Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, let me first of all say what the world is coming to and how much our friends, our neighbors in America have had to go through: the most recent tragedy and massacre in Las Vegas, and now the horrendous, unspeakable tragedy by fires in California. I offer my sympathy to my friends, Mike and Jared, Congresspersons in California, and we look forward to working with them, and offer our sympathy for those who are lost, those who are missing.

I think it is important, as we have these natural disasters, that we really attentively work on the pain that people are suffering; that is on the back side of Puerto Rico, where there is no power, and we don't know the assessment of loss of life, there is no housing; from Florida to the U.S. Virgin Islands, where people are still waiting for relief, and the attention is not at the peak that it should. Then, in my own community, we are in desperate need of housing. We have senior citizens, after Hurricane Harvey, being dismissed and out of their homes.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we are looking for a new disaster supplemental food program. We have the okay from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. We have the State of Texas ready to work with us, but we must make sure that our local officials realize that this is a disaster and an emergency and that they move forward quickly to serve the people who are hungry and who are in need.

So, Harris County, you need to move faster to use the Federal funds that we now have.

Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleague from Illinois and demand that the Children's Health Insurance Program that will help millions of children have healthcare be reauthorized now, and certainly it should be done before we leave for the work recess.

I also want to hold up the headline of the Houston Chronicle that says: ``Trump Ramps Up Demands for New DACA Deal.''

Sometimes we think that these are just statements that don't impact people's lives. The name of the young lady on this front page is Karen, who watches her parents work 17 hours a day, trying to ensure that the children who came here through no fault of their own can be contributing Americans.

We stood together yesterday with 122,000 in the State of Texas. We thought we had a reasonable deal to be able to work together to help these young people. But with the ridiculous demands that have been made by this administration--$15 billion border wall, cutting legal immigration, sending out the door unaccompanied children--it is absolutely ludicrous.

Does anyone care about human life.

Then we stood together with the chief of police, the sheriff, the constables, and Moms Demand Action and fought against ridiculous nonregulation of guns that can kill people, military guns. We need gun safety legislation, and we need to do it now.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Congressional Black Caucus and a Co-Chair of the Congressional Voting Rights Caucus, I rise in remembrance of Fannie Lou Hamer, a leading heroine of the Civil Rights Movement, a fearless fighter for voting rights and social justice who spoke truth to power and touched conscience of the nation.

On this day, exactly 100 years ago, October 6, 1917, Fannie Lou Hamer was born in Montgomery County, Mississippi to Lou Ella and James Lee Townsend, the youngest of twenty children.

Although she managed to complete several years of school, by adolescence Fannie Lou Hamer was picking hundreds of pounds of cotton a day.

She would later meet and marry Perry Hamer, known as Pap, and work alongside him as sharecroppers at W.D. Marlow's plantation near Ruleville, in Sunflower County, Mississippi.

From these humble beginnings Fannie Lou Hamer would go on to become one of the iconic figures of the Civil Rights Movement that succeeded in bringing down the Jericho walls of de jure segregation and winning passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the greatest victory for civil rights and human dignity since the Emancipation Proclamation.

Mr. Speaker, one of our proudest boasts as Americans is that ``one person can make a difference.''

The life of Fannie Lou Hamer demonstrates that this is not an idle boast but a simple truth.

Fannie Lou Hamer dedicated her life to the fight for civil rights, working for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, an organization that engaged in acts of civil disobedience to fight racial segregation and injustice in the South.

During the 1950s, when Fannie Lou Hamer was in her 30's, she attended several annual conferences of the Regional Council of Negro Leadership (RCNL), a civil rights and self-help organization that ignited her passion for activism.

In 1962 Fannie Lou Hamer took up the call to try and register to vote in Mississippi, a state whose constitution and laws erected barriers such as poll taxes and literacy tests to disenfranchise African Americans.

It was on the bus trip to Indianola, Mississippi to register to vote that, in what would become her signature trait as an activist, she began singing African American spirituals such as ``Go Tell It on the Mountain'' and ``This Little Light of Mine.''

Singing spirituals reflected her firm belief that the struggle for civil rights was a righteous cause and toiling in this vineyard was the Christian thing to do.

Fannie Lou Hamer's courage and leadership in Indianola came to the attention of SNCC organizer Bob Moses who recruited her to travel around the South doing organizing work for the organization.

Being an African American activist was at that time in that place was dangerous, but that did not deter the fierce Fannie Lou Hamer:

I guess if I'd had any sense, I'd have been a little

scared--but what was the point of being scared? The only

thing they could do was kill me, and it kinda seemed like

they'd been trying to do that a little bit at a time since I

could remember.

During one of Fannie Lou Hamer's trips she and other civil rights activists were arrested and badly beaten on the orders of police officers.

After recovering from the assault she returned to activism and the task of organizing voter registration drives:

Sometimes it seem like to tell the truth today is to run

the risk of being killed. But if I fall, I'll fall five feet

four inches forward in the fight for freedom. I'm not backing

off.

In 1964, Fannie Lou Hamer helped organize ``Freedom Summer,'' during which she was known by other activists as a motherly figure who strongly believed that the civil rights struggle should be broad-based and multi-racial.

Later that year, Fannie Lou Hamer helped to found and served as Vice- Chair of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MDFP), which challenged the seating of the all-white and anti-civil rights Mississippi delegation to the Democratic National Convention in Atlantic City, New Jersey.

In Atlantic City, Fannie Lou Hamer addressed the Democratic National Convention's Credentials Committee, where she passionately recounted the problems she had encountered in voter registration, including the vicious beatings she received in jail:

All of this is on account we want to register to become

first-class citizens, and if the Freedom Democratic Party is

not seated now, I question America. Is this America, the land

of the free and the home of the brave where we have to sleep

with our telephones off the hooks because our lives be

threatened daily because we want to live as decent human

beings--in America?

Fannie Lou Hamer's raw, authentic, and powerful testimony was so compelling that President Lyndon Johnson hastily called a White House press conference to divert media attention, which succeeded temporarily until the broadcast networks replayed her speech, unedited and uninterrupted, on the evening news.

Responding to Fannie Lou Hamer's speech, viewers flooded the Democratic National Credentials Committee with thousands of calls and letters demanding the seating of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party delegates.

Although the MDFP's delegates were not seated, as a compromise the Democratic Party changed its bylaws to require equality of representation of state delegations to the national convention, which led in turn to the selection of Fannie Lou Hamer as a delegate to the 1972 Democratic National Convention in Miami Beach, Florida.

Fannie Lou Hamer died on March 14, 1977 in Mound Bayou, Mississippi at the age of 59, due to her poor health, a combination of a lifetime in poverty, her 1963 beating, and a 1976 cancer diagnosis.

Mr. Speaker, Fannie Lou Hamer was always about paying it forward:

Never to forget where we came from and always praise the

bridges that carried us over.

As the third African American woman elected to Congress from the State of Texas, the second to serve on the House Committee on the Judiciary, and the first to become the Ranking Democratic Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, I am ever mindful and grateful of the sacrifices made by giants like Fannie Lou Hamer so that persons like me have the opportunity to serve and contribute to the greatness of our country.

I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in memory of Fannie Lou Hamer on the 100th anniversary of her birth.

Happy birthday Fannie Lou, you made a difference; you made America better.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Democratic Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H. Con. Res. 27, the House Republicans' Congressional Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2018.

Mr. Chair, House Republican budgeteers have a very poor track record when it comes to economic forecasts and projections.

For years, they have based their entire legislative agenda and strategy on their belief that the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare would be a failure.

The wish was father to the thought and they were wrong.

Because of Obamacare more than 20 million Americans now know the peace of mind that comes from affordable, quality health insurance that is there when you need it.

House Republicans oppose increasing the minimum wage, claiming that it costs jobs.

Wrong again.

Every increase in the minimum wage has been accompanied by an expanding economy, especially during the Clinton Administration.

House Republicans opposing comprehensive immigration reform claim that it will lead to lower incomes and lost jobs.

Wrong again.

Studies conducted by groups as far apart as the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO consistently show that comprehensive immigration reform will grow the Gross Domestic Product by $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

Given this sorry track record of economic forecasting, it is mind- boggling that anyone could support another Republican budget that favors the wealthy over middle class families and those struggling to enter or remain in the middle class.

The Democratic Budget ANS represents a much better way forward to the economic prosperity and security that Americans want and demand because it:

1. Creates good-paying jobs by investing in cutting-edge research and innovation, education, and infrastructure--highways, broadband, school construction, and more.

2. Increases educational opportunities by enhancing the Pell Grant program and funds career, technical, and adult education, and supports initiatives to help borrowers manage their student debt.

3. Supports American workers and families through responsible tax reform that creates jobs, boosts economic growth, and ensures that the wealthy and big corporations pay their fair share.

4. Promotes economic growth, expanded opportunity, and better quality of life by supporting a raise in the minimum wage, equal pay for equal work, immigration reform, consumer safeguards, childcare, job training, and paid leave.

5. Protects a basic standard of living by funding for programs that ensure families can access nutrition assistance, find and afford quality housing in their neighborhood, heat and cool their homes when extreme temperatures hit, and supports strengthening and expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit and increased resources for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

6. Defends and strengthens the Affordable Care Act and protects Medicare by rejecting both Trumpcare and any plan to turn Medicare into a voucher-like system that would increase costs for seniors.

7. Rejects the Republican budget's 19 percent cut to diplomacy and foreign aid operations and invests instead in all aspects of national security, including our military and diplomatic corps, foreign aid, homeland security, veterans, and law enforcement.

The Democratic Budget ANS works FOR American families by giving them the tools to buy a home, send their kids to college and enjoy a secure retirement.

Mr. Chair, the Democratic Budget represents a better way.

We Democrats understand that we are all in this together and that our current economic situation calls for a balanced approach between increased revenues and responsible reduction in expenditures.

