Alma Adams

Ms. ADAMS

Ms. ADAMS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon).

Ms. ADAMS. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania. I know Cheyney very well. The gentlewoman is right. It was the first university, and I want to congratulate Cheyney on that accomplishment. When we talk about that, it should not be funding that separates our students in a way that they are not able to get the education that they need. We have had since 1873 18 HBCUs that have closed. All of us who have gotten together tonight and continue to work this area don't want to see another school close, especially because of money. When you look back at those who have had difficulty, it hasn't been because the academics weren't in order. There are strong academic programs at these colleges and universities, and we want to continue that tradition. We want not only these schools to survive but to thrive. That is really important, and that is where we need to go. Having said that, I want to read a couple of letters because they are very important. They are from two of my colleagues from the CBC. The first is from Eddie Bernice Johnson who has been very involved with HBCUs well before I got here, and I want to just thank her for her leadership as well. She writes, Madam Speaker: Historically Black colleges and universities, HBCUs, have played an important role in our Nation's history. These places of higher education have given opportunities to millions of young people to get a quality post-secondary education. Many of these students are the first in their family to attend college. I am proud to say that one of these institutions, Paul Quinn College, is located within my district. Currently, the top priority for HBCUs is to ensure that they have the resources needed to prepare students for a competitive, globalized workforce. The FUTURE Act, which passed in this Chamber some time ago, does exactly that. The bill reauthorizes critical funding for all minority-serving institutions for the next 2 years. Sadly, like most of the legislation that has passed the House of Representatives this Congress, the Senate refuses to do their job and vote on this noncontroversial bipartisan bill. The College Affordability Act, which was introduced in October, would go beyond what the FUTURE Act does and provide HBCUs more flexibility, so that they can strengthen their endowments, academic quality, and institutional management. The College Affordability Act also provides States with incentives to lower the cost for students to obtain a quality college education by raising the maximum amount for Pell grants and simplifying the student loan repayment program. These two bills are great examples of what we should strive for to guarantee the best outcome for students attending HBCUs and other MSIs. Madam Speaker, we need to make sure our higher education system serves all the students that hope to receive a degree. Historically Black colleges and universities, along with other minority-serving institutions, play a vital role for African Americans and other minority students. We need to continue passing legislation that provides true educational opportunities for those who desire to learn and who are unable to afford it. Madam Speaker, one of my colleagues from Ohio, Representative Marcia Fudge, who is a former CBC chair, states the following: Madam Speaker, more than one-quarter of all undergraduate students in the United States attend historically Black colleges and universities and other minority-serving institutions. These schools play a critical role in unlocking higher education opportunities for millions of degree seekers, including students of color and low-income students of which many are the first in their family to attend college. To protect these essential institutions from the threat of closure and financial despair, we must continue to provide them with the resources they need to prepare students for the modern economy. Title III, part F of the Higher Education Act authorizes important mandatory funding for historically Black colleges and universities, Tribal colleges and universities, and minority-serving institutions to educate and prepare students for professions in the sciences, technology, engineering, and math, or STEM, fields. Unfortunately, these critical sources of funding expired on September 30, and this lapse jeopardizes the viability of these institutions, as well as the STEM readiness of the students they serve. At a time when diverse representation is low in the STEM economy, Congress must immediately restore mandatory funding to prevent permanent and irreversible damage to STEM programs at these historical institutions that give students from underserved communities an opportunity to rise above their circumstances. On September 17, 2019, the House passed the FUTURE Act, an extension of the $255 million in essential mandatory funding for HBCUs and MSIs. Despite receiving unanimous support in the House, the bill has yet to be considered by the Senate, and it was not included in the continuing resolution that passed in November. So as Congress considers spending bills for next year, we must restore this vital resource of funding that expands opportunities for underrepresented students. It is past time to uphold our promise to support these historic institutions and the students they serve. Madam Speaker, I want to at this point close with these comments. First of all, I thank all of my colleagues for their comments tonight, those who have stood up tonight for our Nation's 102 HBCUs, and MSIs. We are at a critical crossroads tonight. We are in the midst of negotiating a government spending agreement that can confer over $500 million to all HBCUs. For too long, the schools have dedicated themselves to the futures of low-income, first-generation students of color, like me, who have been neglected by their government. Over the last 50 years, this body has made strides to correct that lack of investment and engagement, but none of those strides came easy. They were achieved in moments when many still questioned the purpose of having schools dedicated to that mission. I have heard the question asked over and over: Why do we need HBCUs? I will say that my response is: What in the world--and I use another word--would we do without our HBCUs? When we think about it, as has been stated by several of my colleagues, our schools were achieved in moments when many still questioned the purpose, when Federal and State investments in higher education are still consistently under attack. Our HBCUs, in particular, still suffer from impacts of historical discrimination and underinvestment, low endowments, outdated infrastructure, a lack of opportunities for growth compared to their PWI counterparts. The House of Representatives approved $375 million for title III, part B, the Strengthening HBCUs program last summer, the first time this program was appropriated at the authorization limit. It approved $40 million of loan authority for the HBCU Capital Financing Program. It also passed the FUTURE Act, which authorizes $85 million of mandatory funding for HBCUs. We illustrated our support for HBCUs, and now we need to guarantee that it is in the negotiations with the Senate. We want to make sure, as I said before, that our schools not only survive but that they thrive. When we fight for these programs, we show our belief in the futures of low-income, first-generation students of color. Madam Speaker, I am proud that I had a mother who stood up for me, in spite of the fact that we didn't have the funds. There was an HBCU in North Carolina that allowed me to come and made that investment in me. I was able to complete my bachelor's and master's degrees there at North Carolina A&T, and then, I was able to go on to receive my Ph.D. from The Ohio State University only because of the North Carolina A&T. Madam Speaker, let's not give up the fight now. We are going to continue to do it. I thank all of my colleagues, again, for being here tonight. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Supporting Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Support of Fostering Undergraduate Talent by Unlocking Resources for Education (FUTURE) Act

