Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, the American people will look forward to a Thanksgiving and a Christmas of which families come together, but they will also see a Halloween.

Today, on the floor of the House, the Republicans will vote for the worst Halloween of hobgoblins and ghosts and monsters that you can ever imagine. Monsters scare children, so today we will be voting on that monster that will scare children.

Let me let you listen to Senator Sykes from Kansas, her State offering a Republican tax cut that was going to boost the economy. Her words are: ``With the benefit of hindsight, we can say with certainty this promise was unfulfilled. In the following 5 years, Kansas experienced nine rounds of budget cuts, stress on State agencies, and the inability to effectively provide the core functions of government for our citizens.''

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record Senator Sykes' message to Congress.

A Message to Congress: Don't Make the Same Mistake We Did in Kansas

(By Dinah Sykes, a Republican member of the Kansas State Senate)

Americans want efficient government, responsible spending

and reasonable taxes. This is not difficult. Yet sometimes

what

seems so simple becomes complicated when these concepts are

turned into buzzwords and used as weapons for political gain.

In 2012, Republicans in Kansas enacted a ``revolutionary''

tax overhaul promised to be a ``shot of adrenaline to the

heart of the Kansas economy.'' With the benefit of hindsight,

we can say with certainty this promise was unfulfilled. In

the following five years, Kansas experienced nine rounds of

budget cuts, stress on state agencies and the inability to

effectively provide the core functions of government for our

citizens.

As Republicans in Congress begin working to modify the

federal tax code, I worry that tax reform done poorly could

lead to similar failure. I hope federal lawmakers learn from

mistakes made at the state level.

This year, the Kansas legislature--including many

Republicans like me--voted to partially restore income-tax

rates and to repeal a provision that allowed independent

business owners to pay almost no state taxes on their income.

We also overrode our governor's veto, who opposed rolling

back the tax cuts he championed.

Critics of our vote claim that Kansas didn't cut spending

enough to accompany the tax cuts. In reality, we cut our

budget through across-the-board cuts, targeted cuts,

rescission bills and allotments. Roughly 3,000 state employee

positions were cut, salaries were frozen, and road projects

canceled. We delayed payments to the state employee

retirement system and emptied our savings accounts. Even as

we issued more than $2 billion in new bonds to float our

debt, Kansas received three credit downgrades, making that

debt costlier.

In Kansas, we understand the allure of tax-cut promises. We

want to believe promises of amazing growth or outcomes. In

2012, traditional budget forecast models accurately predicted

the devastating effect the tax breaks would have on state

revenue. Proponents of the plan used dynamic scoring

predicting incredible economic growth and supporting their

own preconceived ideas. Today, we know which forecasts were

correct.

Across the state, citizens may have been paying less in

income taxes, but those decreases were offset by increases in

sales taxes, property taxes and fees. These changes alone

were not enough to put the state on the right path. Education

and infrastructure, key investments necessary for strong

economic growth, were treated as the enemy. As we went

through our 2017 legislative session, the ``shot of economic

adrenaline'' still showed no signs of materializing. Our

state functioned as though the Great Recession had never

ended.

Kansas should serve as a cautionary tale illustrating the

damage done when the normal order is shortchanged. America's

founders and countless generations of leaders embedded

deliberative procedures into our legislative process for a

reason. But in 2012, the governor's tax proposal looked very

different from the package he signed. A dispute between House

and Senate versions should have gone to conference committee;

however, the House cut short debate and rammed through a

motion to concur with the Senate instead. I watch now as

lawmakers in Congress use similar tactics, and I worry that

backroom dealing and circumvention of process will lead to

similar results.

I never anticipated entering public service. I was content

raising my family, participating in the PTA and operating my

business. However, I saw the impact that bad tax policy was

having on the state. I felt the results of growing class

sizes and shrinking programs in the schools my children

attended. I witnessed a gradual erosion of the quality of

life that makes Kansas such a great place to live.

There is a real temptation to let our frustration turn into

anger. In our increasingly polarized world, we see what

happens when we retreat to our ideological trenches. The

antidote, it would seem to me, is listening carefully to

those we disagree with and seeking common ground as a

starting point. (We should also note that failing to listen

to constituents while blindly holding to ideology can have

consequences: About a third of Kansas legislators became ex-

legislators in 2016.)

As our country looks at the key issues ahead of us,

including tax policy and health-care reform, we face

important questions: How can we as Americans work together to

improve our tax policy? How can we work together to provide

core government functions? Answering those questions requires

having civil conversations, learning from our neighbors and

sharing our experiences. We are better when we can work

together to find compromise.

What do you think will happen to this Nation if we vote for this budget plan, this Halloween of a plan?

The latest Republican budget mandates $4.9 trillion in budget cuts.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot vote for this. I cannot vote for it because of the people in Texas after Hurricane Harvey; the people in Louisiana after Hurricane Nate; the people in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Florida after Hurricanes Maria and Irma. I cannot vote for this. This will gut disaster relief, education, infrastructure, research, veterans benefits, and it will clearly provide tax cuts for the rich.

The Republican budget provides $1.6 trillion in tax cuts to millionaires, billionaires, wealthy corporations. It doesn't give any money to the middle class.

Mr. Speaker, it explodes the deficit.

How could this happen?

It demands higher cuts to Medicare, Social Security, and education. This is a Halloween that America will not tolerate.

My good friend from North Carolina, there will be over a million people that will lose benefits under this plan and the tax plan that they are planning. They will pay higher taxes. This is a bad bill. Vote it down.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Budget Committee, I rise in strong and unyielding opposition to the Senate Amendment to H. Con. Res. 71, the Congressional Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2018.

As senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, I oppose this phony budget resolution, which is in reality nothing more than a smoke screen designed to pave the way for massive tax cuts for the top 1 percent, while exploding the debt and deficit by $1.5 trillion over ten years.

Here are five reasons why every Member of this House should vote against this Republican budget resolution:

1. This Republican budget cuts nearly $1.3 trillion from Medicaid and nearly $500 million from Medicaid;

2. This Republican budget includes massive spending cuts to the priorities of the American people;

3. This Republican budget guts investment in areas critical to expanding economic opportunity;

4. This latest Republican budget uses fast track procedures to increase the debt and deficits by $1.5 trillion, while showering tax cuts on billionaires, millionaires, and the wealthiest corporations; and

5. As we have learned from bitter and painful experience, tax cuts do not pay for themselves, notwithstanding the supply-side fairy tale claims that they do.

This latest Republican budget mandates $4.9 trillion in spending cuts to top priorities like disaster relief, education, infrastructure, research, veteran benefits, and programs that expand opportunities for American families.

This Republican budget provides $1.6 trillion in tax cuts to millionaires, billionaires, and wealthy corporations, while raising taxes on working and middle class families by $470 billion.

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear and direct: the resolution before us is not intended to reconcile tax and spending priorities to reflect the priorities of the American people or to reduce the deficit and national debt or to put our fiscal house on a sustainable path to economic growth.

Rather the sole purpose of Republicans bringing this job-killing budget to the floor today is to fast-track their ``Billionaires First'' tax plan, which will cause significant harm to working and middle class families, especially to my constituents in the Eighteenth Congressional District of Texas.

The McConnell-Ryan tax plan, which this budget resolution is designed to grease the skids for, would raise taxes on about 1.5 million Texas households, or 12.4 percent of households next year.

On average, families earning up to $86,000 annually would see a $794 increase in their tax liability, a significant burden on families struggling to afford child care and balance their checkbook.

An estimated 2.8 million Texas households deduct state and local taxes with an average deduction of $7,823 in 2015.

The Ryan-McConnell plan eliminates this deduction, which would lower home values and put pressure on states and towns to collect revenues they depend on to fund schools, roads, and vital public resources.

The proposed elimination of the personal exemption will harm millions of Texans by taking away the $4,050 deduction for each taxpayer and claimed dependent; in 2015, roughly 9.3 million dependent exemptions were claimed in the Lone Star State.

Equally terrible is that the McConnell-Ryan tax plan drastically reduces the Earned Income Tax Credit, which encourages work for 2.7 million low-income individuals in Texas, helping them make ends meet with an average credit of $2,689.

The EITC and the Child Tax Credit lift about 1.2 million Texans, including 663,000 children, out of poverty each year.

This reckless and irresponsible GOP tax plan is made all the more obscene by the fact that 80 percent of the GOP's tax cuts go to the wealthiest 1 percent.

To achieve this goal of giving more and more to the haves and the ``have mores,'' the GOP budget betrays seniors, children, the most vulnerable, and needy, and working and middle-class families.

The steep reductions in program investments proposed in this Republican budget fall most heavily on low-income families, students struggling to afford college, seniors, and persons with disabilities.

This Republican budget immediately guts investment critical to expanding economic opportunity by lowering the already inadequate austerity-level spending caps by an additional $5 billion in 2018 and by even more in subsequent years.

Republican budget adopts Trumpcare but does even more damage because in addition to depriving more than 20 million Americans of healthcare, denying protection to persons with preexisting conditions, and raising costs for older and low-income adults, cuts more than $1.8 trillion from Medicaid and Medicare.

Republican budget ends the Medicare guarantee and calls for replacing Medicare's guaranteed benefits with fixed payments for the purchase of health insurance, shifting costs and financial risks onto seniors and disabled workers; this represents a $500 billion cut to Medicare over ten years.

The Republican budget focuses too narrowly on the military, shortchanging American soft-power and other essential elements of national security by increasing defense spending by $72 billion above the cap and hollowing out the State Department and foreign aid agencies with cuts of $11 billion and environmental and natural resource protection by more than $6 billion.

Mr. Speaker, the federal budget is more than a financial document; it is an expression of our values and priorities as a nation.

Sadly, this latest Republican budget, just like the previous one and the President's ``skinny budget,'' fails this moral test of government.

America will not be made great by stealing another $1.8 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid, abandoning seniors and families in need, depriving students of realizing a dream to attend college without drowning in debt, or disinvesting in the working families just to give unwanted tax breaks to wealthy corporations and the top 1 percent.

America will not be positioned to compete and win in the global, interconnected, and digital economy by slashing funding for scientific research, the arts and humanities, job retraining, and clean energy.

Even a cursory review leaves the inescapable conclusion that this budget represents a betrayal--of our values as a nation, and of the promises made by the President during the election campaign.

This Republican budget is not a budget for the real world that real Americans live in but is as much a fantasy budget as the Trump ``Skinny Budget'' in that it pretends to achieve balance by assuming that painless spending cuts can and will be made by the Congress.

To put this reckless, irresponsible, and draconian budget in perspective, it is useful to examine what the proposed cuts mean when applied to the programs depended upon by Americans to rise up the economic ladder, plan for the future, provide for their families, and strive to achieve the American Dream.

The elimination of funding for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) drains resources from communities, even in times of disaster because CDBG provides flexible grants to local communities for a wide range of unique needs, including Meals on Wheels, housing programs, and community infrastructure improvements.

The Republican budget targets disaster grants made by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which help families and businesses when their disaster-related property losses are not covered by insurance.

The Republican budget makes higher education more expensive by cutting at least $211 billion from student financial aid programs, like Pell Grants, over ten years.