Our plan will protect and strengthen our recovering economy, reduce the deficit in a responsible way, while continuing to invest in the things that make our country strong like education, health care, innovation, and clean energy.

Mr. Chair, this Republican budget is bad for America but it is disastrous for the people from my home state of Texas who sent me here to advocate for their interests.

Let me highlight a few examples.

1. If the Republican budget resolution were to become the basis of federal fiscal policy, 3,435,336 Texas seniors would be forced out of traditional Medicare and into a voucher program.

2. Under the Republican plan to end Medicare as we know it, Texas seniors will receive a voucher instead of guaranteed benefits under traditional Medicare.

3. For the 3,435,336 Texans aged 45-54, the value of their vouchers would be capped at growth levels that are lower than the projected increases in health care costs.

4. Previous analyses showed that this type of plan would cut future spending by $5,900 per senior, forcing them to spend more out of pocket and diminishing their access to quality care.

5. Additionally, private insurance plans will aggressively pursue the healthiest, least expensive enrollees, thereby allowing Medicare-- currently the lifeline for 3,187,332 Texas seniors--to wither on the vine.

6. If the Republican budget resolution is adopted by Congress, 206,304 Texas seniors would pay more for prescription drugs next year.

7. The Republican plan would re-open the donut hole, forcing seniors to pay the full cost of their prescription drugs if their yearly drug expenses are more than $2,970 for the year.

8. Seniors reaching the prescription drug donut hole would pay an average of $828 more in prescription drug costs in 2018 and approximately $13,000 more from now through 2027.

9. Under the Republican budget, the 2,445,462 Texas seniors who utilized free preventive services currently covered by Medicare in 2017 will face increased costs in the form of higher deductibles, co- insurance, and copayments for certain services, including even cancer screenings and annual wellness visits.

10. The Republican budget would slash $33 billion in nursing home care and other health care services for 754,500 Texas seniors and disabled persons who currently rely on Medicaid for their long-term care needs.

11. The draconian cuts included in the Republican budget would have a devastating impact on the 1,191 certified nursing homes in Texas that serve nearly 100,000 seniors, with more than half relying on Medicaid as their primary payer. As a result, nursing homes would be forced to slash services, turn away seniors, or close their doors.

Mr. Chair, the Republican budget may be characterized in many ways-- cruel, irresponsible, short-sighted, reckless--but ``fair and balanced'' is not one of them.

In contrast, the alternative budget proposed by the Democratic Caucus is worthy of support because it fairly balances the need for increased revenues and responsible reductions in expenditures with the imperative of making the necessary investments in human capital required to move our country forward.

The Democratic Budget ANS will generate at least a million more jobs this year compared to the Republicans' austerity first plan by making the investments needed to create jobs, strengthen the middle class, create greater upward mobility, and ensure opportunity for our children and future generations.

Mr. Chair, Democratic alternative budget maintains our commitment to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security; expands the EITC for childless workers; and provides ample funding for early childhood education.

Especially important to my constituents, and those of my colleagues representing Louisiana, Texas, Florida, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico, is that the Democratic Budget ANS includes the funds approved by Congress as a down payment for assistance in response to Hurricane Harvey and supports further emergency funding related to Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, along with other natural disasters.

It is said often, Mr. Chair, but is no less true, that the federal budget is more than a financial document; it is an expression of the nation's most cherished values.

As the late and great former senator and Vice-President Hubert Humphrey said:

``The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped.''

It is for this reason that 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.

Unlike the Republican budget, the Democratic Budget ANS passes both of these tests with flying colors.

The Republican budget calls to mind what Talleyrand said of the restored Bourbon dynasty after the abdication of Napoleon:

``They had learned nothing and forgotten nothing.''

Like the discredited Ryan Budgets of years past, this repackaged and warmed over TrumpRepublican Budget seems to know the cost of everything but the value of nothing.

For these compelling reasons, I stand in strong opposition to the Republican budget and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting a much better deal for the American people, the Democratic Budget ANS.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his astute analysis on what the American people really want. I thank the manager, the chairwoman of this bill, and I acknowledge the position that they take.

But what America really wants is for Washington, for America, for the government, to stand by them in their time of need.

I am very grateful to be part of a party that is not about politics but is about values. We are the better choice party. We offer a better deal on this project that we have worked so hard on called the American budget.

The American budget, in contrast to our friends on the other side of the aisle, recognizes, as I visited the National Institutes for Health, that 80 percent of their budget that we are going to lose goes for research and researchers--looking those researchers in the eyes when they explain the research in medical science to help save lives, and to know that the Republican budget cuts the NIH, the Centers for Disease Control, and takes up the TrumpCare that cuts trillions in Medicaid and $500 billion in Medicare. That is the story of this bill.

Then, as my good friend from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) indicated, we invest in infrastructure, and we help this young man, not only with his healthcare but with education. Do we realize how many jobs go unable to find individuals in this country? Hundreds of thousands because of the lack of training.

So if my friends want growth, you know how you get growth? You invest in the American people. Or you tell the American people when tragedies strike, whether it is the Virgin Islands, or Puerto Rico, or Florida, or Texas, or tragically, in Nevada, that you will stand by them. You provide them with the infrastructure to be able to overcome.

Not the Republican budget, because the Republican budget is giving trillions in tax cuts, and the distribution of those moneys will not see the front door of low-income, moderate-income, middle class working Americans.

That is the distinction between the Democratic budget. It increases opportunity through a higher minimum wage. It believes in equal pay for equal work. It knows that immigration reform will bring in billions of dollars. It will create opportunities for work.

Then, of course, we know that the Democratic budget strengthens our healthcare, and it provides that her Social Security, her Medicare, will not be in jeopardy. The Medicare trust fund will not lose with a Republican budget and the trillions of dollars of tax cuts, her life, as she continues to seek some balance of good life will be lost.

We are the right direction. We are for the American people. We are standing by the American people with the Democratic budget. I ask my colleagues to vote for the Democratic alternative.

Mr. Speaker, many of us will be going home to our districts, facing constituents who will be asking the question: Why?

It really is painful when fellow Americans lose their lives. It is painful as we watch our soldiers go off into battle, and many of them do not come home in any other way but as a fallen soldier.

This past week, Americans, who were not in battle but were enjoying the life and the liberty of this Nation, fell by a murderous actor. I think we will have to go home and comfort our constituents, and we will also tell them what we are going to do.

I don't know why we have to climb this high mountain of understanding that laws can make a difference; not end all violence, but make a difference: legislation that says that guns have to be locked to save the lives of children; gun legislation that deals with banning armor- piercing bullets that would harm and injure our first responders; and then to get rid of the kits that this murderous individual utilized to make a semiautomatic an automatic.

Mr. Speaker, I ask this Congress, together, to begin to do work on gun safety that will save American lives. I go home to my district to meet with my constituents, and I am going to tell them that I am going to do something that makes sense for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, just a few floors from here, I am in the Homeland Security Committee, and we are addressing issues dealing with the security of this Nation. And in my remarks on the legislation that we are dealing with, I expressed the pain of having this Congress come together in a bipartisan manner. I know a couple of sessions ago, we worked on a bipartisan border security bill. Sometimes America says enough is enough. They want us to work together.

This morning I rise to mourn and stand with those families--58 of them--who are feeling now an unspeakable pain. They are questioning how their loved one could be at a joyous country music festival and be massacred.

My hometown newspaper says it right: that the massacre in Vegas was an act of pure evil.

Those of us who believe in this flag, whether we kneel, whether we stand as we pledge, we know that America is the greatest country in the world; but when she is hurting, it is important for this Congress to act.

The comment that this is no time to discuss how we solve this unfettered violence, this massacre, this evil perpetrator, then that sentiment is a sentiment I hope will only be a small percentage of this body.

We have tried over and over again in any manner that we could to discuss fairly the idea of gun safety legislation, not the diminishing of the Second Amendment, as some made the argument, that the kneeling, take a knee, or ``I kneel'' was a diminishment of the First Amendment. It absolutely was not, because the First Amendment allows one to petition one's grievances.

In terms of the Second Amendment, the procedure of overturning a constitutional amendment would be a long journey, which would include the two Houses of Congress and the people of the United States.

Stop fueling fear that any manner of regulating the right to hold guns is in any way diminishing the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms.

It is ``enough is enough.'' There were hundreds of mothers and fathers outside of the Capitol this morning when Democrats stood up and called on this Congress and the Speaker to appoint a select committee, of which I join them in. Make it as large as it can be. Have people who will disagree. Take members of the jurisdictional committees and others who have experienced this violence. Let us solve this dirty problem.

It is dirty, for you cannot give any support to the idea of civilians having military-style weapons and taking them and preying on the innocent.

Beautiful young women, young men, mothers and fathers, grandparents now dead, and nothing but their faith will give to their family the hope that they may see them again, for we are God-fearing people in whatever faith we may have.

Our hope is vested in seeing our loved ones again, in particular in the Christian faith, and others have their ways of seeing their loved ones again.

There must be a ban on assault weapons. There must be a recognition that there exists domestic terrorism.

What was the Pulse nightclub?

Domestic terrorism comes in different ways. It doesn't have to be ISIS. It can be Charleston, South Carolina. That was an act of intimidation.

There were those interviewed who said: I may rethink my life. Why should I be going to large venues? Maybe I can't do that.

That is not America. That is not what we want for our children. Why can't this Congress look at the polling numbers of the members of the National Rifle Association. They understand the importance of training, of putting locks on guns, of not having military weapons in the hands of individuals who would kill us dead.

So, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say that enough is enough. We cannot do nothing. This flag demands that we do something.

I close by saying that a veteran was killed. He was not killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, where he fought; but he was killed in the streets of America, where he had overcome post-traumatic stress disorder. We know that Texans were wounded.

