CAA requires congressional and other legislative offices, such as the Congressional Budget Office, to comply with about a dozen workplace protections that apply to private-sector and executive branch employees.

For instance, the 1964 Civil Rights Act bars discrimination based on factors such as race, religion, and sex.

The Supreme Court has held that the law also prohibits sexual harassment in the workplace.

Some CAA provisions don't apply to offices such as the Library of Congress (LOC), whose employees are covered by other laws and procedures.

To seek relief for certain workplace violations specified in the CAA, a legislative employee must go through a multistep OOC process.

Within 180 days of an alleged violation, the employee must bring it to the attention of the OOC to initiate a 30-day counseling phase and be informed of his or her rights.

The OOC doesn't notify the employing office unless the employee waives confidentiality.

An employee can participate by phone and be represented by someone else.

If a claim isn't resolved during the counseling phase and the employee wishes to keep pursuing it, he or she must file a request for mediation, which lasts at least 30 days and can be extended for an additional period.

Materials prepared for mediation are kept confidential, though an employee can still discuss the allegations publicly, according to December 2017 testimony from OOC Executive Director Susan Tsui Grundmann.

If a resolution can't be reached through mediation, the employee can file a confidential administrative complaint with the OOC or a public civil action in a U.S. district court.

Either filing has to be made within 90 days after mediation ends, though the employee must wait at least 30 days during a ``cooling off'' period.

OOC-appointed hearing officers are authorized to issue subpoenas to investigate the allegations.

An employee can appeal a hearing officer's decision to the OOC board and then to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

For most legislative branch offices, including congressional offices, settlements are paid from an account in the Treasury general fund.

The bill would still require employees to file a claim with the OOC within 180 days of an alleged violation. The measure, however, would allow an employee to file a civil action in a U.S. district court within 45 days, which would end the OOC investigation.

Otherwise, the matter would go through a revised OOC process.

At the outset, the OOC would inform the employee of his or her rights and notify the head of the employing office.

Employees could also contact the OOC before filing a claim to learn about their rights.

The OOC general counsel's investigative authority is limited to certain types of claims, such as alleged violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

The bill would expand that authority to cover a wider range of claims, including alleged discrimination or harassment under the Civil Rights Act.

The general counsel could issue subpoenas regardless of whether a party requests one.

The bill would express the sense of Congress that subpoenas should be issued only if other methods are insufficient.

The general counsel would have to finish the investigation within 120 days.

The OOC would have to conduct an administrative hearing if the general counsel finds reasonable cause to believe there was a violation, or if the general counsel is unable to make a determination.

If the general counsel finds no reasonable cause to believe a violation occurred, the employee would be notified that he or she could still file a civil action within 90 days.

The general counsel could also recommend mediation, and the parties could file a joint request for mediation at any time.

The bill would allow an employee to request mediation meetings in which the parties are separated.

Any investigative reports concerning allegations of discrimination or retaliation by members of Congress would be referred to the House and Senate Ethics committees.

The OOC would also refer claims to the committees if there's a final disposition--such as a settlement or final decision by the OOC or a court--in a case involving a lawmaker or a senior staffer.

The bill would require current and former members of Congress to reimburse the government if an employee receives an award or settlement for the member's alleged act of discrimination or retaliation.

Funds could be withheld from the member's salary or retirement account if he or she doesn't meet payment deadlines specified in the bill.

The OOC would have to notify members as soon as a claim is filed that they may be required to provide reimbursement.

The member could intervene in a mediation, hearing, or civil action to contest an award or settlement, though the employee who filed the claim couldn't be subject to an additional deposition.

Non-congressional legislative offices would also have to reimburse the government for certain award or settlement payments.

The filing and investigation of a claim would be kept confidential, though an employee or employing office could disclose claim information during a proceeding.

The bill would also clarify that information discussed or disclosed during mediation would remain confidential, without barring the parties from talking about the underlying allegations.

An office could allow an employee to work remotely or grant the employee a paid leave of absence while a claim is pending.

The provisions wouldn't override the terms of a collective bargaining agreement for the office.

The bill would rename the OOC as the ``Office of Congressional Workplace Rights'' and make other changes to the office.

The office publishes annual reports with statistics on employee contacts with the office, the basis of their claims, and the results of proceedings.