Ms. ADAMS

Ms. ADAMS. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. ADAMS

Ms. ADAMS. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for yielding. I rise today to join my colleagues in strong support of H.R. 1309, the Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers Act. Workplace violence impacts over 15 million healthcare workers in this country. These workers offer critical assistance to some of the most vulnerable members of our society. They work in our hospitals, our nursing homes, our hospices, and they do this, despite the fact that they are nearly five times as likely to suffer serious workplace violence injury than workers in other sectors. And those statistics account just for physical injuries. So when the body recovers from workplace assaults, these professionals are often plagued with career-ending post-traumatic stress disorders for the rest of their lives. So I am glad that the House is considering the gentleman from Connecticut's bill today to finally compel OSHA to create a standard to protect these workers in their places of work. Madam Chair, it can take up to 20 years for OSHA to issue standards, as in the case of its silica and beryllium standards. Our Nation's healthcare and social service workers cannot afford to wait that long while they serve under the constant threat of violence. H.R. 1309 takes a different approach. It would require OSHA to issue an interim standard requiring employers to develop and implement a workplace violence prevention plan within 1 year and a final standard within 42 months. Contrary to the claims of my friends on the other side of the aisle, this is not a radical requirement. OSHA has already held extensive public comment on this topic since 1996, and H.R. 1309 would allow OSHA to conduct a full public comment and hearing process before a final standard is issued. Our healthcare and social service workers cannot wait, and neither can we. Madam Chair, I include in the Record a support letter from organizations representing our Nation's healthcare and social service workers, as well as a support letter from AFL-CIO. November 20, 2019. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: On behalf of the undersigned organizations representing nurses, social workers, psychiatric, home health and personal care aides, as well as other workers in the healthcare and social service industries, we urge you to vote yes on H.R. 1309, the Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers Act. When healthcare and social service professionals show up to work, they shouldn't have to worry about whether they are going to be injured in an assault. The many professionals who face risk of assault every day include not only those working in hospitals, clinics and mental health facilities, but also those providing services in patients' homes, and outside the four walls of an office. Healthcare and social service workers are nearly five times more likely to be assaulted than other workers, and the violence is growing. Between 2007 and 2017, the rate of violent injuries grew by 123 percent in hospitals, 201 percent in psychiatric hospitals and substance use treatment facilities, and 28 percent in social service settings. The costs of this violence are high: in injury rates, in professionals being driven from doing the work they love, and in workers' compensation claims and staff shortages. Currently, there is no federally enforceable violence prevention standard specifically covering healthcare and social services, and federal guidelines do not cover those working in public facilities. H.R. 1309 would require hospitals, residential treatment facilities, clinics at correctional or detention facilities, substance use disorder treatment centers, and other service facilities to develop and implement comprehensive violence prevention plans and provide whistleblower protections for workers. We hear from members about violence all the time: a nurse choked to the point of unconsciousness; a case manager who has suffered bone fractures and debilitating brain injuries from being thrown against walls and floors; social workers brutally attacked, and even killed, when conducting visits to client homes. No one should face violence, intimidation, or fear for their safety while working to help others and save lives. Violence is not just ``part of the job,'' and studies show that prevention plans work. Many violent incidents can be predicted and minimized with the right staffing, policies and protocols; and this legislation builds upon well-established guidelines from the Department of Labor. This bill is essential to making healthcare and social service settings safer for workers, but also safer healing environments for patients. When a patient harms a social worker or other clinician, it is traumatizing not only for the clinician but also for the patient; and it sets treatment back for months, if not years. Patients witnessing violence also are traumatized. We urge you to support the nurses, social workers and other healthcare and social service professionals in your district by voting for H.R. 1309, the Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers Act. Alliance for Retired Americans, American Art Therapy Association, American Association for Psychoanalysis in Clinical Social Work, American Counseling Association, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), American Federation of Teachers, American Public Health Association, Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW) of Southwestern PA, Communications Workers of America (CWA), Emergency Nurses Association, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Midstate Education & Service Foundation, National Association of County Behavioral Health & Developmental Disability Directors (NACBHDD), National Association of Rural Mental Health (NARMH), National Association of Social Workers, National COSH, National Nurses United, National Rural Social Work Caucus, People's Action, Philadelphia Area Project on Occupational Safety and Health (PhilaPOSH), Rhode Island Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (RICOSH), School Social Work Association of America, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Smart Transportation, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, United Steelworkers, Worksafe.