So, Mr. Speaker, I leave this podium in respect simply to say: As America, we cannot do this any longer, and we must stand up as a Congress and do our jobs and find a way to end this gun violence now.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend, my fellow alum, for his leadership. I recognize and thank the chairwoman of the committee.

To my good friend that was on the floor, I think he wants limited government when disaster is not in his district.

So I think it is important as a member of this Budget Committee of which I am so very proud of its service, as the Democrats have worked so hard, and as a member of the Homeland Security Committee, a committee called upon

for domestic tranquility and domestic security, might I just add that we are now marking up a bill just a few floors away from this House that is asking for $15 billion to pay for a border wall in the midst of the horror of tragedy and in the midst of a lowering number of individuals even coming to the United States across the border, the very border wall that was told to us would be paid for by the people of Mexico.

But I think the important point is that my good friends who are supporting this dastardly budget that tears at the fabric of America are, as well, supporting a tax cut for the wealthy that will provide $2.9 trillion of debt to the American people and increase the debt as well as the deficit. It will mean that working and middle class families will have taxes raised on them by $470 billion. We will see the heavy brunt of this budget on low-income families, students struggling to afford college, seniors, and persons with disabilities.

Just a few hours ago, I said the American people do not need to have the government step on them; and I can assure you, with this budget, which cuts more than $1.5 trillion from Medicaid and Medicare, we will step on the American people.

We will end the Medicare guarantee, and it will narrowly shortchange soft power by cutting and decimating the State Department, the very partner that we need to continue the security of the American people, raising defense, of whom I support all of our military. Texas is a military State. But it is $72 billion above cap, and that is not giving our military personnel their due. It is going above the needs of the military.

We need to be prepared, but this skinny budget will undermine education and the workforce at $326 billion, energy and commerce at $1.56 billion, homeland security by $25 billion, justice and the needs of civil justice by $67 billion, and veterans by $49 billion.

It will cut the Community Development Block Grant, and it will hurt Virgin Islands U.S. citizens, Puerto Rico U.S. citizens, and Texas, that is still struggling.

Before I came to this floor, I was engaging with my State about more disaster food stamp sites because I have people who are unhoused in the 18th Congressional District, who are needing the resources.

Mr. Chairman, I have individuals who our wonderful first responders had to drag out of the raging waters in Hurricane Harvey. I have homes that were underwater that need disaster relief. I have individuals who are walking along highways like oceans, and then I have children who are with families who do not have jobs because of Hurricane Harvey, who need the Children's Health Insurance Program or need the disaster food stamps.

This is a budget that steps on the American people. It steps on our disaster relief, and it does not recognize what the United States Government is. It is a refuge and a relief for the American people.

Vote ``no'' on the Republican budget.

Mr. Chair, as a member of the Budget Committee, a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, and the proud representative of the 700,000 residents of 18th Congressional District of Texas who are still coping with the devastation caused by Hurricane Harvey, I rise in strong and unyielding opposition to H. Con. Res. 71, the Congressional Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2018.

Why do I urge every Member of this House to vote against this Republican budget resolution, laughingly called the ``Building a Better America Budget,'' but which more accurately should be named the ``Nightmare on Capitol Hill Budget''?

Let us count the ways; here are eight to start.

1. Republican budget mandates $5.4 trillion in spending cuts to top priorities like disaster relief, education, infrastructure, research, veteran benefits, and programs that expand opportunities for American families.

2. Republican budget provides $2.9 trillion in tax cuts to millionaires, billionaires, and wealthy corporations, while raising taxes on working and middle class families by $470 billion.

3. The budget includes fast-track reconciliation procedures to push through cuts to programs that tens of millions of Americans count on totaling $203 billion across 11 House committees.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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 $1.5 trillion from Medicaid and Medicare.

7. 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.

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

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

America will not be made great by stealing another $1.5 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 following standing committees of Congress in the following amounts:

1. Agriculture Committee: cut $207 billion

2. Armed Services Committee: cut $33 billion

3. Education and Workforce Committee: $326 billion

4. Energy and Commerce Committee: $1.656 trillion

5. Financial Services Committee: cut $124 billion

6. Homeland Security Committee: cut $25 billion

7. Judiciary Committee: cut $67 billion

8. Natural Resources Committee: cut $59 billion

9. Oversight and Government Reform Committee: cut $282 billion

10. Transportation and Infrastructure Committee: cut $3 billion

11. Veterans Affairs Committee: cut $49 billion

12. Ways and Means Committee: cut $800 billion

13. Unassigned (i.e., Intelligence; Foreign Affairs; Small Business; Science, Space, and Technology Committees: cut $747 billion

14. Total Cuts: $4.38 trillion

To put these reckless, irresponsible, and draconian budget cuts in perspective, it is useful to examine what they 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 $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 $154 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. Chair, 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.

Mr. Chair, none of us can forget the President's favorite boast and central campaign promise that he would build a wall on our southern border and guarantee that Mexico would be made to pay for it.

The Republican budget deprives the President of the opportunity to make good on his foolish boast by forcing American taxpayers to foot the bill for President Trump's $1.6 billion border wall that will do nothing to stop unauthorized entry into the country and will not fix our broken immigration system.

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 puts U.S. transportation network on the road to ruin by slashing transportation spending, by $254 billion over ten years, or 25 percent below current estimates.

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. Chair, 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 $1.8 trillion ``economic dividend'' from cutting taxes and taking away consumer protections that is not backed up by any credible analysis and assumes $1.5 trillion of this ``dividend'' will go toward deficit reduction.

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.''

As the late and great former senator and Vice-President Hubert Humphrey said:

The moral test of government is how that government treats

those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who

are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are

in shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped.

It is for this reason that 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.

Because the American people deserve to know exactly what ills Republicans have in store for them, I strongly oppose H. Con. Res. 71 and urge all Members to join me in voting against this reckless, cruel, and heartless measure that will do nothing to improve the lives or well-being of middle and working class families.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman for his leadership. It has been more than a pleasure to serve as the vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus for the number of years that we have had to put forward the people's budget.

I simply want to say what a budget is, Mr. Chairman. A budget is a roadmap for the American people. It is a question of whether America cares about the most vulnerable and whether or not, in our caring, we are prepared to do deeds to insist upon their success.

The Republican budget takes $2 trillion and provides a big, wealthy tax cut for the rich, and it creates, in essence, a deep hole in affordable care for healthcare. It does not provide justice and fair elections. It takes away educational opportunity from students, and, of course, it does not bring the most vulnerable out of poverty and enhance the lives of the middle class.

The people's budget provides for supporting the Affordable Care Act. It provides for giving fair working tax cuts for others, and it provides fairness and justice.

I rise to support the people's budget. It invests in the American people. I ask my colleagues to vote for the Congressional Progressive Caucus' budget.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the top ten reasons to support the Congressional Progressive Caucus' budget.

Top Ten Reasons To Support The People's Budget

(Supported by over 60 organizations including: AFT, NEA, Planned

Parenthood, Communications Workers of America, Sierra Club, AFSCME,

AFGE, Vote Vets, Social Security Works, NARAL)

(1) The People's Budget invests $2 trillion in America's

crumbling infrastructure while promoting job growth and

strengthening our commitment to sustainability. This is an

investment in America which will transform our fossil-fuel

energy system, overburdened mass transit, deteriorating

schools, lead-contaminated water systems, and crumbling roads

and bridges through local hiring and livable wages.

(2) The People's Budget enacts comprehensive immigration

reform which permanently protects Dreamers and their families

and opposes immigration bans on Muslims and refugees. Our

country needs an immigration system that honors our values of

inclusion, diversity, and equality. Our Budget prohibits

funding to Customs and Border Protection to implement

President Trump's discriminatory Muslim and refugee bans.

(3) Our budget takes bold action to fight climate change

and rebuild our local communities recently devastated by

hurricanes. The People's Budget requires polluters to pay for

their reckless behavior while eliminating tax breaks that

incentivize fossil fuel energy over cleaner energy. It

invests $200 billion to ensure families in Texas, Louisiana,

Puerto Rico, Florida and U.S. territories have the immediate

assistance they need to begin the stable road to recovery. It

also provides funding for climate change research, mitigation

and adaptation to protect those most at risk from future

environmental disasters.

(4) The CPC budget delivers on the promise of child care

for all and Pre-K for all. It ensures that families will not

have to pay more than 10 percent of their income for child

care, whether that care is at home or at a child care center.

Our budget also expands pre-k for children across the

country.

(5) We make debt free college a reality for all students by

overhauling the student loan system which currently leaves

college students saddled with unmanageable levels of debt.

The People's Budget creates a federal matching program that

supports state efforts to expand investments in higher

education, bring down costs for students, and increase aid to

students to help them cover the total cost of college

attendance without taking on debt.

(6) The People's Budget strengthens the Affordable Care

Act, while pushing towards a single payer system. It

prioritizes reforms to increase access, equity, and

affordability. Maintaining the positive reforms from the ACA

are critical as Republicans attempt to gut the health care

system and leave millions of Americans stranded without

access to critical insurance coverage. The People's Budget

protects Medicare's integrity and improves its long-term

solvency. It protects children and low-income Americans and

gives states the freedom to transition to a single payer

system. It also makes two significant policy changes to

reduce the costs of prescription drugs: allows Medicare Part

D to negotiate drug prices and ends ``Pay for Delay''

practice which keeps generics out of the market.

(7) The CPC Budget creates a fair tax system for working

Americans. In order to make these bold, necessary investments

in working families, we must rewrite the rules of a rigged

economy that favors billionaires and big corporations. The

People's Budget closes tax loopholes that corporations use to

ship jobs overseas, and stops CEOs from receiving millions in

tax-free bonuses. Our budget tackles inequality through fair

tax rates for all Americans, leveling the playing field for

working people.

