Steven Horsford

Mr. HORSFORD

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. HORSFORD

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain that on rollcall vote No. 463, held on July 29, 2014, I intended to vote ``no.'' I am opposed to the 21st Century Endangered Species Transparency Act, and I inadvertently recorded myself as an ``aye'' when the bill came to a vote.

Mr. HORSFORD

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 463 on H.R. 4315, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``yes'' when I should have voted ``no.''

Mr. HORSFORD

Mr. HORSFORD. Let me thank my good friend and the coanchor for this hour, the gentleman from the Empire State, Mr. Jeffries. Every time we have the opportunity to come to this floor, it is a humbling experience. And to all of my colleagues, led by our chair, the Honorable Representative from the State of Ohio, the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Marcia Fudge, thank you for your leadership and for demanding that we have an opportunity to be heard in this very important Special Order hour. I want to thank all of my colleagues who have come here tonight. Tonight, at some level, my heart is heavy because, as many of my colleagues have expressed tonight, we came to Congress to get things done on behalf of the American people and the constituents that we serve. We understand, as Congressman Jeffries just indicated, that this is a divided government. As the minority, we have to work within this honorable institution to try to advance the issues that we feel are important, but what we do not believe is that the majority should be able to unilaterally obstruct a governmental process that is the foundation of our democracy as a nation. So tonight, this is a very important discussion because later this week, if the Speaker and the majority House Republicans have their way, they will do for the first time in history something that has never been done, which is to sue the American President because they don't agree with him. This lawsuit, the Speaker Boehner-House Republican lawsuit against the President, has been characterized by many. USA Today's editorial board said ``it was a political sideshow.'' At a time when the American people are urging us to act on a number of important and serious and time-pressing matters, you, Mr. Speaker, and House Republicans are sacrificing precious taxpayer resources and time when we could be tackling a number of important issues that the American public want us to tackle. Now, I just held a telephone town hall last week in my district. I had over 4,000 people on this telephone town hall. My district covers 52,000 square miles. It is a diverse district. Not everybody agrees with the President or his positions. But not one person on that call asked me to support you, Mr. Speaker, or the House Republicans in suing the President. In fact, many of them said, how is it that you have the authority to unilaterally act to obstruct this process and to deny the important issues that so many of us would like to have come before this body for an up or down vote? We understand that we are in the minority and we may not win, but in this democracy, the minority deserves to be heard. Now, unfortunately, this body is about to take a 5-week recess. My constituents don't really understand how, after we have really accomplished very little, we can now take a ``recess,'' and the thing that you want to act on this week is to sue the President. Well, that shouldn't be. We shouldn't be going on recess, we shouldn't be wasting taxpayer money or time on frivolous, baseless lawsuits, because we have plenty of work to do. So my question, Mr. Speaker, is: Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of the majority of Americans who want us to jump-start the middle class, to maybe pass the Make It in America job creation agenda, or the infrastructure bills that are so desperately needed? Whose side are you on, Mr. Speaker, when Americans have demanded a raise so that they can have their wages keep up with the cost of living? Whose side are you on, Mr. Speaker, when you have already denied the extension of unemployment insurance benefits for over 3.5 million Americans since last December--33,800 Nevadans who are struggling, at no fault of their own, who need a bridge just to stay afloat? Whose side are you on? Are we going to honor our veterans and fix a broken VA system? Are we going to pass the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act to ensure that our most sacred Democrat right, our right to vote, is protected? I know you want to recess so you can run home and have elections, but people need to vote, and we need to make sure that that right to vote is protected. So we need to pass and reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. Why can't we bring that bill up this week, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker, whose side are you on when, overwhelmingly, the American public has asked us to pass comprehensive immigration reform, to secure our border, to actually put the necessary resources on the border, and to make sure that no other children are torn away from their mothers and their fathers? So while House Democrats are working on these important issues, and many, many others, the American people just simply don't understand how it is that this week, of all weeks, the majority would decide in this House to spend precious time and resources suing the American President for the first time in history. Instead of doing any of this, House Republicans are focused once again on partisan stunts that contribute nothing to the well-being of our Nation. Voting to sue the President is an insult to the hardworking American families who need this Congress to act, act on something, on anything, and to let us have an up-or-down vote. Now, this lawsuit undermines what little remaining respect this House has left. So as new Members, we are pleading: give us our Congress back, let us work with our colleagues who want to work with us. There are Republicans who support some of these bills, but the leadership, the Speaker, and the House Republican leadership, won't let them. That is the truth. Now, my colleague has talked about the fact that there is very little constitutional basis for this lawsuit. Let me just add a couple to those remarks. Constitutional law experts have weighed in. Laurence Tribe of Harvard University Law School described the lawsuit as a ``wholly meritless attempt to invoke the jurisdiction of the Federal judiciary.'' Charles Tiefer of the University of Baltimore Law School called the lawsuit an ``embarrassing loser.'' The whole process leading up to this lawsuit has been tainted by partisan tactics as well. Just last week, Ranking Member Representative Louise Slaughter and other members of the Rules Committee introduced 11 amendments during markup of this baseless, unnecessary lawsuit against the President, and their only request was to allow more transparency and accountability if this were to go forward on how much money is being spent--taxpayer money, by the way--in funding this lawsuit. So whose side are you on, Mr. Speaker, when you talk about fiscal responsibility and you won't even disclose or allow the rules of this vote to have a level of transparency or accountability? Let me just highlight a few of the amendments that these Democrats proposed: Requiring the House general counsel to disclose how much has been spent on the lawsuit each week; Prohibiting the hiring of any law firms or consultants who lobby Congress, because if they lobby Congress for a living, Congress shouldn't also be paying them on the side; Prohibiting the hiring of any law firm or consultants who lobby on the Affordable Care Act implementation, or who have any financial stake in implementation of the Affordable Care Act; Requiring disclosure of all contracts with lawyers and consultants 10 days before they are approved, requiring disclosure of where taxpayer money paying for this frivolous lawsuit is coming from, and which programs and offices' budgets are being reduced to pay for it. These were the commonsense amendments that House Democrats on the Rules Committee proposed, and on a party line vote 7-4, the House majority, the Republicans, denied these commonsense transparency and accountability measures to be included. So what is the rush? It shows that the Rules Committee Republicans are not serious. They are not serious about making this a transparent process because they know it is nothing more than a waste of time and money. This is a stunt, but it is a stunt that has a price, and the American public deserves to know just how much this is going to cost.