The bill would require the office to publish semiannual reports listing each award and settlement in the previous year related to a wide range of CAA workplace claims if the money comes from the Treasury account.

The reports would have to specify the employing offices, award amounts, and alleged violations.

They would also have to indicate whether members of Congress made reimbursements resulting from cases of alleged discrimination.

Reports couldn't include the names or positions of employees who filed a claim.

Within 30 days of the bill's enactment, the office would have to publish a report on all previous payments related specifically to discrimination claims if the payment involved any public funds.

That report would have to indicate the amount paid and the source of public funds, including a House or Senate office account, though it couldn't identify the specific office.

The OOC would also have to establish an electronic system to receive and keep track of claims, and use the system to provide Congress with semiannual reports on the time required to resolve claims.

The OOC would collect information from employing offices, including the Library of Congress, every two years on their workplace environment and attitudes regarding sexual harassment.

All responses would be anonymous and confidential.

The OOC would consult with Congress on survey procedures and methodologies and share the survey results.

The office would have to create a program to permanently retain records of investigations, mediations, hearings, and other proceedings.

The Government Accountability Office would report to Congress on OOC management practices and cybersecurity.

The bill would expand certain protections--including antidiscrimination provisions--to cover employees at the LOC, as well as unpaid legislative branch interns, detailees, and fellows.

Because of these clarifications and expanded protections included in H.R. 4924, I stand in support of this bill and urge my colleagues to join me.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I associate myself, and I think it is important for my colleagues and the American people to know, that this body, this government, this Congress, is controlled by one party: the Presidency, the House, and the Senate. Just a few minutes ago, the President of the United States called for a shutdown. I am shocked. I am not calling for anything but relief.

I am delighted that the gentleman from Dallas was able to craft a support system for infusion therapy, but it goes to show you who controls this place. I don't know what Democrat could get any additions to this particular CR. It is not an appropriation. It is not an authorization bill.

I am just on the floor begging for what my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats from Texas, have been asking for but my Republican House has not been able to produce, or the Senate. When I say that, we have not been able to produce a disaster supplemental bill that is going to respond to the needs of those who are still suffering.

Harris County covers 1,778 square miles. It can fit New York City, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, Seattle, Austin, and Dallas, with room still to spare; 41,500 square miles of land mass impacted by Hurricane Harvey and the subsequent flooding that covered an area larger than the States of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont, combined. This is not puffery. It is to show you the depth of devastation.

Hurricane Harvey dropped 21 trillion gallons of water on Texas and Louisiana, most of it on the Houston metroplex. 51.88 inches of rain fell near Cedar Bayou, and at the peak, on September 1, one-third of Houston was underwater.

Our headlines: Hurricane Harvey Recovery Goes Ignored in Washington Yet Again; Republicans Controlling Every Phase of Government; After Harvey, Houstonians Eye Long Road to Recovery; After Harvey, Houstonians Have Long Road; Houses Down on the Ground; Long Road to Recovery; Senior Citizens Suffering; Suffering from Health Conditions.

And you can see, here is the basic point: There is no reason why Republicans joining with Democrats cannot, one, have an $81 billion supplemental that goes up. It is not enough. But it is the administration that has cut into our very life by giving us a skinny disaster aid supplemental. I am looking for the Senate to plus it up because this is not enough.

In this bill, if you want to know why we are voting ``no,'' it doesn't exist. Where is the disaster emergency supplemental money that is needed?

I left my office with six members of local officials in my office. They were telling me about the depression of so many in Texas who do not have the resources. They don't have the housing money. The infrastructure money has not come. Mold is there. They have bad health.

And these are examples of their situation. This is what the rescues look like. This is, of course, what the water looked like. And this gentleman was walking in the water.

This is a house that is evidenced by those impacted by the hurricane. This is a house of someone who is still waiting for that house to be rebuilt.

Finally, the city council, wanting to be responsive--and I thank them--has lifted the permitting to allow trailers. Our people are begging now for trailers. Most people don't beg for trailers. We are begging for trailers in urban Houston because people have nowhere to live.

This is a disgrace. I am not making this personal, but we flooded on August 27. It is now, today, February 6. There is no reason why this Republican administration has not been able to work. And all these additional addendums on this CR should have been done in a bipartisan effort.