(8) Our budget protects the right to vote and supports

criminal justice reforms which strengthen public safety and

avoid over-criminalization. Our budget calls for rebuilding

trust in the justice system by funding community oriented

policing reforms. It also strengthens Department of Justice

voter protection programs, protects voting rights by

increasing funding to voter protection agencies, and funds

public financing of campaigns to curb the influence of

special interests in politics. Additionally, the budget makes

key investments in America's electoral integrity by upgrading

our voting systems.

(9) The People's Budget creates pathways out of poverty by

expanding proven anti-poverty programs and initiatives and

restoring vital programs to our nation to provide prosperity

for all. These include a national strategy to reduce poverty

in half in ten years and $12.8 billion investment to end

family homelessness. The People's Budget restores cuts made

to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and

permanently adopts the enhanced levels established in the

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It also provides an

additional $10 billion for child nutrition programs and

allows those who have lost a job through no fault of their

own to claim up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits for up

to two years.

(10) We make veterans a priority by increasing funding for

veterans supportive housing to eliminate veterans

homelessness and expanding access to mental health care for

all veteran and service members. Our budget also invests in

job training opportunities for transitioning service members

and veterans.

Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Budget Committee, I find the CBC budget to be a principled and thoughtful budget.

It ends the threat of sequestration, it will accelerate our economic recovery, it will help eradicate poverty in America, and it will reduce the deficit by approximately $2.72 trillion over 10 years.

On the other hand, the tax cut that our Republican friends are proposing will cause a deficit by giving a whopping $2.4-plus trillion in tax cuts, most to the top 1 percent of the American people.

It will not help the young child as he grows to seek opportunities and jobs. This will be a bill that is at a price that is not right. If you work hard, you get less.

Our budget, on the other hand, gives $665 billion in immediate investments to rebuild our Nation's crumbling infrastructure. It is crumbling even more so after the devastating hurricanes. It gives $120 billion to fund a national direct job creation program and full employment trust fund program.

It provides $80 billion to fund the modernization of schools, $45 billion to fund an energy infrastructure modernization program, $20 billion to expand access to broadband services, $25 billion for recapitalization, $15 billion for improving and rebuilding VA hospitals, $25 billion for HUD's Choice Neighborhoods program, and $5 billion for summer jobs for young people.

I can attest to the fact that, in discussions with the Federal Communications Commission, the connectivity in vulnerable neighborhoods and communities is at an all-time low. Expanding broadband services is a vital need.

It is a vital need to expand the educational services for this young man in order for him to be capable of taking a job in the 21st century. There are hundreds of thousands of jobs that go unapplied for because the skill set of our young people have been deprived because of inadequate education.

This budget of the Congressional Black Caucus is a people investor. It invests in people. For that reason, I believe it is the right way to go. It balances our needs for the military and it provides for the American people.

It, in fact, provides that roadmap to ensure that the American people are taken care.

I want to make mention that it provides for $300 billion for programs that are proven instrumental in lifting millions of Americans out of poverty.

Shouldn't this be what we are doing?

Right now, in my district, thousands are online for the disaster Food Stamp program. That program needs to be extended.

This is what we do. We do not make people dependent. We give them a hand up, not a handout. That is what the budget is supposed to be: a roadmap for opportunity.

I support the Congressional Black Caucus budget, for that is what it is: a roadmap for opportunity.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute (ANS) offered by the Congressional Black Caucus to H. Con. Res. 71, the House Republicans' ``Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2018.''

I support the CBC Budget for four principal reasons:

1. It ends the threat of sequestration;

2. It will accelerate our economic recovery;

3. It will help eradicate poverty in America; and

4. It will reduce the deficit by approximately $2.72 trillion over 10 years.

Mr. Chair, if we reject the House Republicans' ``Price Is Not Right'' and ``Work Harder to Get Less'' Budget with its discredited economic gimmicks and unrealistic projections and adopt the CBC Budget, we will get instead a comprehensive jobs program that would rebuild our nation's infrastructure and reinvest in our communities totaling $1 trillion over the next decade.

The jobs created will accelerate our economic recovery and ensure that it reaches every community in America, while also making the necessary investments to ensure America's long-term economic competitiveness.

Specifically, the CBC Budget will create jobs by providing:

1. $665 billion in immediate investment to rebuild our nation's crumbling infrastructure;

2. $120 billion to fund a National Direct Job Creation Program and Full Employment Trust Fund Program;

3. $8o billion to fund the modernization of schools;

4. $45 billion to fund an energy infrastructure modernization program;

5. $20 billion to expand access to broadband services;

6. $25 billion for public housing recapitalization;

7. $15 billion for improving and rebuilding V.A. hospitals and extended care facilities;

8. $25 billion for HUD's Choice Neighborhoods Program and for communities that desperately need revitalization; and

9. $5 billion for summer jobs so young persons can save money to attend college and plan for their futures.

Mr. Chair, when it comes to addressing the poverty that is still too prevalent in our country, the CBC Budget is clearly superior to the Republican's ``Work Harder, Get Less'' Budget.

The CBC Budget provides for $300 billion for programs that have proven instrumental in lifting millions of Americans out of poverty.

The funding provided will be used to restore cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, extend emergency unemployment insurance, expand access to affordable housing, increase access to quality and affordable education, and increase funding for job training and trade adjustment assistance programs.

Additionally, Mr. Chair, to ensure that federal resources are targeted more efficiently towards eradicating poverty and are actually reaching communities most in need, the CBC budget proposes the codification of the ``10-20-30'' policy for federal spending.

Under the ``10-20-30'' policy at least 10 percent of the federal funds in certain accounts are to be directed to areas that have had a poverty rate of 20 percent for the last 30 years.

Finally, I support the CBC Budget because it puts an end to the draconian sequester burdening the economy and our people for the last several years.

In addition, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, it will reduce the deficit by approximately $2.72 trillion over 10 years.

Mr. Chair, it is said often, but is no less true, that the federal budget is more than a financial document; it is an expression of the nation's most cherished values.

As the late and great former senator and Vice-President Hubert Humphrey said:

``The moral test of government is how that government

treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those

who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who

are in shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the

handicapped.''

The Republican budget resolution fails this moral test; the CBC Budget does not.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting the House Republicans' budget and voting for a better alternative, the CBC Budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, before I start, I would like to congratulate the gentlewoman from Florida for her consistent work on this legislation. For those of us who have served, we certainly are well aware of the work that has been done, and I have been very privileged on the Judiciary Committee to join with her work, and I just want to congratulate her on that.

As we begin, let me also take just a moment to acknowledge, again, the massacre that occurred on Sunday night in Las Vegas, Nevada. As I was pondering the actions of this body last evening with a moment of silence, I wondered whether that--although it is of much reverence-- whether that, in fact, will heal the wounds of those who lost their loved ones or those who are still mending--the 500-plus who were in the hospital and have been in the hospital.

So before I speak to S. 782, I want to make it clear that I think it is crucial that the letter that both Mr. Conyers and I signed regarding asserting jurisdiction on the silencer bill is crucial. And as well it is crucial that this body does more than this, in essence, a moment of silence to heal the wounds of those who are now speechless about the loss of their loved ones. And as well it might be time to take a knee or to kneel, but it is time to pass legislation.

I would hope that we would pass legislation that has been offered, the King-Thompson bill, and a number of other legislative initiatives that many of us have.

With that, I rise in support of S. 782, the Providing Resources, Officers, and Technology to Eradicate Cyber Threats to Our Children Act of 2017.

This legislation will reauthorize the National Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Program by amending the language in section 105(h) of the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008, introduced by then- Senator Joe Biden.

This bill authorizes appropriations for this program in the amount of $60 million for each fiscal year from 2018 through 2022. These figures are consistent with current appropriated levels.

We have a special responsibility to protect our young people. For that reason, I support S. 782, a bill that will provide adequate resources to help eradicate the cyber threats that continue to threaten the lives of our children.

I support this important bipartisan measure for several reasons. First, it will facilitate more comprehensive investigation into violent acts perpetrated against innocent children.

The task force program creates a coordinated group of investigative task forces representing 3,500 Federal, State, and local law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies.

Second, this bill will provide support to officers that will allow them to better identify these threats, conduct investigation and training, and enforce the laws.

The task force is particularly important because it becomes a specialty entity that deals with saving our children.

The task forces aid local and State law enforcement in creating and implementing effective responses to technologically facilitated child sexual exploitation and internet crimes against children.

As the internet becomes more sophisticated and there are those who would want to be bad actors and utilize this very important national/ international asset, this task force is crucial. They provide law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies with guidance on victim support, forensic investigations, training and technical assistance, prevention, and community education--all crucial elements to a holistic approach to stopping the attack on our children, stopping the sexual exploitation on our children, and stopping the internet crimes against our children.

In the Judiciary Committee today, we were dealing with another aspect of this issue, which is sex trafficking and human trafficking.

This is an important component, again, to giving our children back their innocence and letting them be strong in the knowledge of the love and affection the Nation has for them and protecting them as they grow and thrive.

Finally, this bill will provide the technological resources to detect online threats in real time and provide a platform on which law enforcement can operate in order to bring these perpetrators to justice.

Just this morning, the Judiciary Committee, as I indicated, held a hearing regarding online sex trafficking. We are all in agreement that we must eradicate this threat to our young people and that we must take action against other victimization of children that can occur online. This legislation is, in fact, a key element of that. Although we still have work to do to address these problems, this bill is a good start.

For the foregoing reasons, I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 782, the ``Providing Resources, Officers, and Technology to Eradicate Cyber Threats to Our Children Act of 2017.''

This legislation will reauthorize the National Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Program by amending the language in section 105(h) of the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008, introduced by then- Senator Joe Biden.

This bill authorizes appropriations for this program in the amount of $60,000,000 for each fiscal year from 2018 through 2022. These figures are consistent with current appropriated levels.