Ms. ADAMS. I ask the House to pass without delay the gentleman from Connecticut's legislation.

Ms. ADAMS

Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands and also the gentlewoman from Nevada, Chairwoman Bass, and all who participated in organizing this event. I rise to join other Members tonight to honor the life and career of one of this body's most effective lawmakers, one of the most tireless champions of the underprivileged, and a close and dear friend to us all, representative Elijah Cummings. The 12th District of North Carolina extends condolences to his wife, his family, his extended family, and to the members of his district. Elijah was one of our best examples of what it means to be a public servant. In Baltimore, he was not only his community's Member of Congress, but he was its voice, a recognizable and fervent product of the community that he represented. When West Baltimore was hurting after the death of Freddie Gray, it was Representative Cummings who spoke the words of a grieving community. When the President of the United States insulted his city, it was Representative Cummings who stood up and offered to show the President what Baltimore is really about. This was the type of man and Member that Elijah Cummings was, an advocate for what was right. He was an advocate for our youth, and he took a sincere interest in their success. I remain personally grateful to him for the support that he gave to my youngest grandson as he explored entrance and application to Howard University. Elijah Cummings was always an advocate for what was right, or, as Dr. King would call it, he was indeed a drum major for justice. He earned the respect of men, women, and little children, and he made this world much better than he found it.

Ms. ADAMS

Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the alarming rise in prescription drug costs. America is the richest, most developed nation in the world, yet one in four Americans has a hard time affording lifesaving prescriptions. Families are making impossible choices between paying the mortgage, putting food on their tables, or buying lifesaving medications. We turned a blind eye to the prescription drug ecosystem, and now the system has become unsustainable. Americans are getting ripped off while other countries pay far less for the same drugs. In 2017, the U.S. spent $333 billion on prescription medication, up from $236 billion in 2007, an increase of more than 40 percent over 10 years. That is unacceptable. I have listened to my constituents who struggle to afford the prescriptions they need, and they want us to act. This isn't a partisan issue. It is a people issue. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support legislation like H.R. 3 so that the American people no longer are left with false choices.

Ms. ADAMS

Ms. ADAMS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to thank and congratulate a talented young woman who has served as my chief of staff for North Carolina's 12th District for nearly 5 years, Rhonda E. Foxx. While her career path will be taking on a new chapter beyond my office, without question, Rhonda has been an extraordinary and extremely valued member of my leadership team. An energetic, innovative, creative thinker, Rhonda's bold leadership and talented initiatives guided Team Adams to cultivate new possibilities in higher education, diversity, and tech; as well as signature cooperative-inclusive partnerships between students and businesses and corporate and tech sectors, and historically Black colleges. I, along with the entire Adams team, our stakeholders and our many partners are grateful for her leadership and her service, and extend to Rhonda E. Foxx our best wishes, and Godspeed. Mr. Speaker, I say, well done, Rhonda. I thank her.