We support infusion therapy. We support federally qualified health clinics. But you are taking money from prevention. We support CHIP, but you are taking money from prevention and other things. This is not the way to do, one, spending; it is not the way to provide for national security; it is not the way to provide for the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of State, Department of Justice, law enforcement. We are not doing any of that.

And then there are 140,000 DREAMers in my State. Some of them are impacted by Hurricane Harvey. And let me make mention of the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Florida, and California. I am not in any way diminishing their pain. They are likewise suffering.

So if the American people want to know what the ``noes'' are about, the ``noes'' are because those who are in charge are not doing anything.

By the way, DREAMers are part of those who sought to rescue many who were stranded in Houston. We lost a DREAMer who traveled all the way from Dallas to provide rescue and he died. He died because he loved this country. He died because he loved his neighbors.

Yet we cannot get that fixed, but we cannot help our neighbors get the dollars that they need. If you want to know why there is a ``no'' vote, it is because it is long overdue for our friends to do the real work that needs to be done, and to do disaster supplemental funding and do it right.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two articles from the Houston Chronicle.

[From the Houston Chronicle, Oct. 26, 2017]

Houston ISD Schools With Most Displaced Students After Hurricane Harvey

(By Shelby Webb)

More than 1300 Houston ISD students are displaced or

homeless after Hurricane Harvey, according to records the

district submitted to the Texas Education Agency.

That number is likely to change after the TEA changed how

districts should categorize displaced students and as Houston

ISD shores up its own internal estimates. But initial data

shows four of the 10 schools with the largest numbers of

displaced students are located in Southwest Houston, three in

Meyerland alone.

Two magnet schools--Carnegie Vanguard High School and Lamar

High School--also saw large numbers of their students

affected by Harvey's floods.

Houston ISD Superintendent Richard Carranza required that

all teachers go through crisis and trauma training during the

first semester of the year to better help students who are

dealing with Harvey-related fears and losses.

Across the Houston area, more than 10,700 students have

been displaced by Hurricane Harvey, according to data

reported to the TEA and given to the Chronicle by 16 local

school districts. But that number does not include estimates

for how many students are displaced in some of the area's

largest school districts, including the Cypress-Fairbanks,

Spring and Pearland ISDs.

Katy ISD had the most students affected by the storm with

2,862. Tiny Stafford MSD had the least, with 32 students

displaced by the storm.

Will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman, we have worked together.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I think the important point is that this has to be a collective effort of the administration and the bodies of the House and the Senate. The only point that I would make is that the administration has not sent forward--yes, the $81 billion--but we are not moving it in the Senate.

The administration has not been engaged actively to say that they want to help the people who are impacted, and they have a skinny impact or skinny impression of what we need of $81 billion for all of the disaster areas.

And, of course, Mr. Sessions, my good friend, understands that $1 trillion tax cut does not help us in getting the increased disaster money.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a sense of sadness but with joyful noise, if you will, to celebrate Mrs. Emma Primas, 112 years old, who passed away last month in the arms of the comforting Lord and her family.

Mrs. Primas was a historic figure. She was someone who lived through the suffragette movement; lived through World War I; was a street car operator in San Francisco; the head of nutrition for the schools of San Francisco; a businessowner in Houston, Texas, where she owned a store and was able to provide for others who could not pay for the food.

She paid poll tax to vote. She provided for her grandchildren. She loved her wonderful daughter and her wonderful grandchildren. She became an icon in our community. People flocked to her because she was alert and bright, and she could tell us the history not only of her life but of this Nation.

How wonderful it was for her to be able to vote for the first African-American President. When I hosted her in Washington with President Barack Obama, she said it was the greatest moment in her life. Obviously, I know the love of her children was even greater, but she was so excited.

And when, of course, she met the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, she was rejoiceful as well.

To all of her wonderful grandchildren, I know that Saturday at the Community of Faith, February 10, we will celebrate her life.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in a moment of silence in honor of this great American, Mrs. Emma Primas, 112 years old. Though she has gone home to glory, she has celebrated her life as a great American and a great patriot.

Mr. Speaker, in the House we have a procedure that if words are untoward and not becoming of our stature as Members of the United States Congress, by any Member those words can be asked to be taken down.