We have a special responsibility to protect our young people.

For that reason, I support S. 782, a bill that would provide adequate resources to help eradicate the cyber threats that continue to threaten the lives of our children.

I support this important bipartisan measure for several reasons.

First, it will facilitate more comprehensive investigation into violent acts perpetrated against innocent children.

The Task Force Program creates a coordinated group of investigative task forces representing 3,500 federal, state and local law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies.

Second, this bill will provide support to officers that will allow them to better identify these threats, conduct investigation and training, and enforce the laws.

The Task Forces aid local and state law enforcement in creating and implementing effective responses to technologically facilitated child sexual exploitation and internet crimes against children.

They provide law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies with guidance on victim support, forensic investigations, training and technical assistance, prevention and community education.

And finally, this bill will provide the technological resources needed to detect online threats in real-time and provide a platform on which law enforcement can operate in order to bring these perpetrators to justice.

Just this morning, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing regarding Online Sex Trafficking. We were all in agreement that we must eradicate this threat to our young people, as we must take action against other victimization of children that can occur online.

Although we still have work to do to address these problems, this bill is a good start, and for the foregoing reasons, I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the full committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), who has been a key supporter and advocate for this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the full committee and Ms. Wasserman Schultz for very instructive and important statements, particularly the plea that Ms. Wasserman Schultz made that we must reauthorize and, more importantly, fund these task forces, because they do, in fact, save lives.

Let me acknowledge the chairman of this committee for the collaboration on this bill, and let me again emphasize that we must make sure that it is authorized at the amount of money needed.

If there is ever an unfortunate and tragic example, it is that of the story of Alicia. She represents the Johnnys and Marys and Tommys and Shirleys and Quamis and Lateshas and others across the Nation who fall victim to this kind of cruel and almost inhuman attack on our children, innocent as they are, smart as they are, using the internet as they do online for any number of reasons, but then wooed by a dastardly person who wants to do them harm.

The task forces that are now based upon knowledge, expertise, commitment, passion, and with number of staffing that they need, can really be for not only prevention, but the intervention to stop our children from falling victim.

So I ask my colleagues to support S. 782, the Providing Resources, Officers, and Technology to Eradicate Cyber Threats to Our Children Act of 2017--or the PROTECT Our Children Act--as quickly as possible so that it can move to the President's desk and, as well, that we continue the pathway not only of intervention and prevention, but completely ceasing the online violence against our children because we have been able to ensure that these individuals, in large numbers, are brought to justice. By that very point, they cease to survive and thrive on the internet.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for support of S. 782, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Conyers and I can remember the same type of hearings and the same type of legislation many years ago, again denying women their constitutional rights. I can see as clear as I can see you, Madam Speaker, the women who were sitting and begging us not to undermine them, their doctor, and their faith.

So I rise today to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: You have got it wrong. There are no mass abortions. There is no call for mass abortions. The women that are undergoing these procedures are women who have prayed and who have looked to their faith, their doctor, and their family.

So I oppose this bill because it puts the lives of women at risk, it interferes with women's constitutionally guaranteed right of privacy, and it diverts attention from the real problem facing American women. Let us reauthorize SCHIP. People are crying about that in my district. How outrageous.

One of the most detestable aspects of this bill is that it would curb access to care for women in the most desperate of circumstances. It is these women who receive the 1.5 percent of abortions that occur after 20 weeks.

What number did I say? 10? 20? 1.5, and this is not diminishing the aspects of this.

But it is those women who have prayed. They have sought doctors' help, and they, as well, have sought their family's consultation.

We are making a mockery of these women. These women are not standing on the street corner saying, ``I want to have an abortion.'' They have a serious situation, like April Salazar.

At 18 weeks, she and her husband found out that their baby had a lethal diagnosis, and if she carried the pregnancy to term and he was born alive, he would die shortly from suffocation. It is not pain of getting him out--he would die. April hoped the news wasn't true, so she requested more tests to confirm the diagnosis. At 21 weeks she had an abortion. This bill would have stopped April.

This would have stopped April, her husband, her family, her God, and her doctor from making the decision.

Even the exceptions are bogus because you frighten these women. The idea of Jeni, in my home State, where they had a 2-day waiting period listening to a mandatory script about abortion and a sign-off from two separate doctors. Once you start this, you are taking it away from women who have sought their faith leader, their doctor, and their family.

This is a bad bill. We need to do some important things. I would hope with the carnage of Las Vegas, to save lives, we would ban assault weapons and we would not have that gentleman having 42 guns in his home and in his possession. That is what we need to fight to save lives, not this bill that undermines the rights of women and their faith and their doctor.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 36, the ``Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act'' and the underlying bill.

I opposed this irresponsible and reckless legislation the last time it was brought to the floor.

I oppose this bill because it is unnecessary, puts the lives of women at risk, interferes with women's constitutionally guaranteed right of privacy, and diverts our attention from the real problems facing the American people.

A more accurate short title for this bill would be the ``Violating the Rights of Women Act of 2017.''

Instead of resuming their annual War on Women, our colleagues across the aisle should be working with Democrats to help rebuild the ravaged communities hit by hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria.

Madam Speaker, we could and should instead be voting reauthorize the important SCHIP program that has helped families get on their feet for years.

Instead of voting to abridge the constitutional rights of women for the umpteenth time, we should bring to the floor for a first vote comprehensive immigration reform legislation or legislations repairing the harm to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder.

The one thing we should not be doing is debating irresponsible ``messaging bills'' that abridge the rights of women and poses a nationwide threat to the health and wellbeing of American women and a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade.

Madam Speaker, one of the most detestable aspects of this bill is that it would curb access to care for women in the most desperate of circumstances.

It is these women who receive the 1.5 percent of abortions that occur after 20 weeks.

Women like Jeni from Texas, who, at 21 weeks, was told that her fetus had multiple severe defects.

Jeni could end the pregnancy or wait for the fetus to miscarry or die.

There was no way that the pregnancy would end in a live, healthy baby.

Jeni and her husband chose to terminate the pregnancy, but because they live in Texas, they were forced to endure several cruel restrictions: a two-day waiting period, listening to a mandatory script about abortion, and a sign-off from two separate doctors.

Madam Speaker, every pregnancy is different.

No politician knows, or has the right to assume he knows, what is best for a woman and her family.

These are decisions that properly must be left to women to make, in consultation with their partners, doctors, and their God.

Madam Speaker, I also strongly oppose H.R. 36 because it lacks the necessary exceptions to protect the health and life of the mother.

In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that a state could not prohibit a woman from exercising her right to terminate a pregnancy in order to protect her health prior to viability.

While many factors go into determining fetal viability, the consensus of the medical community is that viability is acknowledged as not occurring prior to 24 weeks gestation.

By prohibiting nearly all abortions beginning at ``the probable post- fertilization age'' of 20 weeks, H.R. 36 violates this clear and long standing constitutional rule.

Madam Speaker, the constitutionally protected right to privacy encompasses the right of women to choose to terminate a pregnancy before viability, and even later where continuing to term poses a threat to her health and safety.

This right of privacy was hard won and must be preserved inviolate.

I strongly oppose H.R. 36 and urge all Members to join me in voting against this unwise measure that put the lives and health of women at risk.

I would like to include in the Record stories from two women:

April Salazar, New York: ``It would have been too hard for

me to carry to term, and it

seemed pointless to make the baby suffer too when she would

never survive.''

At 18 weeks, April and her husband found out that their

baby had lethal skeletal dysplasia. He would never be able to

breathe on his own. If she carried the pregnancy to term and

he was born alive, he would die shortly after of suffocation.

April hoped the news wasn't true, so she requested more tests

to confirm the diagnosis, which took two weeks. At 21 weeks,

she had an abortion. April shares her story because she has

found that it can change opinions. Several people she knows

personally who previously had been anti-abortion told her

that they would have done the same thing she did.

Julie Bindeman, Maryland: ``Everything about a later

termination is already so incredibly difficult even just

picking up the phone to make the appointment. The 20-week ban

adds another hurdle. It's just cruel.''

Julie's doctor told her and her husband that their son's

brain had a serious abnormality, a diagnosis that they

confirmed with tests, more ultrasounds, and an MRI. If the

baby survived birth, he would never speak, walk, or have

conscious thoughts based upon what had developed in his

brain. Julie and her husband decided to end the pregnancy,

and the soonest they could get the appointment was at 22

weeks. Julie could not find a surgeon in Maryland at that

time willing to perform the procedure, so she had to be

induced for labor and delivery. Her baby was born alive and

died very shortly after.

Mr. Speaker, in 1997, with a very, very bipartisan budget reconciliation deal, we passed a magnificent statement about this Nation's commitment to children, and that was the Children's Health Insurance Program that all of us were so very proud of. It started in 1997 as the first real health reform since Medicare and Medicaid, and millions of children were able to get healthcare. Maybe at that time their parents could not, but they could be covered: children with sickle cell, children with heart defects, children with various hereditary or genetic diseases who were impacted, children with cancer, leukemia, all of these children, or children injured on a playing field, children could be covered.

It is time to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program. In fact, I call upon the leadership to be able to establish martial law so that we can pass the reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program coming this week before we go home.

The Democrats have been pushing. The leadership of the Democrats have been pushing. They have been asking for the passage of the Children's Health Insurance Program.

I can tell you that those, Mr. Speaker, impacted by the hurricanes, they need that healthcare. I ask for its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my condolences to the victims of the Las Vegas country music show mass shooting massacre.

I offer my deepest condolences to those personally affected by this cowardly act, and call for the restoration of federal law banning the sale and purchase of assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices.

On October 1, 2017 the deadliest mass shooting in the history of the United States occurred in Las Vegas, Nevada when, in a heinous act of terror and hatred, 58 persons were killed and 515 others were injured in a shooting at an outdoor concert near the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino in Las Vegas.