Mr. HORSFORD. May I inquire to the Speaker how much time we have left?

Mr. HORSFORD. To the gentleman from New York, as you indicated, this frivolous lawsuit really should not be entirely surprising, and we should not underestimate the lengths that the House Republicans are willing to take against this President. This week, it is a vote to sue. After the recess that we shouldn't be taking, maybe it is impeachment proceedings, so this is a very serious issue and one that I wish every Member of this body will take seriously because what the Speaker and the House Republicans are asking us to do is a direct affront to our constituents who elected us to do a job. Republicans can disagree with the President. That is not shocking, nor is it inappropriate. There are plenty of differences that divide many of us here in Washington--many of them, needlessly so--but Republican opposition during this Presidency has hit historic levels. Many of my colleagues this evening have talked about the obstruction that has occurred from the very day this President was being sworn in by those in the majority in this body who have attempted to block him. I believe in an America that still can do good things and big things. I believe in an America that honors its institutions and respects them. I believe in the institutions of these offices, even when I may not agree with the person who holds that position, but what I cannot do is stand by as a Member of Congress, someone who is here to serve the 700,000 people from my district who elected me, and to allow the Speaker and House Republicans to tear down this institution. It is too honorable. The work we are supposed to be doing is too great. It is significant to the lives of the people who are counting on us to do something that is important to their lives. So, again, I ask, Mr. Speaker: Whose side are you on? Because there is nothing in this lawsuit that is going to create a job, educate a child, help a small business owner, address the issues of health care in this country, fix what is broken with immigration; there is nothing this week that you or the House Republicans are doing with this baseless lawsuit that is going to solve a problem. In fact, it is going to create new problems--constitutional problems--and it is going to create a debt that this institution and future generations will have to cover. So we are here, raising our voices against what we believe to be an affront to the integrity of this body as a whole and to bring a focus back to the issues the American people so desperately want this Congress to work on. So we are here tonight. We will be here working and willing to work. We are willing to cancel our recess to stay here and do the American public's business because that is what they expect us to do.