The Republican budget also eliminates subsidized loans, making it difficult for students, particularly low-income students, to afford college and compounds the damage by making it more difficult to repay student loans by eliminating the Public Sector Loan Forgiveness and Teacher Loan Forgiveness programs.

The Republican budget's solution to the affordable housing crisis currently facing cities large and small all across the country is to convert all discretionary spending on affordable housing into a block grant, which means there will be even less assistance to help the 71 percent of extremely low income renter households who spend more than half their income on housing.

The Republican budget cuts at least $150 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) over the next ten years by essentially converting it to a block grant, cutting off funding for eligible individuals and requiring cash-strapped states to either fill in the gap or take away food assistance from millions of working families, children, and seniors.

Mr. Speaker, as economists and policy experts have documented time and again, immigration reform would expand the size of the U.S. workforce, and in turn would increase the size of the economy and reduce deficits.

The Republican budget, however, again rejects comprehensive immigration reform that would bring clear and just rules for those seeking citizenship and help secure the nation's borders.

In doing so, the Republican budget squanders an opportunity to reduce deficits by an estimated $900 billion over the next two decades, boost the economy by 5.4 percent, and extend the solvency of Social Security.

The Republican budget continues to target federal employees by cutting their compensation and benefits by at least another $163 billion over ten years, which comes on top of the $182 billion in cuts federal employees have already absorbed in the form of higher retirement contributions, pay freezes, and furloughs.

The Republican budget cuts hurts veterans by cutting veterans benefits by nearly $50 billion over the next ten years, with newly eligible veterans experiencing cuts in programs that pay for education benefits as well as loan guarantees.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, it must be pointed out that the Republican budget's pretension to balance is based on reliance on trillions of dollars in budget games and gimmicks to rig the numbers.

The Republican budget counts a dubious $1.4 trillion ``economic dividend'' from cutting taxes and taking away consumer protections that is not backed up by any credible analysis or historical experience.

The Republican budget assumes, despite all precedent and evidence to the contrary, that tax reform will be revenue neutral, even though Republican tax plans are projected to lose between $3 trillion and $7 trillion.

Given these budgetary shenanigans, never could it more truly be said that ``figures don't lie, but liars figure.''

In evaluating the merits of a budget resolution, it is not enough to subject it only to the test of fiscal responsibility.

To keep faith with the nation's past, to be fair to the nation's present, and to safeguard the nation's future, the budget must also pass a ``moral test.''

The Republican budget resolution fails both of these standards.

I strongly oppose the Senate Amendment to H. Con. Res. 71 and urge all Members to join me in voting against this reckless, cruel, and heartless budget resolution that will do nothing to improve the lives or well-being of middle and working class families, and the poor and vulnerable `caught in the tentacles of circumstance.'

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to urgently have set up an appeal process on an expedited basis for my constituents and those across the disaster-impacted areas of a FEMA denial appeal system. Thousands of my constituents have been denied FEMA assistance.

Pictures just came to my phone last evening, and I am urging the FEMA Director and all who can do so, including the President, we are not a 10. We are in desperate need of help. People do not have their lives restored.

I also want to make mention of the fact that today there will be some statement made on this horrific opioid crisis, which we as Members of Congress have been dealing with for over a year. We understand that this may be called a public health service emergency versus a catastrophic emergency, using the Public Service Act or the Stafford Act. The Stafford Act funds are almost completely diminished because of wildfires and hurricanes.

The casualties of opioid abuse are 142 per day, which is like an airplane crash every single day. With this amazing and unbelievable budget that has been passed, the Halloween budget of 2017, there will be trillions of dollars cut away from the budget. It is imperative that the President call this an emergency and begin to use emergency funds to deal with the opioid crisis.

The only thing you can say today, Mr. Trump, is that you are committed to an emergency both for Hurricane disasters and others, but as well as the opioid crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record my letter to the President:

Mr. President, thank you for the invitation for Members of Congress to attend the unveiling of your emergency declaration on combatting the opioid epidemic.

This is indeed an epidemic that I agree must be addressed immediately. This problem has claimed many lives throughout our country, including my state of Texas and my home district of Houston.

It is imperative that we act. It is equally imperative that we act responsibly and intelligently.

We cannot merely make promises on which the American people are waiting for us to deliver, if we know that those promises will not come right away.

We must have a clear goal and long-term commitment to truly combatting this devastating problem in the opioid crisis.

Mr. President, where will this money come from, as this is a very costly endeavor?

New funding streams would be required, and thus, making such a declaration without forethought relative to significant funding will prove to be a futile effort.

There must be a strategy which we can realistically and effectively execute without causing harm to equally important and urgent areas.

Despite your previous promise to address the opioid crisis, at a Commission meeting last week, no real solution was developed.

Instead, the Commission suggested that funding be taken out of the Public Health Service Act or the Stafford Act, both of which are problematic.

First, I believe the nation's public health emergency fund is empty.

Second, the Stafford Act funds disaster relief for hurricanes and wildfires, which are under the jurisdiction of FEMA.

As a Member of Congress that recently watched the fatal devastation inflicted upon my city of Houston, I can tell you firsthand, that we are still trying to wrap our minds around the catastrophic loss and how to now rebuild.

America has experienced mass casualties due to recent hurricanes that occurred within the span of a month period, with approximate death tolls of 82 in Texas and Louisiana, 72 in Florida, 51 in Puerto Rico and countless disruptions and damages.

The loss of lives, businesses and properties is astronomical as we continue to assess the damage in TX, LA, FL, VI and P.R.

Therefore, I must caution the administration, to responsibly bear these facts in mind, as it attempts to combat the opioid epidemic, which is undoubtedly a very important issue.

Mr. Speaker, today we will begin a journey that has been represented to be a lifeline for the American people in long awaited tax reform.

Sad to say that this is not a bipartisan bill. In addition, it is a bill that will cause a great deal of challenge to the American people.

For example, in moving firms across the ocean, overseas, the American people should know that those companies, in the construct of this bill, will cause them to be exempt from taxes forever.

In a discussion this morning, I heard that it will not boost the economy. The American people should know that it will destroy, undermine, crush the economy.

The representation of the level of growth is a misnomer. Take, for example, in 1986, in the tax reform, there was no surge in job creation after the Reagan tax cuts. There was no high numbers of blossoming jobs. Many in my congressional district need jobs.

It will be borrowing from the future and it will be a burden on our children, our children's children, and their children. But the most devastating part is the bill that we will be paying, the actual dollars to pay down the deficit.

Of course, it should be known that we have examples that no jobs will be created. In 2004, for example, when there was a repatriation from companies regarding their taxes, there was no creation of jobs that we can even recognize. Most of the money went for stock buybacks.

Now, I know that sounds completely technical, but let me be very clear. The question has to be: What will the middle class working families get?

I can assure you, it will be close to zero.

There are 2 million households, for example, in the State of Texas that will be impacted by not allowing the exemption of State and local taxes. We don't know whether mortgage deductions will be allowed, charitable tax credits. So if you have in some way been deducting, for example, those State and local taxes, you will not be able to do them anymore. That will be a great burden on the working families of America.

So my caution to the business community as well as the small businesses, families: Be very careful what you buy into. We will have discussions to provide you with that detailed analysis. The key is a distribution table. What and whom will get the most money.

As the bill is presently written, middle class working families, don't look for relief in the Ryan-McConnell tax bill. It will all go to the top 1 percent. They will relish while, you might not be jealous, but you will certainly be poorer for it.

Opioid Crisis

Mr. Speaker, I want to also entertain the questions about the pending opioid announcement of this White House. I want to bring to the attention the article in The New Yorker on the empire of pain.

I am working on these issues, but I realize that this has to be a comprehensive approach to opioid abuse.

The Purdue company launched OxyContin with a marketing campaign that attempted to counter this attitude and change the prescribing habits of doctors.

Many people know OxyContin. The company funded research and paid doctors to make the case that concerns about opioid addiction were overblown and that OxyContin would safely treat an ever-wider range of maladies. Sales representatives marketed OxyContin as a product to start with and to stay with. Remember that. A product to start with and to stay with.

Millions of patients found the drug to be a vital salve for excruciating pain, but many others grew so hooked on it, that between doses they experienced debilitating withdrawal.

If we are going to do real opioid reform, this must be a standup of the pharmaceutical companies, and they cannot be defended.

In addition, we have to understand that those languishing in jail that have suffered from criminal penalties for crack cocaine--crack-- there now should be a compromise for their release. Opioid reform must include all of the neighborhoods of America, not just some.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Budget Committee, I rise in strong opposition to Rule governing debate on the Senate Amendment to H. Con. Res. 71, the Congressional Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2018, and the underlying resolution.

Let us be very clear and direct: the resolution before us is not intended to reconcile tax and spending priorities to reflect the priorities of the American people or to reduce the deficit and national debt or to put our fiscal house on a sustainable path to economic growth.

Rather the sole purpose of Republicans bringing this job-killing budget to the floor today is to fast-track their ``Billionaires First'' tax plan, which will cause significant harm to working and middle class families, especially to my constituents in the Eighteenth Congressional District of Texas.

The McConnell-Ryan tax plan, which this budget resolution is designed to grease the skids for, would raise taxes on about 1.5 million Texas households, or 12.4 percent of households next year.

On average, families earning up to $86,000 annually would see a $794 increase in their tax liability, a significant burden on families struggling to afford child care and balance their checkbook.

An estimated 2.8 million Texas households deduct state and local taxes with an average deduction of $7,823 in 2015.

The McConnell-Ryan plan eliminates this deduction, which would lower home values and put pressure on states and towns to collect revenues they depend on to fund schools, roads, and vital public resources.

The proposed elimination of the personal exemption will harm millions of Texans by taking away the $4,050 deduction for each taxpayer and claimed dependent; in 2015, roughly 9.3 million dependent exemptions were claimed in the Lone Star State.

Equally terrible is that the McConnell-Ryan tax plan drastically reduces the Earned Income Tax Credit, which encourages work for 2.7 million low-income individuals in Texas, helping them make ends meet with an average credit of $2,689.

The EITC and the Child Tax Credit lift about 1.2 million Texans, including 663,000 children, out of poverty each year.

This reckless and irresponsible GOP tax plan is made all the more obscene by the fact that 80 percent of the GOP's tax cuts go to the wealthiest 1 percent.

To achieve this goal of giving more and more to the haves and the ``have mores,'' the GOP budget betrays seniors, children, the most vulnerable, and needy, and working and middle-class families.

For example, the Republican budget steals hundreds of billions of dollars from critical job-creating investments in infrastructure, job training, clean energy and research and development.

It devastates Medicare and Medicaid by cutting $500 billion from Medicare and $1.3 trillion from Medicaid, hurting veterans, seniors with long-term care needs, children and rural communities.

The GOP budget's steep cuts in program investments fall most heavily on low-income families, students struggling to afford college, seniors, and persons with disabilities.

This Republican budget adopts Trumpcare but does even more damage because in addition to depriving more than 20 million Americans of healthcare, denying protection to persons with preexisting conditions, and raising costs for older and low-income adults, cuts more than $1.8 trillion from Medicaid and Medicare.