Until yesterday, June 13, 2016 marked the deadliest mass shooting in the history of the United States in Orlando, Florida, when, in another heinous act of terror and hatred, 49 persons were killed at Pulse, a popular nightclub, meeting place, and sanctuary for Central Florida's vibrant and dynamic LGBTQ community; sadly, the Las Vegas mass shooting surpassed that dreadful shooting in numbers of dead and injured.

The horrifying events in Las Vegas on Sunday night mark the 273rd mass shooting in the U.S. in the 275 days that have passed so far in 2017, according to Gun Violence Archive.

Mass shootings are a near daily occurrence in America, but what happened in Las Vegas stands out: It was the deadliest such incident in U.S. history, with more than 58 killed and 515 injured.

Including that massacre, the four deadliest U.S. mass shootings have occurred over the past 10 years.

A mass shooting is defined by Gun Violence Archive as any incident in which four or more are shot and/or killed in a single event, at the same general time and location not including the shooter.

Recent U.S. mass shootings include:

1. Las Vegas, 2017: 50+ killed

2. Orlando, 2016: 50 killed

3. Virginia Tech, 2007: 32 killed

4. Sandy Hook, 2012: 27 killed

5. San Ysirdo, 1984: 21 killed

6. San Bernadino, 2015: 14 killed

7. Edmond, 1986: 14 killed

8. Fort Hood, 2009: 13 killed

9. Columbine, 1999: 13 killed

There have been more than 11,600 deaths linked to gun violence so far in 2017, which is roughly equivalent to nearly four 9/11 attacks in terms of the total number killed on September 11, 2001.

Comparatively, more than 15 thousand were killed by gun violence in 2016, and there were 383 mass shootings.

It is horrifying to admit that gun violence now seems to be a staple of American life.

The United States ranks No. 1 in the world in terms of firearms per capita--with 88.8 guns per 100 people--and it has the highest homicide- by-firearm rate in the developed world.

The problem is so endemic that gun violence is now the third leading cause of death for children in the U.S.

An average of 1,297 children die annually from gun-related injuries.

Guns are linked to roughly 33 thousand deaths in the U.S. per year; about two-thirds of them are suicides.

According to Pew Research Center, a majority of Americans (across partisan lines) support gun policy proposals such as barring people with mental illnesses from buying guns; prohibiting gun purchases by people on federal no-fly or watch lists; and background checks for private gun sales and sales at gun shows.

The majority must cut its close ties to the powerful gun lobby to facilitate useful gun control legislation necessary immediately.

America has six times as many firearm homicides as Canada, and nearly 16 times as many as Germany.

United Nations data shows that America far and away leads other developed countries when it comes to gun-related homicides.

America has 4.4 percent of the world's population, but almost half of the civilian-owned guns around the world.

In December 2012, a gunman walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and killed 20 children, six adults, and himself.

Since then, there have been at least 1,518 mass shootings, with at least 1,715 people killed and 6,089 wounded.

The fairly broad definition of ``mass shooting'' includes not only shootings in which four or more people were murdered, but shootings in which four or more people were shot at all (excluding the shooter).

Even under this broad definition, mass shootings make up a tiny portion of America's firearm deaths, which totaled more than 33,000 in 2014.

On average, there is more than one mass shooting for each day in America.

Whenever a mass shooting occurs, supporters of gun rights often argue that it is inappropriate to bring up political debates about gun control in the aftermath of a tragedy.

For example, former Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, a strong supporter of gun rights, criticized former President Barack Obama for ``trying to score cheap political points'' when Obama mentioned gun control after a mass shooting in Charleston, South Carolina.

But if this argument is followed to its logical end, then it will never be the right time to discuss mass shootings.

Under the broader definition of mass shootings, America has nearly one mass shooting a day.

So if Congress is forced to wait for a time when there is not a mass shooting to talk gun control, Congress could find itself waiting for a very long time.

States with more guns have more gun deaths.

Within the United States, a wide array of empirical evidence indicates that more guns in a community leads to more homicide.

Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness does not correlate with more gun deaths.

States with tighter gun control laws have fewer gun-related deaths.

A 2016 review of 130 studies in 10 countries, published in Epidemiologic Reviews, found that new legal restrictions on owning and purchasing guns tended to be followed by a drop in gun violence--a strong indicator that restricting access to guns can save lives.

The good news is that all firearm homicides, like all homicides and crime, have declined over the past two decades--although that may have changed in 2015 and 2016, with a recent rise in murders nationwide.

There is still active debate among criminal justice experts about why this crime drop is occurring--but one theory that researchers have widely debunked is the idea that more guns have deterred crime--in fact, the opposite may be true, based on research compiled by the Harvard School of Public Health's Injury Control Center.

Although America's political debate about guns tends to focus on grisly mass shootings and murders, a majority of gun-related deaths in the U.S. are suicides.

Research that shows greater access to guns dramatically increases the risk of suicide.

The states with the most guns report the most suicides.

Perhaps the reason access to guns so strongly contributes to suicides is that guns are much deadlier than alternatives like cutting and poison.

Reducing access to guns can be so important to preventing suicides: stalling an attempt or making it less likely to result in death makes a huge difference--it opens the opportunity for someone to help or for the suicidal person to reach out to someone to help.

That is why limiting access to lethal means is so powerful.

Since police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, on August 9, 2014, police have killed at least 2,902 people as of May 2017.

Given that states with more guns tend to have more homicides, it is not too surprising that, as a study in the American Journal of Public Health found, states with more guns also have more cops die in the line of duty.

Researchers looked at federal data for firearm ownership and homicides of police officers across the U.S. over 15 years.

They found that states with more gun ownership had more cops killed in homicides: Every 10 percent increase in firearm ownership correlated with 10 additional officers killed in homicides over the 15-year study period.

The findings could help explain why U.S. police officers appear to kill more people than cops in other developed countries.

For police officers, the higher rates of guns and gun violence in America means they not only will encounter more guns and violence, but they can expect to encounter more guns and deadly violence, making them more likely to anticipate and perceive a threat and use deadly force as a result.

Over the past 20 years, Americans have clearly shifted from supporting gun control measures to greater support of ``protecting the right of Americans to own guns.''

This shift has happened even as major mass shootings, such as the attacks on Columbine High School and Sandy Hook Elementary School, have received more press attention.

Although mass shootings are often viewed as some of the worst acts of gun violence, they seem to have little effect on public opinion about gun rights.

That helps explain why Americans' support for the right to own guns appears to be rising

over the past 20 years even as more of these mass shootings make it to the news.

Although Americans say they want to protect the right to bear arms, they are very much supportive of many gun policy proposals--including some fairly contentious ideas, such as more background checks on private and gun show sales and banning semi-automatic and assault-style weapons.

This type of contradiction is not exclusive to gun policy issues.

For example, although most Americans in the past said they do not support Obamacare, but most of them also said they like the specific policies in the health-care law.

On average, 7 children and adolescents lose their lives to gun violence each day, 75 percent of which are under the age of 12 years old.

So many people die annually from gun violence in the United States that the death toll between 1968 and 2011 eclipses the total lives lost in all the armed conflicts in the history of the United States.

On June 7, 2015, a gunman shot and killed nine people at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church Charleston, South Carolina, one of the oldest and largest black congregations in the South.

On November 11, 2009, at Fort Hood, near Killeen, Texas, a gunman shot and killed 13 people, and wounded 30 others.

On August 5, 2012 in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, a gunman shot and killed six people, and injured three others, at the Sikh Temple of Oak Creek.

On July 7, 2015 in Chattanooga, Tennessee a gunman shot and killed five people, including two U.S. Marines and a Naval Officer, and shot and injured two others at a recruiting center and U.S. Naval Reserve Center.

On December 2, 2015 in San Bernardino, California, two gunmen killed 14 people and injured 21 others at the Inland Regional Center.

On December 14, 2012, a gunman murdered 26 persons, including 20 children and 6 school administrators and teachers, at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut.

On August 8, 2015, a gunman brutally murdered his ex-girlfriend and her six children and husband in one of the most notorious cases of domestic violence in the history of Houston, Texas.

On April 16, 2007, a gunman killed 32 persons and injured 17 others at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia.

Mass shootings occur more frequently in states that do not require background checks for all gun sales.

Analyses of mass shootings in the United States between 2009 and 2015 document that the majority of mass shootings occur in venues where the carrying of firearm is not restricted.

In states that require background checks for all handgun sales, including guns offered in unlicensed sales online and at gun shows, there are 52 percent fewer mass shootings.

Congress must take action to prevent other incidents such as the recent act of terror and hatred in Las Vegas, Nevada that resulted in the tragic loss of 58 innocent lives.

We extend our deepest sympathies to all those affected by this tragedy and recognize the skill and heroism of the law enforcement officers and first responders who came to the aid of others.

We commend the efforts of those who are working to care for the injured and investigate this horrific incident.

We extend our heartfelt condolences and prayers to the families of the fallen, and to all those affected in the community of Las Vegas and in the United States.

And I pledge to continue to work to reduce gun violence and prevent mass shooting.

Mr. Speaker, with the humblest of hearts, I cannot imagine the fear and the horror of those who heard those violent sounds late last night in Las Vegas, nor the horror of family members who had to wonder where their loved ones were or are now calling numbers to discern what happened.

One of my closest relatives was in Las Vegas, and I can only imagine what they went through, as I had the great fear myself, not knowing where and what.

I think the American people expect us to mourn and to honor them and to have a moment of silence, but I believe that the American people demand, and should, and those families who are now mourning, that we should be sensible.

Mr. Speaker, we should not ever put on the floor of the House the deregulation of silencers. Can you imagine how many more would have died if the perpetrator who had ten guns had a silencer?