Mr. HORSFORD

Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you to the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today to support the amendment offered by my colleague, Congresswoman Dina Titus, from District One. As she has so eloquently indicated and as I stand here today as the Representative who actually has Yucca Mountain in his district, first and foremost, we probably should start by pronouncing our State the way that people in Nevada say it, which is Nevada and not Nevada. If we are going to screw Nevada by bringing nuclear waste and trying to store it in our State, we should start by recognizing that the people of Nevada hold dear to what is important to our State. I oppose efforts to fund the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project. Any avenues for the activation of this project should be blocked. Potential funding for the storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain should be put to better use, whether it is to reduce our deficit or to fund other essential government programs. Nuclear storage at Yucca Mountain is a failed and unworkable proposal. There are investments that we have made in Yucca Mountain already, as my colleague has said--some $15 billion--and we should find an appropriate alternative use for this site. But as it stands, this is a project that has been flawed from the start, and it remains flawed today. This isn't about one political party or another. Our State has worked across the aisle for decades, from our Governor, Brian Sandoval, who is a Republican, to Senator Dean Heller, to others. So this is not a partisan issue, this is a states' rights issue, and the people of Nevada reject you storing your nuclear waste in our backyard.

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. First, I want to commend you for your tireless efforts in fighting this dangerous storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. From your days as a leader as a State legislator to now as a Member of Congress, your unwavering commitment to this issue on behalf of the majority will of Nevadans who are opposed to dangerous storage of nuclear waste in our State--from our Governor, Republican Governor Brian Sandoval; our U.S. Senator, Republican Member, U.S. Senator Dean Heller; our majority leader, Senator Harry Reid--this is a State issue. The State is opposed to the storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. There are local counties that have different positions, but the State's position has been clear for decades that we do not want dangerous nuclear waste stored in our State. Ultimately, this threatens our State's health and our safety. It hurts our State's economy, not just gaming, but other areas. With one accident, it could devastate southern Nevada. The stakes are too high for our State to gamble with. While this is 90 miles away from Las Vegas, we have 40 million visitors that come to our community--2 million people that live there in southern Nevada. But we are a State that relies on tourism, and that industry would be destroyed by any complication with nuclear waste. People come to Vegas for the bright lights, not for radioactive glow. Our State leaders will continue to fight together, Republicans and Democrats, in Nevada to make sure that Yucca Mountain remains scrapped, as it should be. I want to thank again my colleague, the Representative from District One, for her tireless leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that protects the majority will of Nevadans who have consistently opposed the storage of dangerous nuclear waste. To my colleague from Illinois, I think if you would take the time to come and visit our community, talk to the small business owners, to the parents who are concerned about the transportation, of what this would mean on our highways and our roads, the threat that it could have to our schools and our local businesses, then maybe you would understand why there is near unanimous agreement that Yucca Mountain and the storage of nuclear waste is not right for Nevada.

Mr. HORSFORD

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, the Senate is, once again, poised to act on an important issue facing our country. Today, Senator Dean Heller, from my home State of Nevada, and Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island announced that they will be working to pass another extension of unemployment insurance for those who need a financial lifeline and have lost their jobs at no fault of their own. The last time the Senate sent a bill to the House to help struggling Americans with unemployment insurance, Speaker Boehner and the Party of No let the bill expire. By the end of this month, there will be 33,800 Nevadans cut off from unemployment insurance and another 3.1 million Americans asking why Congress has turned its back on them. Is it any wonder that Congress is held in such low regard by the hardworking American people? The Speaker's answer to millions of Americans asking for help is deafening silence, with no plan to do anything. I did not come to Congress to sit and wait for one person, the Speaker, to decide whether or not this body could act. I urge the Speaker to bring up the Senate-passed unemployment insurance extension to help 3.1 million Americans who need a lifeline.