This Republican budget ends the Medicare guarantee and calls for replacing Medicare's guaranteed benefits with fixed payments for the purchase of health insurance, shifting costs and financial risks onto seniors and disabled workers; this represents a $500 billion cut to Medicare over ten years.

Mr. Speaker, the federal budget is more than a financial document; it is an expression of our values and priorities as a nation.

The values expressed by this Republican budget are not the values of my constituents, the people of Texas, or the American people as a whole.

For these reasons, I oppose the Rule and the underlying budget resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong opposition to H.R. 469 the ``Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act'' of 2017.

H.R. 469 is yet another attempt to undermine the ability of Federal regulators to protect the health and safety of Americans.

This ill-conceived bill imposes numerous new procedural burdens on agencies and courts intended to dissuade them from using consent decrees and settlement agreements to resolve enforcement actions filed to address agency noncompliance with the law.

H.R. 469 targets consent decrees and settlement agreements involving congressionally mandated federal agency actions.

These agency actions in many instances have the purpose of protecting civil rights, health, safety, and the environment.

H.R. 469 prescribes a host of burdensome--and, in some cases, ambiguous--steps for courts and parties relating to such consent decrees and settlements that would favor continued litigation over settlement.

H.R. 469 establishes a prolonged process of publication, intervention, and court-supervised mediation for these types of settlements.

This prolonged process would waste judicial, individuals, and local governments' resources, while wealthy corporations are empowered to perpetuate violations of federal rules.

Such hurdles to settlements conflict directly with the expressly stated and longstanding policy of the federal judiciary system to favor compromise and the settlement of disputes in order to make the best use of limited resources.

Proponents of this legislation argue that agencies and interest groups collude to ``sue and settle'' to avoid compliance with the procedures set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act.

These allegations are unfounded in fact.

The consent decrees and settlement agreements at issue do not determine the substance of agency rules.

Rather, such agreements simply seek to enforce mandatory statutory and procedural duties (such as deadlines enacted by Congress).

In fact, a December 2014 Government Accountability Office report surveyed settlements over deadlines for major U.S. Environmental Protection Act rulemakings and found that the settlements did not influence the substantive results.

Furthermore, all public notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and the individual laws at issue still apply when an agency undertakes the substantive action for which a deadline was missed.

Parties and non-parties alike are provided with numerous opportunities to provide input in advance of the rules being finalized.

H.R. 469 undermines protections for the American people, masqueraded as a measure to prevent undocumented and unfounded allegations of ``sue and settle'' collusion between public interest plaintiffs and sympathetic federal agencies entering into consent decrees and settlements.

In fact, H.R. 469 favors industry interests at taxpayer expense and promotes regulatory uncertainty by making it virtually impossible to actually enter into consent decrees and settlements that avoid the costly and time consuming alternative of litigation.

But its most serious flaw is that H.R. 469 is really a back door way to derail the rulemaking process and undermine federal law, shifting limited agency resources away from the implementation of health and safety protections for the very people that we are supposed to be representing.

What this bill truly targets are the legal rights of citizens to hold government accountable by enforcing laws designed to protect health, safety, and the environment, obligations that the supporters of this bill would prefer to remain unenforced.

A broad coalition of more than 150 civil rights, environmental, consumer protection and other public interest groups opposed the bill in the last Congress.

On Monday, October 23, 2017, I received a letter signed by 86 environmental protection and civil rights groups urging me to oppose this bill.

A bill that attempts to give third parties the power to obstruct and delay the enforcement of federal law; which will harm plaintiff corporations, state and local governments, nonprofit groups, and individuals alike, when their interests have been harmed by illegal federal agency actions or inactions.

Consent decrees and settlement agreements are simple, streamlined ways to hold federal agencies accountable when they ignore Congress by failing to commit congressionally mandated actions by a date established in statute.

H.R. 469 is a sad attempt to eliminate vital and broadly supported protections that have improved and saved millions of American lives.

By providing opportunities for industry to subvert or delay the process of redressing injured groups, H.R. 469 effectively makes it more expensive for agencies to do what Congress has mandated, that is to protect the American people and redress any harm to their livelihood.

Some of the unwholesomeness of this bill could have been mitigated had the Jackson Lee amendment to H.R. 469 been made in order.

The Jackson Lee amendment would have excepted consent decrees or settlement agreements that pertain to a reduction in illness or death from exposure to toxic substances in communities that are protected by Executive Order 12898.

Executive Order 12898 directs federal agencies to identify and address the disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects of agency action on minority and low-income populations.

It is impossible to understand why even conservative Republicans would back legislation that hinders enforcement of the law, requires agencies to waste money in court on cases they believe they cannot win, and would stymie industry and state settlements along with all others.

I urge all members to vote against H.R. 469 and reject this harmful legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have often said that, even though the sun is shining after hurricanes and storms, the people are still hurting. Houston is resilient--and I might just say, ``Go Astros''--but I think it is important to talk about those who are impacted by Hurricane Harvey.

I rise to help FEMA, because there is a large percentage of denials in my district. I believe that there should be a large promotion, if you will, informational provision to indicate to people the process for appealing FEMA denials.

FEMA, itself, admits that many times the denials are based upon technical issues, that they should go to disaster recovery centers; but no one knows that if there is not a massive effort of information, number one.

Number two, there are still in the thousands of homes in and around my district and in Texas that are waiting for FEMA inspectors.

I have offered suggestions. Those suggestions should be taken up: college students, using resources of finding temporary employees, people who are already working but may have the skills to spend some hours as a FEMA inspector.

In my phone are so many pictures of homes with garbage outside, people's belongings. It is now garbage. It is their belongings. It is their life out on the front steps of their home. They are waiting for an inspector. The New York Times article says they are waiting for an inspector.

FEMA, let's work together. People are hurting. That should be part of our recovery and our appropriation coming up

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3101, the Strengthening Cybersecurity Information Sharing and Coordination in Our Ports Act of 2017.

I thank Congresswoman Torres for introducing this important piece of legislation that addresses security at our nation's ports.

H.R. 3101 requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to facilitate increased information sharing about cybersecurity among maritime interests.

The bill requires DHS to:

Develop, implement, and continually review a maritime cybersecurity risk assessment model to evaluate current and future cybersecurity risks;

Seek input from at least one information sharing and analysis organization representing maritime interests in the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center;

Establish voluntary reporting guidelines for maritime-related cybersecurity risks and incidents;

Request that the National Maritime Security Advisory Committee report and make recommendations to DHS about methods to enhance cybersecurity and information sharing among security stakeholders from federal, state, local, and tribal governments; public safety and emergency response agencies; law enforcement and security organizations; maritime industry participants; port owners and operators; and maritime terminal owners and operators; and

Ensure that maritime security risk assessments include cybersecurity risks to ports and the maritime border of the United States.

As a senior member of the House Committee on Homeland Security and former Ranking Member of the Committee's Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, I am well aware of the hard work that the Houston Port Authority, and the Department of Homeland Security has done to secure the port, its workers, and the millions of tons of imports and exports that traverse the waters of the Port of Houston each week.

According to the U.S. Department of Transportation the U.S. maritime border covers 95,000 miles of shoreline with 361 seaports.

Ocean transportation accounts for 95 percent of cargo tonnage that moves in and out of the country, with 8,588 commercial vessels making 82,044 port calls in 2015.

The Port of Houston is a 25-mile-long complex of diversified public and private facilities located just a few hours' sailing time from the Gulf of Mexico.

In 2012, ship channel-related businesses contributed 1,026,820 jobs and generated more than $178.5 billion in statewide economic activity.

In 2014, among U.S. ports the Port of Houston was ranked:

1st in foreign tonnage;

Largest Texas port with 46 percemt of market share by tonnage and 95 percent market share in containers by total TEUS in 2014;

Largest Gulf Coast container port, handling 67 percent of U.S. Gulf Coast container traffic in 2014;

2nd in total foreign cargo value (based on U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Census).

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that the Port of Houston port, and its waterways, and vessels are part of an economic engine handling more than $700 billion in merchandise annually.

The Port of Houston houses approximately 100 steamship lines offering services that link Houston with 1,053 ports in 203 countries.

The Port of Houston is a $15 billion petrochemical complex, the largest in the nation and second largest worldwide.

These statistics clearly communicate the potential for a terrorist attack using nuclear or radiological material may in some estimations be low, but should an attack occur the consequences would be catastrophic, and for this reason we cannot be lax in our efforts to deter, detect and defeat attempts by terrorists to perpetrate such a heinous act of terrorism.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) plays an essential role in domestic defense against the potential smuggling of a weapon of mass destruction in a shipping container or the use of a bomb-laden small vessel to carry out an attack at a port.

Earlier this year, a global malware attack occurred that caused significant harm to international shipping giant A.P. Moller-Maersk.

That attack revealed serious vulnerabilities in our nation's maritime security, which is still being assessed.

The only way port operations were able to resume following the attack at one of our nation's busiest ports was to revert to a manual system to process cargo and ships.

This was not the first time that cyber criminals used technology against port operations.

Approximately $1.3 trillion in cargo passes through our nation's 360 commercial ports.

The convenience, precision and accuracy provided by digital technology in processing cargo through our nation's ports adds to their capacity to manage tonnage.

Securing cyber technology to manage port operations, ranging from communication and navigation to engineering, safety, and cargo, is critical to protect our nation's maritime cyber infrastructure.

Government leaders and security experts are concerned that the maritime transportation system could be used by terrorists to smuggle personnel, weapons of mass destruction, or other dangerous materials into the United States.

They are also concerned that ships in U.S. ports, particularly large commercial cargo ships or cruise ships, could be attacked by terrorists.

A large-scale terrorist attack at a U.S. port, experts warn, could not only cause local death and damage, but also paralyze global maritime commerce.

This is of particular concern at the Port of Houston, which is the busiest port in the nited States in terms of foreign tonnage, second- busiest in the United States in terms of overall tonnage, and fifteenth-busiest in the world.

DHS, through U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Transportation Security Administration, and the U.S. Coast Guard, administers several essential programs that secure our Nation's ports and waterways.

I include in the Record a letter dated March 30, 2017, that I sent to the Chair and Ranking Member of the Committee on Homeland Security requesting a field hearing on the topic of port security.

I ask my colleagues join me in voting to pass H.R. 3101, the Strengthening Cybersecurity Information Sharing and Coordination in Our Ports Act of 2017.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, March 30, 2017.

Hon. Michael McCaul,

Chair, House Committee on Homeland Security, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Bennie Thompson,

Ranking Member, House Committee on Homeland Security, House

of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member Thompson: Your

leadership to secure the homeland from terrorist attacks by

putting the needs of the nation first in matters before the

Committee is commendable. I am writing to request that as

Chair and Ranking Member that you invite senior members of

the Committee to join you for a meeting with Houston Port

facility security and industrial manufacturing professionals

to discuss the work and industry that takes place at that

port.

The issue of port security remains integral to our

Committee's work, and this opportunity for you, and senior

members of the committee to learn more about modern ports is

appreciated. Ports are indispensable to our nation's economic

health as engines of commercial transportation as well as the

gateway for food and essential goods to the nation's

interior. The evolution of major ports, like the Port of

Houston into co-location sites for manufacturing means port

security challenges have expanded.