We have to confront domestic terrorism. We can't run away from it. We have to confront automatic weapons no matter what, where, and how.

My prayers are with the families, but I think they demand, Mr. Speaker, action from this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus in drawing attention to this year's catastrophic hurricane season that has severely impacted the Texas, Florida, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico this Hurricane Season.

The biggest challenge for residents of the 18th Congressional District is accessing the assistance that is available to them.

From getting rooms in hotels for those displaced by flood waters to finding Disaster Assistance Centers that are accessible--when so many cars were damaged by Hurricane Harvey flood waters.

This past Saturday, I joined with representatives from FEMA to provide critical information to Houstonians attempting to recover from the catastrophe of Hurricane Harvey.

Many of them are still waiting for home inspections and need answers regarding the appeals process and how best to utilize Home Inspection Teams.

I am calling on FEMA to create a new app to provide homeowners with instant status updates on the inspection process,'' said Congresswoman Jackson Lee. ``This app should speed up the process of scheduling FEMA inspectors for a home visit if your home has not been inspected in more than 10 days.

This will help the many who are struggling to get their lives back in order.

This week, FEMA announced the creation of a new housing program under the Direct Housing Assistance Program, which allows FEMA disaster relief funding to go to individual homeowners or to local governments to provide housing. To be considered for this program, people must first register with FEMA at www.DisasterAssistance.gov.

Local government immediate disaster assistance housing options are as follows:

1. Multi-Family Lease and Repair:

Direct assistance to repair or improve existing multifamily housing such as apartments in order to provide more housing for survivors.

Properties must be three or more units, with each unit providing complete living facilities for cooking, eating, and sanitation. Hotels, motels, and extended stay hotels are not eligible at this time.

2. Direct Leasing:

Direct Leasing: Enables local governments to lease a property that typically would not be available to the public, such as corporate lodging.

Local government enters into the lease agreement on behalf of individuals or households. Various types of housing properties may be eligible.

Manufactured Housing Options (Mobile Homes and Recreational Vehicles):

Direct housing places manufactured housing units on private land or commercial pads.

Local permitting may apply.

There are conditions to receiving housing assistance, but no assistance will be available if an application to FEMA is not made.

It is problematic for constituents from the 18th Congressional District, when I know that 81,950 FEMA applicants have been rejected.

I know that tens of thousands are still displaced with over a 1 million cars having been destroyed by flood water it is difficult to get to the Disaster Recovery Centers.

I continue to work to get more Disaster Recovery Centers opened before the October 24, 2017 deadline to make sure that FEMA resources are as accessible as possible.

We know that site for housing must be suitable.

There will be Hauling and installation included only for those people who have applied for FEMA assistance and have be approved to receive assistance.

An inspection of the site to determine suitability will be scheduled.

Partial Repair and Essential Power for Sheltering (PREPS):

PREPS provides minor repairs to homes in locations with limited housing options.

For eligible properties that have incurred limited damage displacing individuals from their homes.

PREPS provides basic, emergency home repairs--not to include finish work.

3. Direct Assistance for Limited Home Repair:

Program provides partial repairs to homes with significant damages.

Program can include partial repairs to a damaged home where alternative housing is not available or is not cost-effective.

FEMA will determine eligibility for permanent housing construction on a case-by-case basis.

All other forms of housing assistance must be exhausted before the program can be considered.

Some Hurricane Harvey survivors are getting an extension to stay temporarily in hotels while they look for an alternative place to live. October 14 is the new checkout date for the Transitional Sheltering Assistance (TSA) program, which pays for short-term hotel stays.

All applicants for FEMA recovery assistance have the right to appeal if they are dissatisfied with FEMA's determination letter. All appeals must be in writing and explain the reasons why FEMA's decision may not be correct. The appeal should include any documentation that FEMA requests or that supports your claim. Appeals can be submitted via computer by opening a Disaster Assistance Center (DAC) account at www.disasterassistance.gov. In addition to all of the needs of family are the needs of small businesses who are going to be instrumental in rebuilding our communities.

I will soon introduce a bill to provide grants of up to $100 thousand to qualified small business owners to help them with Hurricane Recovery.

I thank my Colleagues of the Congressional Black Caucus for joining in this Special Order and I look forward to our efforts to meet the needs of people who are impacted by this hurricane Season.

I would also like to include in the Record an article from Vox regarding climate change:

[From vox.com, Sept. 28, 2017]

One of the Clearest Signs of Climate Change in Hurricanes Maria, Irma,

and Harvey Was the Rain

Warmer temperatures are increasing the energy and moisture

available to hurricanes.

The intensity of Hurricane Maria, which made landfall on

Puerto Rico as a Category 4 storm on September 20, was part

of why it was so devastating to the island and its weak

infrastructure, leaving Puerto Ricans in a humanitarian

crisis.

But this year's intense Atlantic storm season had another

element tying its biggest events together: a monstrous, and

sometimes deadly, amount of rain.

Images of the flooded metropolises of Houston,

Jacksonville, and San Juan with overtopped dams, billowing

sewage, and flooded homes show that torrential rain can be

one of the most devastating consequences of hurricanes,

especially in urban areas where concrete makes it harder for

water to drain and where people can drown.

Scientists say the extreme rainfall events that feed these

floods are on the rise for many parts of the world, and this

year's hurricanes fit that trend. In particular, rising

temperatures in the ocean and the air alongside booming

construction in vulnerable areas are fueling the increased

risk from massive deluges.

Of the seven hurricanes this year so far, Harvey, Irma, and

Maria stand out not just for the amount of rain they dropped,

but for how fast they dished it out.

Why hurricanes under warmer conditions can dump so much rain

Downpours go hand in hand with hurricanes, since the

cyclones are powered by evaporating and condensing moisture.

Warm ocean waters provide the fuel for hurricanes, and warm

air causes the water to evaporate. This moisture-laden air

then precipitates as rainfall during a hurricane, dissipating

the heat energy from the water.

``Tropical cyclones are very, very good at converging a

whole lot of heat in one place at one time,'' said Kossin.

Air can hold about 7 percent more water for every degree

Celsius increase in temperature, Kossin explained.

That means warmer air and warmer water could lead to

larger, more intense hurricanes, which in turn lead to more

rainfall. (The Saffir-Simpson scale only accounts for

windspeed, but precipitation is closely linked to a storm's

intensity.) Scientists are studying these links to understand

how future storms will respond to these conditions.

``Hurricanes live and die by the amount of rainfall they

make out of moisture,'' said George Huffman, a research

meteorologist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.

But where that water lands depends on the speed and the

course of the storm, and not all areas are equally

vulnerable.

``We know that in particular that [the regions around]

Houston, Louisiana, and Florida are prone to some of the most

extreme precipitation events in the United States,'' said

Sarah Kapnick, a researcher at NOAA's Geophysical Fluid

Dynamics Laboratory. ``We do see signs of precipitation

extremes increasing in these regions.''

It's challenging to make direct comparisons between extreme

rainfall events since their weather systems (e.g.,

hurricanes, thunderstorms) behave differently, so scientists

draw on several benchmarks depending on the situation.

These include the peak rate of rainfall, total volume of

rain, the three-day average rainfall, and the maximum depth

of rainfall. And all of these are separate from flooding,

which is governed by local geography and how people use land,

in addition to the rates and total amounts of rain.

``There is a difference between a 100-year rain event

versus a 100-year flood event,'' Kossin pointed out.

Harvey was able to dump an extraordinary quantity of rain because of

how it held still over Houston

Hurricane Harvey hovered over the Gulf Coast in late August

and dumped 33 trillion gallons of water on US soil, according

to some estimates, and is now the wettest storm in US

history.

``When a storm stalls, that has more to do with the larger

scale flow fields it's sitting in,'' said Kossin. ``That was

just very, very bad luck.''

The total volume of rain is easier to calculate when a

storm remains over a fixed area, but it much harder to suss

out when hurricanes remain mobile and dump water over a wide

swath of land and ocean.

NASA's satellite measurements reported rainfall rates from

Harvey as high as 5.8 inches per hour (meteorologists define

``heavy rain'' as greater than 0.3 inches per hour), while

the National Weather Service showed that a ground-based

rain gauge in Nederland, Texas, reported 60.58 inches of

rainfall, a new record.

Meteorologists still have to vet this number, but if

confirmed, it would best the previous record--52 inches in

Hawaii from Hurricane Hiki in 1950--by 8 inches.

The US Geological Survey reports that flooding causes an

average of $6 billion in damages and 140 fatalities each

year. And this year was not an average year, with Harvey

alone costing upward of $180 billion and killing more than

75.

The waters from flooding can linger for days, causing

injuries, spreading disease, and hampering relief efforts.

The majority of Harvey's victims drowned after the storm,

while others were delayed from life-saving care. In one case,

a woman died from a flesh-eating bacterial infection after

falling into the festering Harvey floodwater in her house.

Irma's peak rain was over Cuba

Hurricane Irma, meanwhile, set a record for its sustained

intensity.

``Irma was a complete standout: 185 mph and stayed there

for a day and half,'' Kossin said. ``These storms do not stay

there that long.''

This intensity was matched with a firehose of rain, dumping

water at 10.8 inches an hour, reaching depths of 20 inches in

Cuba and 15.8 inches in Florida.

The downpour led to flooding from 23 rivers and creeks in

Central and North Florida, forcing highways to close. The

state reported at least seven deaths from drowning.

In Cuba, Irma's storm surge overtopped the Havana seawall,

while unrelenting rain turned the capital's streets into

rivers, killing at least 10 people .

Maria took direct aim at Puerto Rico and then regained strength

With tropical force winds reaching 230 miles from its

center, Hurricane Maria completely engulfed Puerto Rico as it

bisected the 100-mile wide island, picking up steam again one

it was clear.