Mr. HORSFORD

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Chairman, this bill appropriates $40 million less to the Community Development Block Grant program in fiscal year 2015 than it did last year. I would have offered an amendment to maintain CDBG funding at last year's levels, but we know there is insufficient funding throughout this bill due to the budget caps. The CDBG program provides direct grants to 1,209 State and local governments. Since the start of the program in 1974, CDBG has invested over $135 billion in local economies, creating jobs, supporting local businesses, improving infrastructure, providing housing--including housing repairs and home ownership assistance--and services to low- income veterans, seniors, children, special-needs populations and working families. The CDBG program grows local economies and improves the quality of lives for low and moderate-income citizens. Over the past 10 years, CDBG-related funding is estimated to have sustained 400,000 jobs in local economies across the country. In 2012 alone, nearly 21,800 permanent jobs were created or retained using CDBG funds, and more than 32.5 million people benefited from CDBG-funded public facilities. The total amount appropriated to CDBG has declined almost every year since 2000. When measured in inflation-adjusted constant dollars, total program funding declined by 46.4 percent since fiscal year 2000. The CDBG program is essential for the functioning of more than 1,200 cities and counties of all shapes and sizes across the country, and there continues to be an increased need for investment in job creation, essential services for vulnerable populations, and economic and infrastructure development. It is unfortunate that, due to an insufficient allocation of funds for projects throughout this bill, we must make cuts to vital programs like CDBG. We need to stop these cuts to our communities. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to speak in favor of the amendment that was proposed by the ranking member, Ms. Waters, in support of the Multifamily Housing Office, which contributes to the development and preservation of healthy neighborhoods and communities. A core part of its mission is to maintain and expand home ownership, rental housing, and health care opportunities. In an effort to achieve cost savings, HUD plans to consolidate 50 multifamily field offices organized into 17 hubs into just 12 locations organized into five regions. This would result in a severe loss of HUD's local presence in communities throughout the United States. This means that for constituents living in Las Vegas, the closest hub location would be over 500 miles away, and that hub would simultaneously be responsible for 73 million people in 14 States. Hundreds of HUD employees would be forced to relocate, accept a buyout, or take early retirement. This drastic consolidation of HUD locations would compromise the quality of services that HUD's multifamily office provides. It is, therefore, this reason that would create a problem at a project site in my district. There would be no local HUD employees to monitor and address the situation directly, or in a timely manner. Only if the situation rises to the level of an emergency would a HUD employee be able to send someone to investigate the issue, which would entail costly travel expenses on the taxpayers' dime. It is also difficult to believe that, under these circumstances, HUD would somehow still be able to deliver the same quality of services that it currently delivers today. HUD's plan to completely overhaul the multifamily office is both ill- conceived and poorly timed, and that is why I support the ranking member's amendment. I am pleased that this body has adopted it, to ensure HUD's multifamily staff remains locally-based and connected to communities who are on the ground. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mrs. Hartzler

Mr. HORSFORD

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Opportunity Village and the AbilityOne Program. The AbilityOne Program harnesses the purchasing power of the Federal Government to buy products and services from participating community-based nonprofit agencies that are dedicated to training and employing individuals who have significant disabilities or are blind. Organizations like Opportunity Village, located in every state of our great nation, employ nearly 50,000 Americans who are blind or have significant disabilities through this Program. AbilityOne affiliated non-profit agencies like Opportunity Village offer people who are blind or who have significant disabilities opportunities to acquire the job skills and training necessary to receive good wages and benefits and ultimately improve their quality of life. Today, over 75 percent of people with significant disabilities do not have jobs. Census statistics indicate there are 9.4 million people with significant disabilities in the United States who could work given the appropriate opportunity and support. Opportunity Village is a shining example, providing employment opportunities and training to over 1,990 individuals with disabilities; many of whom live in the 4th district of Nevada; through this Program. Opportunity Village helps them to lead more productive lives, support their families, gain important work experience, and share in the same pride that each of us has after a day's work. Many of these individuals work in support of our men and women in uniform, doing their part to improve our country and ensure safety and security for us all. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I extend my support to the AbilityOne Program and to Opportunity Village. I also want to commend the dedication and commitment of Mr. Ed Guthrie, the Executive Director of Opportunity Village, and to his staff for helping individuals who are blind or have significant disabilities find employment opportunities. Their work helps people live fuller lives and become more active members of society. I also commend each of the nearly 50,000 AbilityOne employees who work every day to improve their lives, and make our country a better place to live.

Mr. HORSFORD

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to honor Nevada civil rights leader Bob Bailey, who passed away on Saturday. Bob was a tireless advocate for equality in Nevada. In the `50s and `60s, Vegas was as segregated as the Deep South. Bob saw injustice all around him and became a staunch advocate for equality. He worked with Governor Grant Sawyer to investigate discrimination in employment, and he served as the first chairman of the Nevada Equal Rights Commission. His work helped desegregate hotel-casinos under the Nevada Civil Rights Act of 1965. Bob later served as the president of Nevada Economic Development Company, which helped minority-owned businesses, and in 1990 he was appointed by President George H.W. Bush to serve as Deputy Director of the U.S. Department of Commerce's Minority Business Development Agency. Bob Bailey opened the doors for thousands of African-Americans in Las Vegas, including myself. He will be missed, and we will remember his legacy.