Ms. ADAMS

Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of the late Jan Allen, an extraordinary North Carolinian and a personal friend. Jan was a trailblazer who worked tirelessly to level the playing field for women in politics in North Carolina, and she did a tremendous job at her work. Twenty-two years ago, she founded Lillian's List to get more women elected to political office at the State level. I had the great privilege of working with Jan during my time in the North Carolina General Assembly over those 21 years. I had the great privilege of working with Jan during my time throughout Congress, as well. There is no way to qualify the impact that Jan had on the State of North Carolina, but I know that, because of Jan, more women have held office in the State and more women are continuing to run. Thanks to Jan, laws have been passed to improve the lives of women, families, and children, and North Carolina is a better place to live for everyone. My thoughts and prayers will continue to be with Jan's family, her friends, and my entire North Carolina community. I thank Jan Allen for her work, and may the Lord continue to bless her and her family.

Ms. ADAMS

Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2486) to reauthorize mandatory funding programs for historically Black colleges and universities and other minority-serving institutions, as amended.

Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend and include extraneous materials on H.R. 2486.

Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2486, Fostering Undergraduate Talent by Unlocking Resources for Education, or better known as the FUTURE Act. This bill is an absolutely crucial piece of legislation. It represents the number one priority of our minority-serving institutions, which educate nearly 30 percent of all undergraduate students in America. The FUTURE Act would reauthorize title 3, part F of the Higher Education Act, providing $255 million in funding for MSIs for the next 2 years. This includes: $85 million of historically Black colleges and universities; $30 million for Tribal colleges and universities; $100 million for Hispanic-serving institutions; and $15 million each for predominantly Black institutions, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions and Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving institutions. First authorized in 2010, title 3, part F have helped MSIs prepare their students for STEM professions, fortified failing infrastructure on MSIs campuses, and provided fiscal stability for many of our smaller MSIs. In order for MSIs to continue this work for fiscal year 2020 and beyond, the House must act tonight and ensure that our low-income, first generation college students are not left behind. This bill is about their future. H.R. 2486 is not only integral to MSIs and the millions of students that they serve, it is also responsible legislation that is completely paid for, not adding one cent to the deficit. H.R. 2486 does this by repealing automatic maintenance fees, a relic of the now-defunct Federal Family Education Loan Program, where the government-paid private institutions called guaranty agencies to manage student loan accounts. And with the Federal Government now directly lending to student borrowers, these fees are no longer paid, and are increasingly being phased out. Mr. Speaker, I ask for support for H.R. 2486, and I include in the Record a letter from the American Council on Education and 43 other national organizations in support of passage of this bill tonight by the House. American Council on Education, Washington, DC, September 16, 2019. Representative Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Representative Kevin McCarthy, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader McCarthy: On behalf of the undersigned organizations representing Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), other Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs), and the higher education community at large, we write to ask that you and the members you lead vote in favor of H.R. 2486, the Fostering Undergraduate Talent by Unlocking Resources for Education (FUTURE) Act when it comes up for a vote tomorrow. This bicameral, bipartisan bill was introduced by Representative Alma Adams (D-NC) and Representative Mark Walker (R-NC) to extend vital mandatory funding for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education, student completion and infrastructure programs benefiting HBCUs, TCUs, HSIs, and other MSIs in Title III, Part F of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) before it expires on September 30, 2019. Mandatory funding for STEM education and other programs at these important institutions was first instituted when the College Cost and Reduction Act of 2007 was signed into law. This bill passed both the House and Senate on a bipartisan basis and allowed for mandatory funding to flow to HBCUs, TCUs, HSIs and other MSIs from 2008 to 2009. Shortly thereafter, the Higher Education Opportunity Act, which maintained this important stream of funding, passed both the House and Senate on a bipartisan basis and was signed into law in 2008. It was not until 2010 that these mandatory funds were extended for an additional ten years because Congress recognized the value in securing funding for institutions that served large numbers of low-income, first-generation college students of color. According to a recent report, there are more than ``20 million young people of color in the United States whose representations in STEM education pathways and in the STEM workforce [fall] . . . far below their proportions of the general population.'' It was emphasized in this report that ``the educational outcomes and STEM readiness of students of color will have direct implications on America's economic growth, national security, and global prosperity.'' Furthermore, a report released by the White House's National Science and Technology Council stated that the ``national benefits of a strong STEM foundation cannot be fully realized until all members of society have equitable access to STEM education and [until] there is much broader participation by those historically underserved and underrepresented in STEM fields . . .'' The report goes on to highlight the importance of diversity in the workplace leading to more engaged, innovative, and higher-performing organizations. It is clear that diversifying our STEM workforce should be a priority for our country and would pay immediate dividends to our economy. The FUTURE Act helps avoid a $2.55 billion- dollar cliff in funding over 10 years for HBCUs, TCUs, HSIs, and other MSIs by extending mandatory funding until Fiscal Year 2021. This bill is revenue neutral and allows these important institutions to continue the valuable work of offering quality STEM programs. We thank you for your consideration of this request, and look forward to working with you to enact this legislation before the September 30 deadline. Sincerely, Ted Mitchell, President. On behalf of: Achieving the Dream, Inc.; ACPA-College Student Educators International; ACT, Inc.; American Association of Colleges of Nursing; American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers; American Association of Community Colleges; American Association of State Colleges and Universities; American Association of University Professors; American Council on Education; American Dental Education Association; American Indian Higher Education Consortium; APPA, Leadership in Educational Facilities; Association of American Colleges and Universities; Association of American Universities; Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities. Association of Community College Trustees; Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges; Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities; Association of Public and Land-grant Universities; Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities; College and University Professional Association for Human Resources; Common App; Consortium of Universities of the Washington Metropolitan Area; Council for Advancement and Support of Education; Council for Christian Colleges & Universities; Council for Higher Education Accreditation; Council for Opportunity in Education; Council of Graduate Schools; Council of Independent Colleges; Council on Social Work Education. EDUCAUSE; ETS; Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities; NAFSA: Association of International Educators; NASPA--Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education; National Association for College Admission Counseling; National Association of College and University Business Officers; National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities; National Association of System Heads; National Council for Community and Education Partnerships; Thurgood Marshall College Fund; UNCF; UPCEA.

Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the chair of the Committee on Education and Labor, of which I am privileged to serve under.

Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. AMFs are a maintenance fee given to guaranty agencies for a program that no longer originates new loans. And while some guaranty agencies may be using AMFs for financial literacy, it is important to know that these are auxiliary activities not required by HEA, and guaranty agencies do not report any information on these activities. There is no data across agencies that show how much of the AMF, if any, is actually being used for this type of outreach or what the actual impact will be on students in your district. If this were true when Republicans had control of the House, they would have moved a bill to permanently authorize funds to these institutions. Instead, the Republicans allowed for the expiration to happen in hopes that it would be eliminated through no action. The MSI mandatory funding is a unique program, and it expires in less than 15 days. And this justifies immediate action. I also mentioned that these schools will lose a tremendous amount of money that they need, and I just want to remind the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) that we are talking about $1.1 million in fiscal years 2017 and 2018 to Winston-Salem State University; that is in the Fifth District. As we look at all of the schools that will benefit from this funding, I think we have some responsibility to help these young people--who, we said to them, You need an education--and help them move through this process that will make it easier for them to not only stay in school, but for these colleges and universities to stay open. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, but before I close, I do want to, first of all, thank both gentlemen from North Carolina, Representative Walker and Representative Budd, for their support of HBCUs. Congressman Walker is correct. He represents the largest public HBCU in the Nation, of which I had the privilege of studying at and graduating from twice, North Carolina A&T, and served that school for more than 40 years in the district. I am watching Congressman Walker, and I appreciate him and Representative Budd and all the support they are giving to our HBCUs. I taught 40 years at Bennett College in Greensboro, so HBCUs are really running through my veins. Mr. Speaker, I will include in the Record letters of support submitted by 36 individual schools--IHEs, HBCUs--for the passage of this bill, and I have some other documents that I also will include in the Record from NAFEO, UNCF, and TMCF, and also from Harry Williams from TMCF. Mr. Speaker, let me just say before I close, Mr. Budd mentioned a couple of those statistics about our schools. Our schools, HBCUs, confer 40 percent of all STEM degrees, 60 percent of all engineering degrees. We educate 50 percent of African American teachers and 40 percent of African American health professionals. We produce 70 percent of African American dentists and physicians. I could go on and on. Yes, there is a serious economic impact of about $15 billion--$14.8 billion, to be specific. We are not slouching. HBCUs are doing a lot with a little. We still don't receive equitable funding, but this, certainly, will help not only the colleges and universities, the MSIs, but it is also going to help our students--first-generation students, as I was--who have the privilege of going on and getting a good education from one of our Nation's best HBCUs. Let me say before I close, I, again, thank both gentlemen, and I ask the House to approve H.R. 2486. Mr. Speaker, I want to rebut a couple of things. First, as has been explained, account maintenance fees are a dwindling source of funds. They have been made obsolete now, and they are being replaced by the Direct Loan Program. The funds now represent 3.5 percent of the average guaranty agency's total revenue, which last year totaled about $4 billion. When the opposition talks about AMFs and how important they are, we have to note that they are referring to just 3.5 percent of $4 billion. I would also like to say that because funds from AMFs can be used for whatever purpose they desire, on the contrary, title III, part F only can be used for specific purposes that improve institutional stability and academic programs. We don't want to be on record saying that $140 million that may be used to help low-income students is more important than $255 million that must help low-income students, which comprises about 60 percent of the population at our HBCUs, TCUs, and MSIs. The other side says that the mandatory funds should not go to institutions, but account maintenance fees are exactly that. They are funds that must be paid by the government to private institutions. Our HBCUs account for 3 percent of all colleges and universities. We graduate 10 percent of all Black college graduates, a third of Black STEM professionals. Our TCUs serve geographically remote areas that help close gaps in healthcare services and formal education attainment in Tribal communities. Since 1965, the Federal Government has tried to atone for this neglect by providing institutional aid to these students. To turn our backs on these schools by letting these important mandatory funds expire, which it has already been noted will expire in about 2 weeks, is unconscionable. It is a slap in the face to many who look to these schools as their ticket to the middle class. Mr. Speaker, I have already submitted those documents for the Record, but I do want to urge all of my colleagues to pass this FUTURE Act. It is about the future of our schools, the future of our students, those who need that opportunity, the opportunity that W.E.B. Du Bois spoke about when he said, ``Of all the civil rights for which the world has struggled and fought for 500 years, the right to learn is undoubtedly the most fundamental.'' I thank my colleagues for continuing to believe in that fundamental right for these young people to have that opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Chamber again to support and champion our low- income, our first-generation college students by approving H.R. 2486, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ADAMS