Thank you for your work to secure our nation from terrorist

threats by keeping the committee abreast of the most critical

security issues facing our nation. I look forward to your

positive reply to this request.

Very truly yours,

Sheila Jackson Lee,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Chair, I would only offer to say that there is not one Judiciary Committee Democrat on this so-called bipartisan bill. That is where you first start the bipartisanship: you work with members who may, in fact, believe that some of the issues that have been raised by my

good friend from California may have merit.

Maybe this bill could have been drafted in a way that would have responded to some of the failures, if there are some, such as evidenced by our good friend from New Jersey, who recalled a lot of failures not by Democrats but by Republicans. But when you start off with a bill talking about slush funds, then you negate the good work of so many organizations that have benefited to do the very good that the consent decree was intended to do.

Today, I stood with the Latinas Against Domestic Violence. They came here to stand against the violence against women that goes on and on and on. Some of them may be in the gallery.

But what I would say, Mr. Chairman, is: Why would we not want to give that organization funds if they were in line to get dollars to help prevent or intervene in the vileness of domestic violence?

So the idea that our friends on the other side are missing is the value some of these entities have been given.

The only word that I have heard over and over again, as I have heard from the administration, I have heard from the Attorney General, the former Secretary of Health and Human Services, is one word. In fact, I think the English language has been limited to one word on the floor of the House: Obama. I like to call him President Barack Obama. That is the respect I give him.

Every legislative initiative has come forward on the shoulders of a man who finishes 8 years, might I say, with a great deal of respect.

So here is what the bill the people are opposed to will do:

This bill would not give dollars to those victims who are harmed and could engage in workplace monitoring, as well as other payments to remedy generalized harm, including remedies designed to prevent the recurrence of sexual violence or discrimination in the workplace.

They wouldn't give it to an environmental remedy project, such as needed cleanup efforts following the hazardous toxic pollutant spills that spoil protected areas, preventing families and children from enjoying recreation on State lands designed for public use.

They wouldn't give it to federally certified housing counseling intermediaries by preventing housing counseling, relief to communities that have been preyed upon by financial institutions that have broken the law.

I even hate to use the term ``slush.'' They are dollars out of a consent decree that are managed and monitored by career professionals to those in need.

So I am opposed to the underlying bill, and I will offer an amendment.

I will also be on this floor offering letters opposing, again, not only this dastardly named legislation--who would want to see this in the Congressional Record: slush fund--undermining, as I said, the professionalism of our career employees in the DOJ and undermining American citizens and nonprofits who are working every day to make the life of America and America's children better.

This is a bad bill. Vote it down. It is not bipartisan. No Judiciary Committee Democrat saw fit for it to be legitimate.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 732, the ``Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2017.''

The proposed legislation, as currently drafted, is intended to preclude all third-party payments in settlement agreements, other than restitution to identifiable victims.

Specifically, this legislation seeks to block federal law from including payments that provide relief in negotiated settlements to victims, such as in cases of predatory lending, employment discrimination and pollution through environmental hazardous.

For the average American, this harmful bill translates as thwarting settlement donations to legitimately harmed victims for:

1. Workplace monitoring, as well as, other payments to remedy generalized harm, including remedies designed to prevent the recurrence of sexual violence or discrimination in the workplace;

2. Environmental remedy projects, such as needed clean-up efforts following the hazardous, toxic pollutant spills that spoil protected areas, preventing families and children from enjoying recreation time on state lands designed for public use; or

3. Federally-certified housing counseling intermediaries by preventing housing counseling relief to communities that have been preyed upon by financial institutions that have broken the law.

This legislation fails to recognize the critical role and positive benefits that housing counseling organizations now play in addressing and ensuring that the discriminatory practices and abuses, like those that led to the housing and financial crisis, never happen again.

The Republican narrative suggests that this bill attempts to make technical changes to the way that courts operate; but in reality, for the everyday hard working American, this legislation along with its companion bills (H.R. 720, the ``Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act,'' and H.R. 725, the ``Innocent Party Protection Act,'') is merely a concerted effort to chip away at Americans' ability to seek justice and, therefore, must be opposed.

This legislation is intended to cut off proceeds from government settlements to ``third-party'' entities, which would stop a critical source of funding for the nonprofit sector--including public interest community organizations, foundations or trusts and other similar groups.

Oftentimes, allowing these monies to be available to third-parties is the best way to assure harmed persons will be made whole.

By barring government settlements from directing payments to non- profit organizations, this legislation would thereby hamstring the parties' ability to fully remedy the wrongdoing underlying the lawsuit.

Congress lacks the time, expertise, and resources to properly review and make enforcement decisions on behalf of Federal agencies.

The cost of delays associated with this scheme would have devastating consequences for the public health, environment, and local communities.

H.R. 732 would greatly strain Congress' already limited legislative resources and scarce time, while opening the doors to industry influence and obstruction in routine enforcement matters.

This legislation pushes the everyday hard working American to the margins of the justice system by requiring restitution only in cases with a showing of actual harm directly and proximately caused by the party making the payment.

The bill's definition excludes any payment by a party to provide restitution for, or otherwise, remedy the actual harm, directly and proximately caused by the alleged conduct of the party that is the basis for the settlement agreement, including payments requiring monitoring and other payments for generalized harm.

This exception is too narrowly drawn to allow for numerous beneficial uses of settlement monies, especially for vulnerable plaintiffs trying to access the courts in search of restitution from legitimate harm.

As you know, following the subprime meltdown, the U.S. Department of Justice pursued lawsuits against mortgage lenders and banks that engaged in discriminatory lending practices, such as those targeted by this legislation.

Research shows that African Americans and Latinos were discriminated against and steered into subprime loans even when they qualified for conventional loans.

Moreover, African Americans and Latinos were two to three times more likely than white homebuyers to receive subprime loans which resulted in foreclosure rates 10 times that of conventional loans.

Pursuant to the settlement agreements, available under current law, the Justice Department ordered that financial institutions dedicate a portion of their settlement payments to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) certified housing counseling intermediaries to provide consumer relief in the communities that were hit hardest.

HUD has approved thirty-seven housing counseling intermediaries that financial institutions have the discretion to choose as third-party providers of consumer relief under the terms of the Justice Department settlement agreements.

Additionally, these HUD-certified housing counseling providers deliver financial education and coaching to individuals to inform them of their home-buying options and rights, and to ensure they become and remain homeowners.

In fact, since 2008, 40 affiliates have provided housing counseling services--to date serving more than 200,000 clients in mostly underserved areas.

The success of housing counseling programs is undisputed.

Borrowers who have used housing counseling are one-third less likely to be seriously delinquent on their loan payments, and those who are in default are 60 percent more likely to save their homes.

The benefits of these programs are tangible and must continue to be made available to the public.

This example is particularly pertinent as Houston recovers from hurricane Harvey, a tragedy that displaced tens of thousands of my constituents.

There are still over 61 thousand people living in hotels throughout Texas.

The public has found itself in need of protection form environmental harms caused by absconding deep pocket defendants.

To ensure these protections, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may request Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) in settlement agreements to offset the harms of unlawful conduct by requiring parties to undertake an environmentally beneficial project or activity that ``is not required by law,'' but that a defendant agrees to undertake as part of the settlement of an enforcement action.

In workplace discrimination cases, victims are guarded by the Civil Rights Act passed by Congress in 1964 to remove discriminatory barriers and to promote equality in employment opportunities.

Cases, nonetheless, involving workplace discrimination claims often occur without identifiable victims and tend to affect the interests of persons who are not likely to receive compensation for unlawful conduct (e.g., unidentifiable victims such as former and future employees).

In these cases, a settling party that violated antidiscrimination laws may seek to resolve its civil liability through workplace monitoring or training programs that seek to remedy systemic unlawful conduct.

Furthermore, the claim that the funding received by organizations to provide home counseling services to harmed individuals amount to a ``slush fund,'' is an egregious and shameless attempt to smear and impugn the integrity of longstanding and trusted nonprofits and civil rights organizations.

As the Justice Department has observed, remedies can correct both noncompliance and recidivism through settlement terms that require a party to undertake activity to prevent future misconduct.

Not only is this legislation an unnecessary intrusion into the province of the federal courts, it is a part of a larger push to limit Americans' ability to seek justice in a court of law.

An innocent-sounding name aside, this bill poses a grave threat to our court system--the nation's stronghold for protecting our democracy.

In the current political climate, where the justice system is the last line of defense for our nation's values, I urge my colleagues not to cede that ground.

Congress should applaud and elevate the benefits of housing counseling, and the good work of frontline organizations, in righting the injustices of the past and present.

The working men and women of America, as well as their families deserve fair and impartial access to real justice when major corporations, inadvertently as it may be, inflict harm.

It is our duty as guardians of the judicial system to ensure real restitution is available to all, including the most vulnerable.

For these reasons, I urge all Members to vote against H.R. 732.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from National Urban League and a letter from Public Citizen.

National Urban League,

New York, NY, February 1, 2017.

Re Opposition to H.R. 732--The Stop Settlement Slush Funds

Act of 2017.

Hon. Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman, Judiciary Committee,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Conyers,

Ranking Member, Judiciary Committee,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers: As

President and CEO of the National Urban League, the nation's

largest historic civil rights organization dedicated to

economic empowerment of African Americans and other

underserved urban communities, I write to urge you to oppose

H.R. 732, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2017. This

legislation seeks to block federal law enforcement from

including in negotiated settlements payments that provide

relief to victims of predatory lending. Specifically, the

bill targets federally certified housing counseling

intermediaries such as the National Urban League by

preventing these organizations from providing housing

counseling relief to communities that have been preyed upon

by financial institutions that have broken the law. H.R. 732

fails to recognize the critical role and positive benefits

that housing counseling organizations now play in addressing

and ensuring that the discriminatory practices and abuses,

like those that led to the housing and financial crisis,

never happen again.

As you know, following the subprime meltdown, the U.S.

Department of Justice pursued law suits against mortgage

lenders and banks that engaged in discriminatory lending

practices. Research shows that African Americans and Latinos

were discriminated against and steered into subprime loans

even when they qualified for conventional loans. Moreover,

African Americans and Latinos were two to three times more

likely than white homebuyers to receive subprime loans which

resulted in foreclosure rates 10 times that of conventional

loans. Pursuant to the settlement agreements, the Justice

Department ordered that financial institutions dedicate a

portion of their settlement payments to U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) certified housing

counseling intermediaries to provide consumer relief in the

communities that were hit hardest.

The National Urban League is one of thirty-seven HUD-

approved housing counseling intermediaries that financial

institutions have the discretion to choose as third-party

providers of consumer relief under the terms of the Justice

Department settlement agreements. The National Urban League

is accredited by the Better Business Bureau and has a 4-star

rating from Charity Navigator, placing it in the top 10

percent of all U.S. charities for adhering to good

governance, fiscal responsibility and other best practices.

As a HUD-certified housing counseling provider, the

National Urban League successfully delivers financial

education and coaching to individuals to inform them of their

home-buying options and rights, and to ensure they become and

remain homeowners. In fact, since 2008, 40 of our affiliates

have provided housing counseling services--to date serving

more than 200,000 clients in mostly underserved areas.