It is unfortunate that in a tweet this morning the Commander in Chief said, of a Member of Congress who is a Federal official, he ``must be stopped,'' words to that effect.

I left my hometown early this morning and had hoped there would have been some decent response from the Chief of Staff or other staff members of the White House to be able to say that that is an inappropriate attack on any Member of Congress or Federal official. I have yet to hear a clarification or apology that indicates that providing provocative words to take a Member down, or he must be taken down, is an inappropriate action or words for any Federal official.

I hope that we can establish decorum not only in this body, but I hope we can establish decorum in the White House. It is sorely missing.

Mr. Speaker, thank you Congressman Evans for yielding and for anchoring this very important special order on the state of economic inequality in the United States, especially regarding its citizens of color.

The President would have us believe he is bringing the country together and growing the economy for all Americans but this could not be further from the truth.

First and foremost, Trump has nothing to do with the African-American unemployment rate being at its current level.

The President inherited a strong and rescued economy, including the downward trend in black unemployment from President Obama.

The African-American unemployment rate was cut in half during the Obama Administration.

The African-American unemployment rate actually jumped nearly one percentage point in January 2018, right after President Trump took credit for it being the lowest on record.

During the Obama era, the economy added 15 million new jobs, the black unemployment rate dropped and the high school graduation rate for African Americans soared.

The members of the CBC are here to tell the American people: ``Stay Woke, Don't Be Fooled.''

The racial wealth gap is much larger than the wage or income gap by race.

Average wealth for white families is seven times higher than average wealth for black families.

Worse still, median wealth (wealth for the family in the exact middle of the overall distribution--wealthier than half of all families and less-wealthy than half) for white households is twelve times higher than median African-American wealth.

Black-white wage gaps are larger today than they were in 1979.

Young African-American women have been hardest hit since 2000.

The wage gap for African-American men was 22.2 percent in 1979; in 2015 it was 31 percent.

Wage gaps are growing primarily because of discrimination and racial differences in skills and worker characteristics.

Declining unionization has also had a role in the growing African- American-white wage gap, particularly for men newly joining the workforce.

African Americans have been disproportionately affected by the growing gap between pay and productivity.

Not only are the President's policies divisive along racial and cultural lines, they also serve to further increase economic inequality due to their clear design in favor of the wealthiest among us at the expense of everyone else.

Trump's billionaire tax heist robs the U.S. Treasury of $1.5 trillion in resources that could be invested in economic growth in underserved communities.

Trump has proposed eliminating programs that help minority businesses and that help minority communities access bank lending.

Trump has opposed increasing the minimum wage and eliminating labor protections for middle and lower income workers in the black community

Trump has proposed doubling down on mass incarceration and the war on drugs, which drains the African-American labor pool.

Trump has taken every opportunity to harm health care for African- Americans from sabotaging the ACA to ending Medicaid as we know it.

Donald Trump is no friend to African-Americans' pocket book.

Trump also wants you to believe that he wants a bipartisan infrastructure plan.

``Stay Woke; don't be fooled.''

Trump's proposal is yet another giveaway to his wealthy friends.

Instead of providing a robust federal investment in our infrastructure, including roads, bridges, mass transit, schools and broadband, Trump wants to give tax incentives to wealthy firms and individuals to build infrastructure that will cost the middle and lower income Americans money to use.

Instead of making it easier for state and local governments to invest in needed projects, he will make it more expensive for them to do so by reducing the federal cost share.

A recent National Urban League report titled ``Protect Our Progress'' gives a detailed look at the conditions of African Americans today.

The report suggested that the nation should invest in a ``Main Street Marshall Plan'' that would ensure that the gains made by African- Americans during the Obama administration aren't lost.

The plan includes expanding pre-K, increasing the number of college students receiving Pell grants, increasing the minimum wage and summer youth employment programs and incentivizing more doctors to accept Medicaid.

But we are in a climate where the current administration is looking to make cuts in many of these areas.

As it has for more than a decade, the Urban League used its Equality Index to track how close black America has gotten to white America in five major areas: education, health, social justice, economics and civic engagement.

There was not much change between 2015 and 2016 in the five areas the Urban League measures.

For this reason, the overall 2017 Equality Index of Black America was 72.3 percent, compared to 72.2 percent the year before.