Ms. ADAMS. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to be here tonight, and I want to thank the gentlewoman from California for not only her wisdom and guidance and for leading this session tonight, but for all of the distinguished work that she has done for so many years. I also congratulate the chair of the CBC, Karen Bass, for the leadership that she is providing, as well as the chair of the Committee on Education and Labor, on which I have the privilege of sitting, Congressman Bobby Scott. I rise today, Madam Speaker, to join my colleagues in recognition of the 400th anniversary of the first recorded forced arrival of enslaved African people in America. This anniversary marks the beginning of a legacy of oppression and discrimination, the effects of which we still live with today. From those first 19 Africans who reached Jamestown, upwards to 12 million Africans would be kidnapped from their homes and brought to the new world. Those men and women had almost everything taken from them: their names, their religion, their families, and their freedom. But the one thing that couldn't be taken from them was their spirit. The culture and customs that they brought to America leave a heritage for us, their descendants, to be proud of, to recognize how far we have come and how far we still have to go. We know structural racism in our society didn't end in 1865. We know it didn't end in 1965. We know that there are still racial disparities in access to employment and education and healthcare. We know racial bias persists in our criminal justice system, and we know that pay disparities still exist along racial lines. The shameful legacy of slavery remains, and it is incumbent upon us, the Joshua generation, to keep us moving forward. One of the first things we can do to keep us on the path to a more equitable future is to have a full reckoning with our past. It is long past time for us, as a society, to have an open and honest conversation about the lasting effects of slavery in America. My esteemed colleague Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee picked up the torch and introduced H.R. 40, the Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor. We need to have that open national dialogue to come to terms with how we as a nation have not historically lived up to our ideals. The advocacy of our youth who fight for consideration of this bill is a callback to the fights that made public accommodations open to all races and that made the voting booth open to all as well. It is a callback to the abolitionists who awakened the public to the horrors of slavery and the Black men who became soldiers to protect and preserve our Union and their freedom. It is a callback to the 19 Africans who landed in chains on those Virginia shores 400 years ago who never gave up the hope that one day they would once again be free.