Mr. HORSFORD

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to remind my Republican colleagues that there are over 2.8 million Americans who have been cut off from unemployment insurance benefits since December 28, 2013. We are back here in session for 2 weeks, the Senate has worked and passed a measure to renew unemployment insurance, yet Speaker Boehner refuses to bring up a bill. Why, Mr. Speaker? One of those 2.8 million Americans is Mitch from Nevada. He is 55 and lost his job of 8 years in March of 2013. Since his unemployment insurance ended, he has sold many of his belongings just to stay in his house and to feed his family. Mitch is a Republican, but more importantly, he is an American, and he is pleading for congressional leaders to not turn their backs on him. For all struggling Nevadans, I want you to know that we have not forgotten about you. Mr. Speaker, schedule a vote to extend unemployment insurance benefits to the 2.8 million Americans, the 37,000 Nevadans. My time may have expired, but it is more important that the unemployment insurance benefits that has expired be extended.

Mr. HORSFORD

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, it was with great sadness that I learned that Scott Craigie, the former chief of staff for Governor Bob Miller of Nevada, passed away last Tuesday. He was a tireless advocate for seniors and children, and an effective one at that. Scott knew how to get things done. That is why he was put in charge of the successful Education First constitutional amendment campaign in 2004, which forced the State legislature to vote on an education funding bill before any other appropriation. Scott also gave me my start in public service. He hired me for my first professional job in the legislative world, and I owe him my career. He believed in me and gave me a chance. Scott, I will do my best to continue fighting for those who need someone to stand up for them. Rest in peace, my friend. My thoughts and prayers are with your family, with our friends, and with the people of Nevada whose lives were touched because of you. God bless you.

Mr. HORSFORD

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, 60 years ago, America was a country entrenched in inequality. Whites and African Americans were treated as two separate classes. Our society's education system, perhaps our most influential and important institution for future success, kept White and Black children separate and wholly unequal. Then, in 1954, the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. The Board of Education, argued and won by the legendary Justice Thurgood Marshall, rewove the fabric of our divided Nation, and moved our country down the path towards the civil rights victories of the 1960s. The decision was, according to Sherrilyn Ifill, the current president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund: The beginning of the end of legal apartheid in the United States. Laws of the Jim Crow that were intentionally designed to ensure that Blacks and Whites were not treated equally were finally questioned by our Nation's highest courts. The dream of a country where all men are created equal and treated equally under the law became a potential reality. But it would still take decades of tireless activism by multiple generations of civil rights leaders and organizers to get us where we are today. Brown v. The Board of Education, this decision was the first step toward a reality of equality and was a drastic change for a court that had previously been detrimental to past civil rights actions and cases. So we are here today as the Congressional Black Caucus to reflect on America's 60 years after the Brown v. The Board of Education decision. What impacts have we seen and what challenges still remain with achieving a society that truly lives up to the 14th Amendment's equal protection under the law clause? What steps must still be taken to achieve a society that lives up to the dream of the civil rights movement, where the color of one's skin does not determine their ability to succeed? Mr. Speaker, tonight, I am proud to be joined by colleagues who have been part of this effort, this ongoing effort towards realizing the full potential of what the Brown decision means for every single child in America. I would like to yield first to the gentleman from Virginia, Representative Bobby Scott, my good friend, who has been a champion for working families and who recently was part of a forum at George Mason University talking about the issue of the Brown decision and where we are today.

Mr. HORSFORD. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. Thank you for your historical frame on this important subject on the 60th anniversary of the Brown decision. Mr. Speaker, I would next like to yield to a true champion for working families in his district and for people all across this country, a fighter for average, everyday working people and for children who deserve a quality education. He is the gentleman from New York, Representative Charlie Rangel.

Mr. HORSFORD. I thank the gentleman from New York. Thank you for your wisdom and your sage advice and for challenging us, even today, to remember what the Brown decision is all about, and that is for people to truly be treated equally, not on the basis of race. We know, based on where we are today in America--though there are some who want to say we live in a postracial society--when you look at the outcomes of young people based on where they are from, clearly, we have not lived up to the full promise of what Brown has intended. So thank you for your advice and for participating in this Special Order hour. I would like to turn now to the chairman of the Progressive Caucus here in the House. He is a great man with great vision, Representative Keith Ellison from Minnesota.