Satellite measurements already show that it poured as much

as 6.44 inches of rain per hour and has left Puerto Rico

shrouded in darkness.

The Cordillera Central mountain range that forms the spine

of the island of Puerto Rico acted as a juicer for Hurricane

Maria, Huffman explained.

Perhaps the worst blow from Maria was the 150 mph winds

that knocked down 80 percent of the island's power

transmission lines and 85 percent of its cellphone towers,

leaving people in the dark and struggling to contact each

other. But the flooding from rainfall has been a hazard too,

including threatening to breach Guajataca Dam in the Western

part of the island, forcing hundreds to evacuate.

At least 18 fatalities have been reported in Puerto Rico so

far, including two police officers who drowned.

The climate signal in deluges like these is emerging

No single weather event--even an extreme one--can be

``caused'' by climate change, as Vox's David Roberts has

explained in detail. And when talking about hurricanes,

researchers are quite hesitant to even estimate how much

climate change is to blame. Huffman said he's not yet sure if

this storm season is ``unprecedented'' in its ferocity.

However, rising average temperatures are definitely an

important element of huge storms like Harvey, Irma, and

Maria.

Warmer temperatures are driving sea level rise, which is

increasing risks from the storm surges that often herald

hurricanes.

Increasing heat is also warming up the ocean, and hotter

air holds onto more moisture, increasing the available energy

for hurricanes.

And independent of cyclones, extreme rainfall events are on

the rise.

Kapnick noted that even individual rain storms can be

overwhelming, like storm that drenched Baton Rouge last year

with 31.39 inches of rain and three times the volume of water

of Hurricane Katrina throughout Louisiana in 2005.

As the chart below shows, the amount of rain from a once-

in-every-30-years rainstorm like the one that immersed Baton

Rouge has gone up due to warming:

``In this region where we have known precipitation

extremes, we have been able to detect an increase in

precipitation extremes due to a warming climate,'' Kapnick

said.

And scientists are getting better at figuring out when the

torrential downpours are coming.

``If you pay attention, we've had a really remarkable

series of forecasts,'' said Huffman. ``For Irma, we knew four

to five days in advance that there would be a sharp right

turn. Twenty years ago, you wouldn't have dreamed of doing

that.''

``Everything we see is consistent with what we expect

climate change to do,'' Kossin said.

Instruments sometimes can't stand up to the extreme weather they're

trying to measure

Huffman explained that researchers aim to combine different

instruments to get a robust handle on rainfall.

``The gold standard is rain gauges because they physically

collect the rain,'' said Huffman.

The next option is ground-based radar, which covers a wider

swath of the weather than rain gauges, but less directly

measures rain.

But take a look at what happened to a weather radar station

in Puerto Rico:

This illustrates part of the challenge of attaching numbers

to extreme weather events. Many of the systems used to track

them are also vulnerable to them, leaving only indirect

figures and estimates.

What's more, both rain gauges and ground-based radar have

limited ranges, leaving vast stretches of ocean where

hurricanes spend most of their existence unmeasured. And when

a hurricane does make landfall, gales can knock them down.

``We don't really have anything on the surface [of the

ocean] to tell us the details,'' said Huffman. ``When the

chips are really down, sometimes satellites are the only

choice.''

That means the full accounting for the rainfall from

Harvey, Irma, and Maria could take months to deliver as

meteorologists piece together their models with the

measurements they have.

However, scientists are eagerly waiting for the dust to

settle so they can confirm their suspicions about the record-

breaking storms this year. The American Geophysical Union

added a last-minute session for researchers to present their

findings on Harvey and Irma at their December meeting.

``There's going to be a tremendous amount of research

coming out in the next few months,'' Kapnick said.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 3823, the Disaster Tax and Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2017.

Hurricane Harvey flooded the Houston region with 21 trillion gallons of water causing tragic and catastrophic results in my district.

Hurricane Harvey destroyed 185 thousand homes in the Houston region, displacing my constituents and harming their livelihoods.

Hurricane Harvey has created an incredible need for enhanced assistance in rebuilding efforts.

My principal focus is to do what is best for my constituents and that is why I support the underlying bill.

H.R. 3823 grants individuals and businesses in areas affected by hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria a tax relief in addition to extending the authorization for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) through March 31, 2018, without privatization of air-traffic control.

Although I support clean reauthorization of the FAA, which is long overdue as a result of the inability of those responsible to craft legislation that obtains bipartisan majority support, I do not support the attached partisan package of extraneous provisions added to the reauthorization.

I also do not support a reauthorization of the FAA that would privatize air-traffic control.

My Democratic colleagues had 21 tax relief provisions to add to the reauthorization.

H.R. 3823 only contains 7 of those provisions; however, they are very important hurricane relief provisions.

On health care, H.R. 3823 extends just three of the many programs set to expire at the end of the month, leaving out bipartisan priorities like CHIP and Community Health Centers extenders.

Additionally, the tax provisions concerning disaster victims were assembled without bipartisan input and leave out important items that were included for victims of prior disasters like Hurricane Katrina.

And finally, this bill blocks the path for any DREAMers legislation to be considered.

Going forward, I would like to see the items just mentioned to be added to the reauthorization bill.

H.R. 3823 would provide tax credits, deductions, and other relief to taxpayers in disaster areas affected by hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria.

Most measures would apply to taxpayers in parts of Florida, Puerto Rico, Texas, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, where the president declared a major disaster zone warranting federal assistance as of Sept. 21.

The budget effects of the tax provisions would be considered emergency spending for budgetary purposes and not count against the spending caps.

The provisions are similar to relief provided after hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.

The measure specifically helps hurricane victims keep more of their paycheck, deduct more of the cost of their expensive property damage, and have more affordable and immediate access to money they have saved for their retirement.

The legislation will also encourage even more Americans to donate generously to help those in need.

The bill would waive the 10 percent penalty on early distributions from retirement accounts for taxpayers in affected areas.

Individuals would be eligible to make the withdrawal if their primary residence was in one of the disaster areas as of the date of the storm and they sustained an economic loss.

The withdrawn amount would be included in the taxpayer's gross income, and would be spread over three years unless the taxpayer opted to claim it in a single year.

If the taxpayer repaid the distribution within three years, it would be considered a rollover for tax purposes and they could claim a refund for their previous income tax payments.

The withdrawal would have to occur by Jan. 1, 2019, and wouldn't be subject to withholding.

An individual could withdraw as much as $100,000 as hurricane distributions over their lifetime.

Plan sponsors would not be in violation of the Internal Revenue Service's retirement plan rules unless they distributed more than $100,000 to an individual.

Individuals could return withdrawals they had made for a home purchase in a disaster area between Feb. 28 and Sept. 21 if the home wasn't purchased or constructed because of the hurricanes.

The bill would increase the size of a loan an individual can take from their employer retirement fund. Loans could be for as much as $100,000--less other outstanding loans--or half the present value of the vested balance of the plan.

The bill would delay repayment deadlines for individuals with outstanding loans as of the date of the disaster.

The repayment date for loans due on or before Dec. 31, 2018, would be delayed for one year.

Individuals who took out loans after the hurricanes would not receive the extension.

The bill would create a credit for businesses that were rendered inoperable by the hurricanes but that retained their employees.

Employers could receive a credit for 40 percent of each employee's wages.

The credit amount couldn't exceed $6,000 per employee.

The employee's principal place of employment would have to be in one of the disaster zones.

Businesses would receive credits for wages on each day they were inoperable after the date of the hurricane and before Jan. 1, 2018.

The credit would be for wages paid each day until significant operations resumed, even if the employee returned to work or worked at a different location.

The limit on the deduction for contributions to charitable organizations would be suspended for donations made between Aug. 23 and Dec. 31 to relief efforts in the hurricane disaster areas.

Taxpayers wouldn't have to itemize their tax return to claim the deduction.

The deduction is normally limited to 50 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) for individuals and 10 percent of taxable income for corporations.

The bill would allow individuals to contribute as much as their AGI, less any other charitable contributions.

Amounts greater than AGI could be carried over to other tax years.

I would allow corporations to contribute as much as their taxable income, less any other charitable contributions.

Donations in excess of taxable income could be carried over.

The charitable organization would have to provide written confirmation that the funds would be used for relief efforts.

Partnerships and S corporations would each have to elect the deduction.

The bill would allow taxpayers to deduct uncompensated casualty losses related to the hurricane even if their losses didn't meet the minimum threshold for the deduction, currently 10 percent of AGI. The deduction would be net of any personal casualty gains.

Taxpayers wouldn't have to itemize their return to claim the deduction.

The taxpayer's standard deduction would be increased by the net disaster loss, including for purposes of calculating whether they are liable for the alternative minimum tax.

The bill would establish a special rule for determination of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit.

If a taxpayer had received one or both of the credits in the previous tax year but their earned income was too high to qualify in 2017, they could substitute their 2016 income to claim them.

Individuals would qualify if their principal residence was in the hurricane disaster zone, or in the surrounding disaster area and they had been displaced by the hurricane.

Puerto Rican taxpayers' eligibility for the child tax credit would be based on their Social Security earnings.

The child tax credit is only available to Puerto Rican families with three or more children.

The EITC is not typically available to residents of Puerto Rico, according to a report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

The bill would direct the Treasury Department to provide funding to the government of Puerto Rico for the estimated amount of tax relief for residents who would be eligible under the bill.

The Puerto Rican government would have to promptly distribute the funds.

Puerto Rico would have to have a plan for disbursing the funds approved by the Treasury before the money would be provided.

The Treasury Department would reimburse the U.S. Virgin Islands, which has a ``mirror'' tax system, for any reduction in tax revenue caused by the bill.

Residents of the U.S. Virgin Islands are also generally ineligible for the EITC but can claim the child tax credit, according to CRS.

For the reasons mentioned above I support H.R. 3823.