The success of housing counseling programs provided by

National Urban League and others is undisputed. Borrowers who

have used housing counseling are one-third less likely to be

seriously delinquent on their loan payments, and those who

are in default are 60 percent more likely to save their

homes. The benefits of these programs are tangible and must

continue to be made available to the public.

On a separate note, it has come to my attention the

National Urban League and National Council of La Raza have

been singled out during recent hearings on this legislation.

The claims made during congressional testimony that the

funding received by our organizations to provide home

counseling services amounts to a ``slush fund,'' is an

egregious and shameless attempt to smear and impugn the

integrity of longstanding and trusted nonprofits and civil

rights organizations. Congress should applaud and elevate the

benefits of housing counseling, and the good work of

frontline organizations, like the National Urban League, in

righting the injustices of the past and present.

Therefore, I respectfully urge you to oppose H.R. 732 and

any efforts to include similar provisions in legislation

moving through Congress.

Sincerely,

Marc H. Morial,

President and CEO.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I think, when we come to the floor, we are obligated to as much educate our colleagues who may be back in their offices or in meetings as it is to educate the general public.

The name of this bill is distorted and incorrect. I think it is important to note what happens when the Department of Justice engages in lawsuits on behalf of the American people, and they are the American people's lawyer, or they are sued.

In many instances, there is something called a consent decree and a settlement that generates funds that can be utilized for the betterment of the American people.

So why don't you view this side of the aisle with the betterment of the American people because we are questioning legislation that would eliminate the opportunity for those who are doing good work to be funded by career professionals in the Justice Department.

So the basis of this bill is to throw this money over into the Congress, of which I have great respect in terms of its Article I powers, requiring a congressional appropriation for each beneficiary fund established as relief in a lawfully negotiated settlement to victims, such as in the case of predatory lending, employment discrimination, pollution, environmental hazards, and would greatly strain Congress' already limited legislative resources and scarce time.

They want us to now, line by line, disseminate these funds that can be done by career professionals dealing with improving on the issue upon which the government was sued. It opens the doors to industry influence and obstruction.

I don't believe we have earmarks anymore. I happen to be a supporter of getting moneys to the community. We don't have an appropriations bill now, we don't have a budget now. So it is almost November, and the Congress has not yet appropriated funds to run the government nor have they passed a budget. That would be the maze of which you would throw a very proficient process of allowing these funds to be distributed.

The Jackson Lee amendment would exempt from this confused bill settlement agreements that would provide restitution to States that are not parties to the litigation. That means, for example, after Hurricane Harvey, there was an explosion at the Arkema chemical plant. Nine trailers exploded and several first responders went to the hospital. I would want to seek funds to be able to help them.

We also understand that there are many organizations representing the people. Public Citizen, a nonprofit membership organization, they are against it. The Urban League is against it. The counties have issued a resolution, local counties. They are against it.

I think there is no clearer evidence to vote this particular bill down, but to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is my very point. My very point is a transparent and clear system of distribution of funds, and the career professionals determining what entities need those funds is a clearer system than what would occur if moneys were dumped onto Congress outside of the normal budgetary and appropriations process, of which we are having a very difficult time as we speak.

The process that we have now, my amendment says that these settlement agreements that provide restitution to States that are not parties to the litigation, they shouldn't be covered by the elimination of the right for the career professionals to distribute these funds.

It also acknowledges the respect for the Congress and the work that it has to do, but it also acknowledges counties like Jefferson County, Texas, the resolution to the National Association of Counties. They are against this bill because it would disallow funds derived from court settlements for injuries to the environment from being distributed to States, counties, and parishes, borrowers in proximity to the pollution event. These are real people representing real people right on the ground asking for us to not pass this legislation.

I would say to my good friend, why don't we use our Article I powers to begin investigations on the separation of powers relevant to the administration and its actions. Why don't we begin looking at whether there are high crimes and misdemeanors.

I mean, there are many things that our Article I powers can do, but, in this instance, I think that this has not proven to be a failure, and the only failure in it is the obsession that my friends have with the past administration.

I want to have something that has worked for the county governments, people who live in counties and cities and States. If they were harmed during Hurricane Harvey, for example, by an explosion and 23 first responders went to the hospital and many houses were evacuated, I believe it would be appropriate to leave the system in which those dollars can go directly to those counties and cities and States and to improve the quality of life.

Mr. Chair, I ask my friends to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

Mr. Chair, the proposed legislation, as currently drafted, could be construed to preclude all third-party payments in settlement agreements, other than restitution to identifiable victims.

Requiring a congressional appropriation for each beneficiary fund established as relief in a lawfully negotiated settlement to victims, such as in cases of predatory lending, employment discrimination and pollution through environmental hazardous, would greatly strain Congress' already limited legislative resources and scarce time, while opening the doors to industry influence and obstruction in routine enforcement matters.

Congress lacks the time, expertise, and resources to properly review and make enforcement decisions on behalf of Federal agencies.

The cost of delays associated with this scheme would have devastating consequences for the public health, environment, and local communities.

Accordingly, the Jackson Lee Amendment would excecpt cases where funds are directed to states to remediate the generalized harm of unlawful conduct beyond harms to identifiable victims.

Specifically, the Jackson Lee Amendment would exempt from H.R. 732 settlement agreements that provide restitution to states that are not parties to litigation.

As you know, following the subprime meltdown, the U.S. Department of Justice pursued lawsuits against mortgage lenders and banks that engaged in discriminatory lending practices, such as those targeted by this legislation.

Research shows that African Americans and Latinos were discriminated against and steered into subprime loans even when they qualified for conventional loans.

Moreover, African Americans and Latinos were two to three times more likely than white homebuyers to receive subprime loans which resulted in foreclosure rates 10 times that of conventional loans.

Pursuant to the settlement agreements, available under current law, the Justice Department ordered that financial institutions dedicate a portion of their settlement payments to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) certified housing counseling intermediaries to provide consumer relief in the communities that were hit hardest.

HUD has approved 37 housing counseling intermediaries that financial institutions have the discretion to choose as third-party providers of consumer relief under the terms of the Justice Department settlement agreements.

Additionally, these HUD-certified housing counseling providers deliver financial education and coaching to individuals to inform them of their home-buying options and rights, and to ensure they become and remain homeowners.

In fact, since 2008, 40 affiliates have provided housing counseling services--to date serving more than 200,000 clients in mostly underserved areas.

The success of housing counseling programs is undisputed.

Borrowers who have used housing counseling are one-third less likely to be seriously delinquent on their loan payments, and those who are in default are 60 percent more likely to save their homes.

The benefits of these programs are tangible and must continue to be made available to the public.

This example is particularly pertinent as Houston recovers from hurricane Harvey, a tragedy that displaced tens of thousands of my constituents.

There are still over 61 thousand people living in hotels throughout Texas.

Under current law, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may include Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) in settlement agreements to offset the harms of unlawful conduct by requiring parties to undertake an environmentally beneficial project or activity that ``is not required by law,'' but that a defendant agrees to undertake as part of the settlement of an enforcement action.

In 2012, the EPA and Justice Department resolved the civil liability of MOEX Offshore through a settlement agreement resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, that included funds to several Gulf states, including Texas, where Texas was not a party to the complaint, but received $3.25 million for SEPs and other responsive actions.

H.R. 732, would prohibit these agreements and many of the important benefits now provided by EPA.

The bill's definition excludes, ``any payment by a party to provide restitution for or otherwise remedy the actual harm (including to the environment), directly and proximately caused by the alleged conduct of the party that is the basis for the settlement agreement.''

This exception is too narrowly drawn to allow for numerous beneficial uses of settlement monies.

Thus, for example, the bill would appear to ban the following entirely legitimate, appropriate uses of settlement funds that are currently permitted by EPA:

(1) Pollution prevention projects that improve plant procedures and technologies, and/or operation and maintenance practices, that will prevent additional pollution at its source;

(2) Environmental restoration projects including activities that protect local ecosystems from actual or potential harm resulting from the violation;

(3) Facility assessments and audits, including investigations of local environmental quality, environmental compliance audits, and investigations into opportunities to reduce the use, production, and generation of toxic materials;

(4) Programs that promote environmental compliance by promoting training or technical support to other members of the regulated community; and

(5) Projects that provide technical assistance or equipment to a responsible state or local emergency response entity for purposes of emergency planning or preparedness.

Each of these programs provide important protections of human health and the environment in communities that have been harmed by environmental violations.

However, because they are unlikely to be construed as redressing ``actual (environmental) harm, directly and proximately caused'' by the alleged violator, the bill before this committee would prohibit every one of them.

On August 31, 2017, in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, dangerous chemicals at the Arkema chemical facility in Crosby, Texas, exploded and burned.

Nine trailers at the plant contained organic peroxides that first exploded and burned, sending 23 first responders to the hospital. In addition, despite a 1\1/2\ mile radius evacuation from the chemical releases, dozens of residents were effected for days by the noxious fumes, including headaches, dizziness, vomiting, and burning eyes.

This recent incident is a prime example of how restitution to a community under an enforcement settlement should work. EPA should (not sure if they are) engage in enforcement activities against Arkema, including civil fines and restitution to the community. There were

clear health impacts on many in the community and a settlement could, as an example, fund health care assistance short term, or even long term monitoring of lung health. However, if H.R. 732 were law, only first responders would likely have the ability to seek restitution. This is not okay. It utterly fails to help make a community whole after such a terrible event.

Background facts:

23 first responders were sent to the hospital due to exposure to chemical fumes.

Residents within a 1\1/2\ mile radius were asked to evacuate, though in this low-income neighborhood in the aftermath of the storm, many were unable to.

Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX), and original cosponsor of H.R. 732 and representative of the district that plant and affected community are located in, at the time told ABC News as events were unfolding that the situation was ``very dangerous . . . (and) . . . the worst-case scenario is that this chemical plant could explode.''

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Jackson Lee Amendment.

Proposed Resolution on the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act

A resolution from Jefferson County, Texas to the National

Association of Counties seeking to maintain the status quo

for states, counties, parishes and boroughs being able to

receive damages payments for environmental crimes in

proximity to them (e.g., Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon).

Issue: H.R. 732, a bill that may restrict or disallow

Department of Justice Supplemental Environmental Plans from

benefiting states, counties, parishes and boroughs in

proximity to pollution events that result in court

settlements for environmental damages.

Proposed Policy: The National Association of Counties

(NACo) opposes any provisions within the final version of

H.R. 732 that would disallow funds derived from court

settlements for injuries to the environment from being

distributed to states, counties, parishes and boroughs in

proximity to the pollution event.

Background: On Jan 30, 2017, Representative Goodlatte,

along with 34 other cosponsors, introduced the Stop

Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2017 (H.R. 732) which could ban

or restrict the current practice involving Supplemental

Environmental Projects' distribution of court settlement

proceeds to states, counties, parishes and boroughs.

H.R. 732 has been referred to the U.S. House of

Representatives Judiciary Committee and assigned to the

Regulatory Reform, Commercial & Antitrust Law Subcommittee.

Members of the Committee are unclear about H.R. 732's

provisions relating to payments to remediate direct harm,

including environmental harm, done by defendant's wrongful

activity.

This is particularly important in the environmental

context, in which the injury to the environment may be

diffuse and there may be no identifiable victims.