Mr. HORSFORD. I thank the gentleman for reminding us of the great legal minds who contributed and helped build the case which resulted in the Brown decision and the fact that it took a strategic team of formidable legal minds to come up with the right strategy that ultimately resulted in this great decision. I thank the gentleman, Representative Ellison, for reminding us of their distinct contribution. I would like to now turn to the gentlelady from California, Representative Barbara Lee, who comes to this Caucus and this body with tremendous experience, working first in the community as a caseworker on behalf of people, and always keeping the focus of people in the front of the policies that we are pursuing to advance in this great institution. I now yield to the gentlelady from California, Representative Barbara Lee.

Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you, Representative Lee, for explaining so well the link between poverty and race, and that they both contribute to the cause of segregation that we continue to see even today. There are those who want to suggest that race has nothing to do with it, but yet it is the de facto policies which contribute greatly to why we see the resegregation, if you will. Despite the advances in some communities, there are places still in America where the dream of Brown has not been truly realized and where communities which were advancing are now taking steps back. I commend you for raising those points.

Mr. HORSFORD. I thank the gentlelady from California. It is now my privilege to yield to the gentlelady from New York, Representative Clarke, who continues to make her mark here in Congress. I am so honored to serve with her in this body. I continue to be in awe of how she engages her constituents, how she advocates on important legislation, and how she is advancing bold ideas to move our country forward. It has truly been an honor to learn from her as a freshman. I yield to the gentlelady from New York, Representative Yvette Clarke.

Mr. HORSFORD. I thank the gentlelady from New York. Thank you, again, for challenging us to take on the responsibility to end racial segregation. Your words were so eloquent, and it really is a responsibility that each and every one of us must take hold on and take heed to in order to accomplish this. It is not going to be done unless we do it ourselves. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty), who I am honored to serve with in the freshman class. I am so inspired by her leadership, and she is such a dynamic spokesperson on so many important issues before this body. She truly is a committed public servant.

Mr. HORSFORD. I thank the gentlelady from Ohio for her very personal remarks and reminding us that the decision of Brown has very real impact on the lives of individuals and, for some in this body who lived during the time of segregation, to be reminded of how important the Brown decision was to changing that and to also remind us that we have a commitment to the current and future generations to ensure that we never go back to those days. I thank the gentlelady very much for giving us that personal reflection on what the Brown decision means to her. Now, as a Member of the House of Representatives, just think how far you have come and how far so many children in America deserve to go. That is what the Brown decision is really all about. Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite the coanchor for this hour to the podium. Each time the Congressional Black Caucus takes time to the floor for this Special Order hour, it is intended to bring up provocative issues, discuss important policies that deserve time, and also to challenge this august body to focus, for at least a while, about issues that don't always dominate the mainstream agenda. There is no one who does this more effectively than the coanchor that I have the honor of sharing this hour with. I have learned so much from him. He brings personal passion, experience, and education to the issues that we try to bring forward under the leadership of our chair, Marcia Fudge. It is his words that I know this evening will be so poignant as we reflect on the 60th anniversary of the Brown v. The Board of Education decision. I yield to the coanchor of this Special Order hour, my good friend, Representative Hakeem Jeffries from New York.

Mr. HORSFORD. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries) just mentioned the fact that New York, California, and Texas lead this issue. And, again, while we have made tremendous progress, as the UCLA study referenced by Representative Lee earlier this evening stated, students of color are much more likely to be grouped with their specific demographic. And now, with the changing demographics, we are seeing a real increase and a striking finding among the segregation of Latino students. In New York, California, and Texas, more than half of all Latino students go to schools that are 90 percent minority or more. So to speak about that or other topics, I will yield to the gentlewoman from the great State of Texas, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee.

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I will just close by saying that if we want the next generation of students to live the American Dream and achieve the success that they are capable of, then we must challenge the growing trend of inequality in our schools throughout America. That was the eventual dream that emerged from the Brown decision. And so far, we have fallen short of a fair and equal school system that gives each student their best chance to succeed. I thank the Chair for recognizing this Special Order hour on this, the 60th anniversary of the Brown decision, and I yield back the balance of my time.