Ms. ADAMS

Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in strong support of H.R. 582, the Raise the Wage Act. I have been fighting for working families for 3 decades now, from the State House in North Carolina, to here in the U.S. House. I led the successful effort in my State to raise the State's minimum wage in 2006 from $5.15 to $6.15 an hour. Then, in 2009, the Federal Government raised the wage to $7.25. That was 12 years ago, and the minimum wage hasn't increased since. Only the cost of living has increased. Folks working full-time earning the minimum wage aren't making enough to feed their families, and that is not acceptable. No one working full-time should live in poverty. Working hard is not enough if you don't make enough. That is why I am a proud supporter of H.R. 582, the Raise the Wage Act. The Raise the Wage Act would increase wages for over 150,000 people in my district in North Carolina. It is not just good for workers; it is good for the economy. Unlike the GOP tax cut, which benefited corporations and the wealthy, this bill will put money in the pockets of hardworking Americans, who will spend it in the local economy. My friends on the other side of the aisle will use outdated, misleading data to say that it will kill jobs. But the most comprehensive and recent research shows no job loss in cities that have already raised the wage to $15. The American people are with us on this. A vast majority support raising the minimum wage. You already know folks can't survive on $7.25. We don't have to do that in Congress. My folks on the other side of the aisle, you are making six figures. Can you survive on $7.25? I urge my colleagues, do what is right because it is right. America needs a raise. Join me in voting for this bill. Give the American people a long overdue raise. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 100 economists in support of the $15 minimum wage. [From the Economic Policy Institute, Feb. 6, 2019] Today, workers who earn the federal minimum wage make $7.25 an hour--about 29 percent less per hour than their counterparts made 50 years ago (after adjusting for inflation) We can afford to pay the lowest-paid workers in America substantially more than what their counterparts were paid a half century ago Workers produce more today from each hour of work with productivity nearly doubling since the late 1960s. We, the undersigned, support gradually increasing the minimum wage to $15 by 2024, and then indexing it to median wages to protect against future erosion. We also support gradually phasing out the outdated subminimum wage for tipped workers, which has been frozen at $2.13 since 1991. This policy would directly lift the wages of 28.1 million workers by 2024. Another 11.6 million workers whose wages are just above the new minimum would likely see a wage increase through ``spillover'' effects, as employers adjust their internal wage scales. The vast majority of employees who would benefit are adults--disproportionately women--in working families, who work at least 20 hours a week and depend on their earnings to make ends meet. A $15 minimum wage by 2024 would result in $121 billion in higher wages for 39.7 million low-wage workers, which would also benefit their families and their communities. Since lower-paid workers spend a large share of their additional earnings, this injection of wages would modestly stimulate consumer demand, business activity, and job growth. Further, modest and infrequent minimum wage increases are directly responsible for growing inequality between the bottom and the middle class; this minimum wage increase would provide a significant and much needed boost to the earnings of low-wage workers. And, because it would be indexed to growth in median wages, it would ensure that the wage floor keeps up with growth of middle-wage workers going forward. The last decade has seen a wealth of rigorous academic research on the effect of minimum wage increases on employment, with the weight of evidence showing that previous modest increases in the minimum wage had little or no negative effects on the employment of low-wage workers. It is time to support a bolder increase to address the fact that wages for workers at the low end of the labor market have continued to stagnate. Even if the growth of aggregate work hours for low-wage workers were to slow somewhat, workers who work less could still break even, or come out ahead, in terms of annual earnings. Since as many as 10 percent of the lowest-wage workers leave or start jobs every month, any decrease in the number of full-time equivalent jobs will mean that some workers will take more time finding a new job, or will work fewer hours. But many of these workers may still see their annual earnings rise because of their wage increase. The benefits of gradually phasing in a $15 minimum wage by 2024 would be far-reaching, lifting pay for tens of millions of workers and helping reverse decades of growing pay inequality. The benefits of a $15 minimum wage in 2024 for workers, their families, and their communities far outweigh the