An index of 100 percent would mean full equality in the particular measure between African-Americans and whites.

The biggest increase came in the area of education, which rose from 77.4 percent in 2015 to 78.2 percent in 2016.

In economics, African-Americans went from an equality index rate of 56.2 percent in 2015 to 56.5 percent in 2016.

In healthcare, the equality index between African-American and white Americans went from 79.4 to 80 percent between 2015 and 2016.

The only decrease came in social justice, from 60.9 to 57.4 percent.

In the category of civic engagement, African Americans actually surpass whites, according to the Urban League, with the number between 2015 and 2016 remaining at 100.6 percent.

As for Hispanics, there was a bigger increase in the overall Equality Index, from 77.9 percent in 2015 to 78.4 percent in 2016.

The Urban League also ranked the 70 metropolitan areas from the smallest gap in unemployment between African Americans and whites (and Hispanics and whites) to the largest gap.

For African Americans, the area with the smallest black-white unemployment gap was San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX, where the African Americans unemployment rate was 6.4 percent (down 1.9 percentage points from the previous year)

The white rate was 4.5 percent (down 0.4 percentage points).

The area with the largest gap was Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI, where the unemployment rate for African Americans was 13.8 percent, while just 2.7 percent for whites.

In income inequality, Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA for the third consecutive year had the smallest difference between African Americans median household income and white median household income

The city with the biggest income gap was Minneapolis-St. Paul- Bloomington, MN-WI, where the chasm was 41 cents for African Americans for every dollar earned by a white person.

For both African Americans and Hispanics, the area with the highest median household income was Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD- WV, at $68,054 for blacks and $69,481 for Hispanics.

It also had the highest white household income at $112,177.

Mr. Speaker, our nation still has a long way to go before we achieve economic equality for all its citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Scott for yielding and for anchoring this very important Special Order on the value of the labor unions, and the pending case of Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, No. 16-1466, which is scheduled to be heard and decided by the Supreme Court this term.

Mr. Speaker, it is my strong hope and expectation that the Supreme Court will uphold the position advanced by Respondent AFSCME, Council 31.

All workers should chip in their fair share to cover the cost of representing them.

That is because unions work because all employees benefit from the terms and conditions of employment negotiated by unions.

Fair share fees provide public service workers with the power in numbers they need to negotiate better wages, benefits and protections that improve work conditions and set standards for everyone.

The corporate special interests supporting this attack on labor unions want to weaken the ability of unions to build strength in numbers.

That is why they want the Supreme Court to rule that workers can receive all the benefits of a union contract without contributing anything in return.

I know it is fashionable today to disparage, downplay, or minimize the importance of organized labor to our country.

That is easy to do but it would be wrong.

Those who would destroy or further limit the rights of organized labor--those who would cripple collective bargaining or prevent organization of the unorganized--do a disservice to the cause of democracy.

Fifty years or so 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.

Their job rights are protected by collective bargaining agreements, and they enjoy benefits that were unheard of less than a generation ago.

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.

Employers are trying to shed responsibilities--for providing health insurance, good pension coverage, reasonable work hours and job safety protections.

The simple truth is that no one is forced to join a union and no one is forced to pay any fees that go to politics or political candidates.

Rather, each public service worker chooses whether or not to join a union, but the union is still required by law to represent and negotiate on behalf of all public service workers--members and non- members alike.

All employees receive the wage increases, benefits and workplace rights negotiated through the union.

All workers should chip in their fair share to cover the cost of representing them.

When working people have the freedom and opportunity to speak up together through unions, we make progress together that benefits everyone.

Working people need a voice at work to keep employers from making our jobs look like they did 100 years ago, with sweatshop conditions, unlivable wages and 70-hour workweeks.

And lest we forget, it was the men and women of organized labor who rushed into the burning World Trade Center Towers when others were rushing out.

The men and women of organized labor put their lives on the line for their fellow Americans everyday.

They do not ask for much. All they ask is to be treated with respect and dignity.

They want what we all want: to do their jobs and to make a better life for their families.

The least we in the Congress can do is to go on record in support of our working men

and women in the vitally important transportation industries of our country.

We can and should affirm that none of the funds made available in this appropriations bill shall be used in a manner that undercuts the hard won rights of Americans workers that is reflected in the National Labor Relations Act and other important federal labor laws.