Currently, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Congress

may both have roles in determining eligibility for states,

counties, parishes and boroughs in proximity to a pollution

event for receiving funds from a settlement agreement.

H.R. 732 is unclear on this issue, prompting dissenting

opinions about whether the bill prevents states, counties,

parishes and boroughs in proximity to pollution events (e.g.,

the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon oil spills) from

receiving funds derived from court settlements.

NACo should oppose any provision in H.R. 732 that modifies

or restricts current practice in distributing proceeds from

court settlement agreements for environmental damage events.

Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: Congressional concurrence with

this NACo resolution upholds the status quo practice in court

settlement agreements for environmental events.

Sponsor: Jeff R. Branick, Judge, Jefferson County, Texas

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, citing from The New York Times, ``Outside Rachel Roberts' house, a skeleton sits on a chair next to a driveway, a skeleton child on its lap, an empty cup in its hand, and a sign at its feet reads, `Waiting on FEMA.' ''

I want to acknowledge that FEMA workers from around the country have worked without ceasing, but we have got to do a better job. My constituents in Houston, Harris County, Texas, after Harvey, are waiting on those inspectors.

That is the only way, Mr. Speaker, that they can begin the repair of their homes. Many people are there without coverage and truly need to have their homes repaired.

I have given suggestions. I am sorry that we didn't stand up enough Federal FEMA inspectors. But what about college students, people who are unemployed, using a FEMA app, dividing the area in sectors, finishing one sector then going to another sector? This includes the State of Florida as well. People are on hold for hours at a time.

I have spoken to those who are now looking at it. I want them to know that I appreciate them taking my call and reviewing this, but reach out for help. We have got to have more inspectors. If we do not have inspectors, they will not be able to repair their homes. If they cannot repair their homes, they are living in dangerous conditions. If they are living in dangerous conditions, the quality of life deteriorates.

Help us in Texas. We need more FEMA inspectors. We need them now.

Mr. Speaker, go Astros.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, so many impacted, our boys of summer brought it home this weekend. In the words of David Barron: ``With their season on the line, the Astros drew comfort from the familiar ground on which they stood, the sea of noise that greeted their every move, and the collective will that exemplifies the way they played and the city they represent.''

Astros strong, Houston strong.

I am so delighted to have a friendly wager with a dear friend. I don't know for how long. I think he represents the Brooklyn--oh, the Los Angeles Dodgers.

I yield to the gentleman from California, and whether he will accept this friendly wager, I offer you Texas barbecue, Congressman Jimmy Gomez.

Reclaiming my time, barbecue is good everywhere in Texas.

Where there is a will, there is a way. The Astros have the will and the way.

Go Astros.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the manager, Mr. Veasey, for his leadership, his sensitivities, his sensibilities, and his empathy, knowing his distinguished wife and the leadership she gives to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. I am sure that there are many women in the gentleman's family, and I know that he has a great honor and respect for them.

It is appropriate to follow the leader, Mr. Clyburn, who is vested in the storied history of African Americans from the East to the West, North to the South. He often diminishes his status by saying that he was raised in a parish house, but when he eloquently rises to the floor to defend, all eyes and all ears are tuned to him.

Now, I want to adhere to our discussion today because it is extremely important, and to also acknowledge my colleagues. So let me hurry through my comments. I do want to acknowledge the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Cedric Richmond. I thank the women of the caucus for their eloquent and pointed statement regarding the series of events that has occurred.

Let me, first of all, say that our topic today deals with a retracing of the horrible history that was perpetrated under FBI Director Hoover for the decades that he served in that capacity. So as I label what it is, let me just for a moment deviate to what happened this weekend. I believe that the FBI personnel, through much of its history, were mostly men--fine men--who wanted to protect this Nation. But you see, Mr. Speaker, I have firsthand knowledge of the devastation of FBI surveillance way before the word ``terrorism'' became part of our normal discussion or language.

So I want to put a pause there and say that in the history of African Americans, we have been subjected to name-calling. That is what happens to you when, in the Constitution, you are not a complete human being. That is what happens to you even after the Emancipation Proclamation and the short-lived Reconstruction, the Nation rushed toward the hanging fruit, Jim Crowism, and the rampant murder of African Americans in the Deep South, some of the very States in which the President stood and called young African-American men sons of Bs.

There is another name-calling. So it seems that even as we have gone through the transition of freedom and we came through the 20th century with civil rights, and then affirmative action, that name-calling seems to be the welcomed and accepted tactic to use with people of color and, in this instance, African Americans.

What would be the explanation for the unseemly events that occurred around a grieving mother, aunt, uncle, and a grieving widow with beautiful children who no longer have their dad?

I offer my sympathy to Sergeants Wright, Black, La David Johnson, and Jeremiah Johnson.

So how their loss, through no fault of their own, in the battle for this Nation turned into an ugly name-calling, I am baffled, except for the fact that it is easy to call African Americans names. It is easy for some White Americans to call African Americans names.

When we are on the floor of the House and we say things that are untoward in some segments of the population, our phones ring off the hook with the N word, N word, N word. I don't know how many of my friends who are not people of color--I am sure we all say things that people disagree with, and I don't know whether they call up and call them White, White, White.

You see, race is something that we are fearful of discussing, and that is because the thought would be: Here she goes again.

But there is a great love--my interaction, my life's history is with the diversity of this world, from White Caucasians, Anglos in Texas, to Hispanics, African Americans, Asians, and beyond in various religious. I feel comfortable in my soul.

But this weekend was the most difficult time for African-American women who are--in the category of casting, the caste system--at the bottom of the totem pole. Even today, the likes of Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Mae Jemison, Shirley Chisholm, Barbara Jordan, doctors, lawyers, and others, we are at the bottom.

So there was much latitude--uncontrolled latitude--in name-calling. Forty-five mentioning untoward words about our colleague, Congresswoman Wilson: name-calling. Nobody--there is no retribution or reprimand. None of his constituents would give a hoot. But it was name-calling.

Mr. Speaker, you don't know how many people stop me in airports, along the road, hurt and appalled. Let me just come to a close on that.

First of all, Congressman Clyburn has already given the attributes of Congresswoman Wilson. I do want to add that she is a principal. She is an old-fashioned principal, though she is a young woman.

She loved her students. She implemented the 5000 Role Models. She took the children as family, and Sergeant David Johnson was one of those. So if people don't understand the cultural distinctions in the African-American community, we are aunts and uncles without bloodline. We are Godparents. We are family.

Her presence in that car was not as an interloper. She didn't break the door down. She was in there as family. She was not eavesdropping. The phone was on. As indicated by Mrs. Johnson's interview, she asked the phone to be put on speaker.

It seems that her offense in breaking down moved the Representative to articulate, probably seeking some humanity, to say: Can you just, if you hear my words, apologize?

That never happened. The untruth spread all over. You see, as an African-American woman, you don't have to worry about saying the truth about us. We are various names--sons of Bs--and we have got all kinds of disturbing situations going on with names that we can be called. And that is what this White House did.

My dear friend, who I knew in the Southern Command, that is what happens when you are here for just a few years. He had great leadership and loss. I was here when that happened. And I don't want to spend a moment to diminish his status as a Gold Star parent. He has a right to mourn and to speak of his loss.

But then, when you are forced to step from that humble position over to an untruth, you can do it to a Black woman. They have no power. I can talk something that doesn't have any truth, because I have to defend--and this is said lovingly--a White man who happens to be in the Oval Office.

We don't count. We are the largest group of active, civic women in all kinds of organizations. If there is something being done--first of all, it is women overall, I love them all, but you will see the African-American woman--she is in there scrubbing, she is in there teaching, she is in there handling the religious institutions, she is standing by babies, and she is standing by young people.

She is a civil rights activist, she is a scientist, she is a doctor. She is president of various organizations. She is just in there.

That is what happened that has brought me to this point that what we have now is so dangerous. I hope before the end of the week--maybe before the end of tomorrow--my good friend, General Kelly, seeks to apologize for the distortion. He didn't have to defend a person who does it in his own way and besmirch all of the Gold Star families and this young mother who has not been able to see her son.

Mr. Speaker, I know there are many of us who served in this Congress who have seen their brethren fall. They have been injured. What is it like for their family not to be able to see the body? What is it like to know that the person's body was not found for 48 hours?

I am going to get to an end for my colleagues. I just want to say this. There are those of us who know about the African Command. There are those of us who know the soldiers there. The Congressional Black Caucus was instrumental when George Bush said that an African Command needs to stand up when Charles Taylor was killing his citizens in Liberia.

I know it firsthand. I have been to all those countries. I know ISIL was connected with Boko Haram. We have been trying to say it, but people have deaf ears, maybe because it is Africa.

Now, all of a sudden we are awake. Congresswoman Wilson knew that. She has been there. We have been there. Why don't people listen to Black women who know what they are talking about, along with our distinguished colleagues?

This document that I hold in my hand, ``Black Identity Extremists Likely Motivated to Target Law Enforcement Officers,'' I have a lot to say on, but I am going to summarize.

As a member of the Judiciary Committee, this is name-calling. We just got through a reckless weekend of name-calling of a distinguished Member of Congress.

This is name-calling. This is the FBI defining BIEs as individuals who seek, through unlawful acts of force or violence, a response to perceived racism and injustice.

But do you know what will happen, Mr. Speaker? This will be a big fishnet: the high school student who is getting his fists up; the college student who is rallying around in opposition to racism; the students down in Charlottesville who may believe they should stand up and be counted.

I know this, Mr. Speaker, because, with a little bit of humor, I am young, going backwards, but I served on the Select Committee on Assassinations that investigated the assassination of Martin Luther King--the reopening of the investigation--along with John F. Kennedy.

I was immersed in the files of COINTELPRO. I saw how the FBI dogged a modern-day prophet, a man who only wanted peace and believed in the beloved community. Yes, he was human. When you dog someone, you can find them throwing gum on a sidewalk.

Dr. Martin Luther King was subjected to the COINTEL program. It was dastardly and devastating, and may have been the basis of the loss of his life. If he was subjected to the COINTEL program, we always wondered why he couldn't have been in another hotel.

So the danger of this document that has come under Donald Trump and not under any other President--not Bill Clinton, not George Bush, not President Obama--as I understand it, but it came in August of this year, under President Trump, the same President who could find nothing distinctive between the alt-right and racist vileness talking about Jews and Blacks and everybody else in Charlottesville. There were good people on both sides.

Now we have this document. Lo and behold, what other names of Black activists and African Americans still fighting the war of civil rights peacefully may be caught up in this large net?

Again, I want to be able to say my respect for the service of FBI agents. They are friends of mine. I am on the Judiciary Committee. They are friends to all of us. We continue to salute their service. But this document is a riotous document.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I include in the Record: ``The History of Surveillance and the Black Community.'' It goes into the discussion.

[From the Electronic Frontier Foundation, February 13, 2014]

The History of Surveillance and the Black Community

(By Dia Kayyali)

February is Black History Month and that history is

intimately linked with surveillance by the federal government

in the name of ``national security.'' Indeed, the history of

surveillance in the African-American community plays an

important role in the debate around spying today and in the

calls for a congressional investigation into that

surveillance. Days after the first NSA leaks emerged last

June, EFF called for a new Church Committee. We mentioned

that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was one of the targets of

the very surveillance that eventually led to the formation of

the first Church Committee. This Black History Month, we

should remember the many African-American activists who were

targeted by intelligence agencies. Their stories serve as

cautionary tales for the expanding surveillance state.

The latest revelations about surveillance are only the most

recent in a string of periodic public debates around domestic

spying perpetrated by the NSA, FBI, and CIA. This spying has

often targeted politically unpopular groups or vulnerable

communities, including anarchists, anti-war activists,

communists, and civil rights leaders.

60s. COINTELPRO, short for Counter Intelligence Program,

was started in 1956 by the FBI and continued until 1971. The

program was a systemic attempt to infiltrate, spy on, and

disrupt activists in the name of ``national security.'' While

it initially focused on the Communist Party, in the 1960s its

focus expanded to include a wide swathe of activists, with a

strong focus on the Black Panther Party and civil rights

leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

FBI papers show that in 1962 ``the FBI started and rapidly

continued to gravitate toward Dr. King.'' This was ostensibly

because the FBI believed black organizing was being

influenced by communism. In 1963 FBI Assistant Director

William Sullivan recommended ``increased coverage of

communist influence on the Negro.'' However, the FBI's goal

in targeting Dr. King was clear: to find ``avenues of

approach aimed at neutralizing King as an effective Negro

leader,'' because the FBI was concerned that he might become

a ``messiah.''

The FBI subjected Dr. King to a variety of tactics,

including bugging his hotel rooms, photographic surveillance,

and physical observation of King's movements by FBI agents.

The FBI's actions went beyond spying on Dr. King, however.

Using information gained from that surveillance, the FBI sent

him anonymous letters attempting to ``blackmail him into

suicide.'' The agency also attempted to break up his marriage

by sending selectively edited ``personal moments he shared

with friends and women'' to his wife.

The FBI also specifically targeted the Black Panther Party

with the intention of destroying it. They infiltrated the

Party with informants and subjected members to repeated

interviews. Agents sent anonymous letters encouraging

violence between street gangs and the Panthers in various

cities, which resulted in ``the killings of four BPP members

and numerous beatings and shootings,'' as well as letters

sowing internal dissension in the Panther Party. The agency

also worked with police departments to Department that aided

in a raid on BPP leader Fred Hampton's apartment. The raid

ended with the Chicago Police shooting Hampton dead.

The FBI was not alone in targeting civil rights leaders.

The NSA also engaged in domestic spying that included Dr.

King. In an eerily prescient statement, Senator Walter

Mondale said he was concerned that the NSA ``could be used by

President `A' in the future to spy upon the American people,

to chill and interrupt political dissent.''

The Church Committee was created in response to these and

other public scandals, and was charged with getting to the

bottom of the government's surveillance overreach. In

response to its findings, Congress passed new laws to provide

privacy safeguards, including the Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Act. But ever since these safeguards were put in

place, the intelligence community has tried to weaken or

operate around them. The NSA revelations show the urgent need

to reform the laws governing surveillance and to rein in the

intelligence community.

Today we're responding to those domestic surveillance

abuses by an unrestrained intelligence branch. The overreach

we've seen in the past underscores the need for reform.

Especially during Black History Month, let's not forget the

speech-stifling history of US government spying that has

targeted communities of color.

It says: ``We mentioned that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was one of the targets of the very surveillance that eventually led to the formation of the first Church Committee. This Black History Month, we should remember the many African-American activists who were targeted by intelligence agencies. Their stories serve as cautionary tales for the expanding surveillance state.''

Where are the conservatives to stand up against this document? We can be safe, we can have the First Amendment, and we speak our different issues, but now we are going to entrap African Americans--young men who are kneeling because of their concern for police reform and violence that has taken the lives of African-American young men.

There are so many law enforcement officers who agree with me on the idea of police reform to help all of us work together. We are not divided, but we will stay divided with a document that is going to label us.

Where is the document for the alt-right, the religious right, the White supremacists? Where is that?

When are we going to understand that the calling of names--in our community, we call it calling me out of my name--by the majority community is a carryover from slavery and Jim Crow.

I am saddened by the last couple of days of steering away from the mourning of those wonderful heroes who reflected the greatness of America. They reflected what young men and women do who are willing to sacrifice their lives. They go without a recognition of what color their fellow soldier is. We honor them with no distinction.

That is what the last couple of days should have been about, as well as the loving care of that widow and the families of the other young men. Yet, in the

spirit of the FBI COINTEL program, that may be the downfall, again, of those of us trying to heal and not reflecting on how the best way to deal with those who would do us harm violently, of which I stand against, we are now in the midst of name-calling.

I go to my seat mourning. When is America going to change?

On August 3, 2017, the FBI released their new ``Intelligence Assessment'' report entitled: Black Identity Extremists (BIE) Likely Motivated to Target Law Enforcement Officers''.

The FBI defines BIE as individuals who seek, through unlawful acts of force or violence, a response to ``perceived'' racism and injustice in American society.

The FBI also indicates, there is a desire for black physical or psychological separation based on religious or political beliefs grounded in racial superiority or supremacy.

Blacks fought for America long before it was a country, prerevolutionary period, where during the first 100 years of conflict we stepped up; and will continue, for equality and justice.

Blacks led civil rights movement winning double victories in both World War II and the Jim Crow era, forcing our then President Truman, to announced that ``there are no justifiable reasons for discrimination because of one's ancestry, or religion, or race, or color of his skin.''

Today, Trump's FBI believes that the African American community's reality is a mere perception as it relates to the racism and injustice that plague our communities. Why?

The FBI has consistently relied upon a flawed system to determine the number of people killed by officers. This flawed system is shaped by ``voluntary law enforcement compliance''--in other words, police departments need not report this stat.

``The Counted'' launched by the Guardian, is a public-service project tallying deaths of unarmed persons by law enforcement. They reached a tally of 1,068 at the start of 2015.

Former FBI Director Comey said, this was embarrassing and unacceptable that a Guardian U.S. investigative unit had a better tally than his agency's near 35,000 employees.

There is no reliable mechanism to accurately depict the true dimensions of an epidemic of lethal violence, force, and shootings committed by police across this country on unarmed civilians.

The reality is Sandra Bland died while in the custody of law enforcement; Michael Brown was gunned down in the street by law enforcement; Eric Garner died from a chokehold at the hands of law enforcement; Freddie Gray died while being transported in the custody of law enforcement; Tamir Rice was shot dead by a law enforcement officer previously deemed an emotionally unstable recruit and unfit for duty; and Laquan McDonald shot in the back and killed by law enforcement officers.

These are just a few of the innocent lives robbed and thus, gone too soon. These are the realities not perceptions that young activists in their own modern ways represent, whether it's marching, protesting with passion, or even taking a knee.

They are protesting unapologetically with great passion and hunger for justice, but nonetheless, peacefully.

They are not killing others who do not agree with them; nor are they inflicting violence due to religion, nationality and race.

Therefore, it is highly insensitive, offensive and blatantly discriminative and unconstitutional to mount a counter intelligence program, now COINTELPRO 2.0, to once again, aggressively target a race that merely seeks justice and equality it is entitled under our Constitution.

According to sources close to the FBI, the term ``Black Identity Extremists'' did not exist before the Trump administration. The FBI named BIE, a major threat to national security and public safety, thereby, criminalizing black activism.

The newly coined term, black identity extremists (BIE) is such a vague terminology that it invites alarming abuse of a specific race's constitutional rights based solely on an Administration's disturbed and visceral approach to race relations.

Under FBI Director Edgar Hoover's leadership, the Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO), a covert, often illegal, campaign was mounted to break up the civil rights movement and ``neutralize'' activists they perceived as threatening.

COINTELPRO was used to surveil and discredit civil rights activists, members of the Black Panther Party and any major advocates for the rights of black people in our nation's history.

COINTELPRO allowed the FBI to falsify letters in an effort to blackmail Martin Luther King Jr. into silence.

This was such a disgraceful period in our nation's history that our recent FBI Director, James Comey, kept a copy of a 1963 order authorizing Hoover to conduct round-the-clock surveillance of Martin Luther King Jr. on his desk as a reminder of Hoover's abuses.

The FBI's dedicated surveillance of black activists follows a long history of the U.S. government aggressively monitoring protest movements and working to disrupt civil rights groups, but the scrutiny of African Americans by a domestic terrorism unit was particularly alarming to some free speech campaigners.

This administration continues the same vile tactics used in well- documented stories of civil rights leaders who were profiled, targeted and killed for insisting that black people receive equitable treatment under the law in a country whose Constitution guarantees it.

Today the FBI continues its once intrusive, abhorrent and illegal targeting of black activists by labeling the Black Lives Matter movement as BIE.

We know that the Department of Homeland Security has been surveilling Black Lives Matter activists since 2014, but there's no way to know what's next.

With this recent report, the FBI has legitimized the idea that black activism is a threat and should be treated accordingly, with violent force.

Despite Charlottesville and all the other harms inflicted by emboldened white nationalists, the FBI has instead, chosen to target a group of American citizens whom merely decry the injustice seen and felt throughout their communities.

Despite numerous unarmed black individuals, particularly, young black men that are disproportionately the victims of police shootings, the FBI would like us to believe this is not a reality.

Instead, the FBI's report claims there is a danger in black activism by asserting that violence inflicted on black people at the hands of police is ``perceived'' or ``alleged,'' not real.

This month the Congressional Black Caucus has written to the FBI Director, Christopher Wray, to express our concern over the recent ``Intelligence Assessment'' report.

We have requested a briefing on both the origins of its research and the FBI's next intended step based on its findings. No response as of date.

We should be allowed to exercise our constitutional and fundamental rights of free speech.

We should not be restricted and criminalized when we demand that those we elect to office exercise justice and fairness.

This FBI report will further inflame an already damaged police/ community relation under the leadership of Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Sessions has dismantled all the safeguards installed under Attorney General Holder's leadership, thus, returning our justice system to the broken system under Ashcroft.

Session has unleashed a merciless approach to ``all'' crimes including low level drug-related cases, and demands that his attorneys prosecute every case to the fullest extent of the law.

In doing so, Session has taken away any prosecutorial discretion once available to prosecutors throughout our justice system under U.S. law.

The FBI in this Trump Administration has returned to the era of Director Edgar Hoover, in their unleashing of this damaging, discriminative, and unconstitutional COINTELPRO 2.0.

With these lethal forms of attacks on the African American community from both the DOJ and the FBI, where is justice?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Peace Action, the nation's largest grassroots peace network, on its 60th Anniversary.

Founded as `SANE' in November 1957 in New York City by Lenore Marshall and Norman Cousins and others in response to the nuclear arms race, the organization was renamed Peace Action in 1993.

Among the organization's most notable members and supporters in its long and illustrious history are former chaplain of Yale University and pastor of New York City's Riverside Church, William Sloane Coffin; Marlon Brando, Henry Fonda, Marilyn Monroe, Arthur Miller, Harry Belafonte, Ossie Davis; Martin Buber, Pablo Casals, Bertrand Russell and Albert Schweitzer.

For 60 years, Peace Action has worked for an environment where all are free from violence, war, and the proliferation of nuclear, biological, chemical, and other weapons of mass destruction.

A core principle underlying the work of Peace Action is that longstanding global conflicts require long-term solutions and that U.S. foreign policy has a lasting effect on the world.

That is why Peace Action advocates on behalf of American foreign policy that supports peace, human rights, and democracy and organizes against pre-emptive wars and bellicose militarism.

Every day Peace Action chapters and affiliates in states across the country are working every day to promote a new U.S. foreign policy is based on peaceful cooperation, diplomatic engagement, and collective action to confront the greatest common threats to humankind--war, famine, disease.

Peace Action understands that war cannot be the appropriate response to every international or domestic conflict is not a suitable response to conflict and is committed to working toward the day that every person on earth can live in a world without war or threat of nuclear annihilation.

That is what Peace Action and its legions of peace warriors have done for the past 60 years and it is the work they are committed to today and will be committed to until the job is done.

Happy birthday Peace Action, and I thank them for their tireless and unceasing efforts in pursuit of a more peaceful world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2266, which provides $36.5 billion in aid to respond to the damage caused by Hurricanes Irma and Maria, and the wildfires currently raging in California.

Specifically, the aid package before us provides an additional $18.7 billion in supplemental appropriations for the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) under the continuing resolution (CR) that runs through Dec. 8 (P.L. 115-56).

Of this amount, as much as $4.9 billion could be transferred to FEMA's Community Direct Loan (CDL) program to help local governments and U.S. territories provide essential services.

The legislation before also provides an additional $16 billion in borrowing authority to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which reached its borrowing limit after Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.

To alleviate the damage and suffering caused by the wildfires in California, the legislation provides $576.5 million for federal wildfire suppression programs.

There are particular concerns for our seniors who survived the terrible storms that ravaged the Texas Coast, Florida, U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico because so many of them are alone, while trying to the do difficult and hard job of cleaning out their homes, or removing debris from their yards.

Mr. Speaker, the work is not done in my State of Texas. There are thousands of families who have no home to return to following the historic flood.

We have low-income communities that are struggling to find the new normal that FEMA officials warned Texans would need to accept following the historic flood.

A substantial portion of Houston's residents live in multi-family dwellings.

The city has lost low-income housing for the elderly and the disabled.

The number of persons who remain displaced and unable to find permanent housing remains unacceptably high, with many towns and cities left without space at hotels for visitors or tourists, which contribute much needed dollars to local economies.

As we rebuild the city must have sufficient numbers of low-income, affordable, and accessible housing within the city limits so that lives, families and communities can be restored.

The economics of a city requires that we make room for everyone as Houston recovers.

Part of the work of rebuilding is to be sure that post-Hurricane Harvey rebuilding and recovery leads to a better quality of life for all of the people of Houston.

If we have the right balance of low income, and affordable housing in the mix as we plan the rebuild the recovery efforts will be a great success.

We need a commitment that Community Development Block Grant Program dollars will have a dedicated amount to rebuild, repair, or replace low-income affordable housing.

Recovery work in homes damaged by flood water is hard work for young people, but it is almost an impossible task for the elderly and many are at risk of physical injury or falling into poor health due to their age or medical condition.

I am particularly concerned about the elderly who survived the Hurricanes in Texas, Florida, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico.

Our nation's seniors are proudly independent, but a hurricane was not part of their retirement plan.

Our seniors are trying to remove water-logged furniture, remove sodden carpets, or knock out damaged drywall. They are put at risk of being injured or becoming ill.

Our seniors should not have to face the task of recovery alone because they have survived their children or may not live near a relative who can help them.

My request to the appropriators is to remember that disasters do not visit only the young and healthy.

The disabled and elderly are victims and their needs during the recovery are very different and this should be addressed.

We need help our elderly and disabled with getting sufficient resources in place to do this difficult and heavy work of clearing their homes so that they are safe, sanitary and can be occupied.

If the homes of seniors are not cleared their lives are put at risk due to mold, which will come because Houston is a subtropical area where dampness will allow spores to grow within homes, which can cause health concerns.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention alerted my office that they were conducting surveillance in the Houston area for medical conditions that can arise from exposure to mold because of reported cases.

In future disasters there should be an effort to extend the work of federal relief including seeing to the needs of the elderly to be sure they are living in safe and sanitary conditions.

Harvey did not spare Houston's arts community or public spaces, but caused tremendous damage to the: Alley Theater; Worthem Opera; Jones Hall; and Hobby Center.

We must include plans to address the root cause of some of the most catastrophic flooding, water releases from the Addick and Barker Dams.

I am committed to the Army Corp of Engineers replacement of both of those dams.

The Army Corps should take the lead on ensuring that much needed work at the Port of Houston and throughout the impact zone for the flooding is done, after a post Hurricane Harvey assessment is completed to determine the source of the flooding and report on what needs to be done to mitigate the chance of a reoccurrence.

Texas is months away from seeing the worse effects of the flood event.

A record 51.88 inches fall in the Houston area during Hurricane Harvey's torrential rains before the rain gauge broke that was used to measure precipitation, although the storm punished the upper Texas Coast with several more days of rain.

According to the National Weather Service this was the largest recorded storm in the continental U.S. history.

It is not an exaggeration to say that Hurricane Harvey was an historic catastrophic event.

Hurricane Harvey dropped 21 trillion gallons of rainfall on Texas and Louisiana, most of it on the Houston Metropolis.

This amount of rainfall could fill more than 24 thousand Astrodomes or supply the water for the raging Niagara Falls for 15 days.

Hurricane Harvey caused damage to more than 134 thousand homes of which 99 thousand are in Harris County.

The total number of homes with major damage or were destroyed was about 28 thousand, of which 16 thousand are in Harris County.

And today, nearly four weeks later, thousands of Texans are still without permanent and stable housing situations.

I thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Lowey, and Speaker Ryan and Democratic Leader Pelosi, for bringing this supplemental funding bill to the floor in a timely manner because it lets the people of Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands know that the American people, acting through the Congress, stand in solidarity with them in their moment of heartbreak and anguish.

Mr. Speaker, 21 days ago, on September 20, 2017, Hurricane Maria made landfall in Puerto Rico, along the southeastern coast, near the small town of Yabucoa.

The devastation wrought on that beautiful Caribbean oasis and its 3.5 million inhabitants, our fellow citizens of the United States, is unimaginable, except perhaps to those of us who have lived through and survived similar natural disasters, like Hurricanes Harvey and Katrina.

At least 48 people have died as a result of the storm as rescue and recovery operations proceed, and no electricity to combat the stifling heat, this number is likely to rise, especially with so many elderly, sick, and very young persons at risk.

As we speak, more than half of Puerto Rico's population (55 percent) is still without potable drinking water and 85 percent of Puerto Rico's 1.57 million electricity customers are without power, the majority of which can be expected to remain in this state for as many as 10 months since Hurricane Maria knocked out nearly all of Puerto Rico's 2,400 miles of transmission lines.

Hurricane Maria destroyed 80 percent of Puerto Rico's agricultural industry, including banana, plantain and coffee crops, which translates into lost income of approximately $780 million.

And yesterday, the Governor of Puerto Rico announced that four persons had died from leptospirosis, a disease spread by animals' urine, which they contracted by drinking from contaminated rivers and streams.

On August 30, 2017, Hurricane Irma struck, inflicting horrific damage on the U.S. Virgin Islands of St. Thomas, St. Croix, and St. John, the Caribbean nations of Barbuda, St. Maarten, Cuba, and Anguilla, before making landfall in the Florida Keys.

In Florida alone, 6.4 million people were told to evacuate to safety, leading to days of jammed highways and frantic searches for gasoline amid one of the nation's largest ever-emergency evacuations.

At least 124 persons are known to have lost their lives in Hurricane Irma and more than 200,000 Floridians took refuge in shelters.

Nearly 7.2 million homes and businesses were without power in the southeast part of the United States, 6.5 million of which were in Florida.

Mr. Speaker, we do not yet know the full extent of the damage and devastation suffered by our fellows Americans in Florida, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico in the wake of Hurricanes Irma and Maria.

But what we do know is that the costs of recovery and reconstruction will be extensive, best estimates place the cost in the range of $50- $100 billion.

That is why I strongly support the legislation pending before us appropriating an additional $18.7 billion for the FEMA-Disaster Relief Fund as the initial response of the Congress to the damage caused by Hurricanes Irma and Maria.

But I must emphasize that what we are considering here is the initial response because much more funding will be needed because my state of Texas and Houston, my home city and the nation's fourth largest city, remains devastated by Hurricane Harvey.

I will be working closely with House and committee leadership to secure the substantial funding necessary to meet the needs of my constituents in the area of housing, community development, transportation, infrastructure, and water resource management that must be addressed in the next and subsequent supplemental appropriations measures to come before the House.

These are and remain the highest priorities for my Texas colleagues and me and we will not waver in this pursuit, nor falter or fail in our advocacy.

But while that works goes on, we must today rally to the aid of our fellow citizens in Florida, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and California who are facing and striving to overcome the difficulties visited upon them by Mother Nature.

They were, and will be, there when Texas asked for help and are entitled to expect the same treatment in return.

It is the right thing--the American thing--to do.

I ask all Members to join me in voting to pass this House Amendment to Senate Amendment to H.R. 2266, Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Requirements Act for Fiscal Year 2017 and to commit to providing our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Florida, and California the help and support they need to restore their communities to their previous greatness.

Mr. Speaker, Puerto Rico has no power. The U.S. Virgin Islands has no power. St. Johns is completely collapsed in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The people are dying from contaminated water.

Mr. President, how can you abandon the American people?

This bill is going to provide FEMA assistance to keep giving so they can have it. It is going to give $16 billion to the senior citizens in my district, who have paid their flood insurance, who are desperate to get their houses repaired, to get the mold out after being impacted by Hurricane Harvey.

Yes, I woke up this morning to the outrage of the fires and people dying in California. That is what is in this bill.

I can't imagine that a President would make this comment of walking away, but I am here to fight for those who have been impacted by Hurricane Harvey. We are still suffering. Senior citizens are out of their homes. We have been evicting people in public housing. We need community development block grants. The Army Corps of Engineers is greatly needed.

The funding that we ask for is not in here, block grants is not in here, and as well the restoration that we need. We will fight. I will not turn my back on Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands and vote ``no''. I will vote ``yes''----

And help Americans, but Hurricane Harvey has to be in the next bill.

* * *

Madam Speaker, we are now a few days after the most violent and largest massacre in modern American history in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Many that you encounter has a story, amazingly, about who was there during that week. They obviously were not at that site, but they may have been in Las Vegas for work or otherwise. It will be on the minds of Americans for a long time.

Just this past Monday, I stood with Sheriff Acevedo, my chief of police, my sheriff, my constable; mothers who have lost loved ones and children; and a woman who had been abused and her significant other carried around a heavy weapon to scare her, threaten her, and abuse her.

Why we can't have gun safety regulation, I don't know, but I believe after Sandy Hook and after Pulse nightclub, we must pass real gun safety legislation. We must ban assault weapons, ban the bump stocks. We must have universal background checks.

Madam Speaker, it is a shame that we cannot save lives. We need gun safety now, not money in your pockets.