potential costs. Of course, the minimum wage is just one of many policies designed to help low-wage workers. We believe that an increase in the minimum wage should be accompanied by complementary policies such as an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), enhanced safety net, increased job training, and policies to generate full employment. Sincerely, Daron Acemoglu, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Ph.D.; Jacqueline Agesa, Marshall University, Ph.D.; Alan Aja, Brooklyn College, CUNY, Ph.D.; Randy Albelda, University of Massachusetts Boston, Ph.D.; Sylvia A. Allegretto, University of California, Berkeley, Ph.D.; Bernard E. Anderson, University of Pennsylvania, Ph.D.; Robert M. Anderson, University of California, Berkeley, Ph.D.; Eileen Appelbaum, Center for Economic and Policy Research, Ph.D.; Michael Ash, University of Massachusetts Amherst Ph.D.; Algernon Austin, Demos, Ph.D. Kate Bahn, Washington Center for Equitable Growth, Ph.D.; Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research, Ph.D.; Erdogan Bakir, Bucknell University, Ph.D.; Stephen Baldwin, Retired, Ph.D.; Nina Banks, Bucknell University, Ph.D.; James Baron, Yale School of Management, Ph.D.; Lourdes Beneria, Cornell University, Ph.D.; Jared Bernstein, Ph.D.; Josh Bivens, Economic Policy Institute, Ph.D.; Sandra Black, University of Texas at Austin, Ph.D. Gail Blattenberger, University of Utah, Ph.D.; Robert Blecker, American University, Ph.D.; Barry Bluestone, Northeastern University, Ph.D.; Barry Bosworth, Brookings Institution, Ph.D.; Heather Boushey, Washington Center for Equitable Growth, Ph.D.; Clair Brown, University of California, Berkeley, Ph.D. Lawrence Chimerine, Radnor Consulting, Ph.D.; Robert Coen, Northwestern University, Ph.D.; Jennifer Cohen, Miami University, Ph.D.; David Cutler Harvard University, Ph.D. Sheldon Danziger, Univensty of Michigan, Ph.D.; Angus Deaton, Princeton University, Ph.D.; Gregory DeFreitas, Hofstra University, Ph.D.; James Devine, Loyola Marymount University, Ph.D.; Geert Dhondt, John Jay College, CUNY Ph.D.; Peter Diamond, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Ph.D.; Adrienne Eaton, Rutgers University Ph.D.; Peter Eaton, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Ph.D.; John Edgren, Eastern Michigan University, Ph.D.; Gerald Epstein, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Ph.D. Allan Freyer, NC Justice Center, Ph.D.; Teresa Ghilarducci The New School, Ph.D.; Jeeten Gin, Union College, Ph.D.; Martin Hart-Landsberg, Lewis and Clark College Ph.D.; Jeff Hayes, Institute for Women's Policy Research, Ph.D.; Adam Hersh Former Chief Economist of the Joint Economic Committee, Ph.D.; Stephen Herzenberg, Keystone Research Center, Ph.D.; Emily Hoffman, Western Michigan University, Ph.D.; David Howell, The New School, Ph.D. Candace Howes, Connecticut College, Ph.D.; Jennifer Hunt, Rutgers University, Ph.D.; Jeffrey Keefe, Rutgers University, Ph.D.; Mary C. King Portland State University, Ph.D.; Janet Knoedler, Bucknell University, Ph.D.; Ebru Kongar, Dickinson College, Ph.D.; Brent Kramer, City University of New York, Ph.D.; Haydar Kurban, Howard University, Ph.D.; Paul Leigh, University of California, Davis, Ph.D.; Henry Levin, Columbia University, Ph.D. Oren Levin-Waldman, Metropolitan College of New York, Ph.D.; Mark Levinson, SEIU, Ph.D.; Frank Levy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Ph.D.; David B. Lipsky, Cornell University, Ph.D.; Pamela Loprest, Urban Institute, Ph.D.; Stephanie Luce, School of Labor and Urban Studies/CUNY, Ph.D.; Lisa Lynch, Brandeis University Ph.D.; Stanley Malinowitz, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Ph.D.; Julianne Malveaux, Economic Education, Ph.D.; Patrick Mason, Florida State University, Ph.D. Jordan Matsudaira, Columbia University, Ph.D.; Peter Matthews, Middlebury College, Ph.D.; Anne Mayhew, University of Tennessee, Ph.D.; Elaine McCrate, University of Vermont, Ph.D.; John Miller Wheaton College, Ph.D.; Lawrence Mishel, Economic Policy Institute, Ph.D.; Monique Morrissey, Economic Policy Institute, Ph.D.; Philip Moss, University of Massachusetts, Lowell, Ph.D.; Eshragh Motahar Union College, Ph.D.; Tracy Mott, University of Denver, Ph.D. Richard Murnane, Harvard University, Ph.D.; Robert Murphy, Boston College, Ph.D.; Paulette Olson, Wright State University, Ph.D.; Rudolph Oswald, Retired, Ph.D.; Spencer Pack, Connecticut College, Ph.D.; Prasannan Parthasarathi, Boston College, Ph.D.; Manuel Pastor University of Southern California, Ph.D.; Mark Paul, New College of Florida, Ph.D.; Eva Paus, Mount Holyoke College Ph.D.; Kenneth Peres, Retired Communications Workers of America, Ph.D. Joseph Persky, University of Illinois at Chicago Ph.D.; Michael Piore, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Ph.D.; Robert Pollen, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Ph.D.; Mark Price, Keystone Research Center, Ph.D.; Michael Reich, University of California, Berkeley, Ph.D.; Rene Rosenbaum, Michigan State University, Ph.D.; Jesse Rothstein, University of California, Berkeley, Ph.D.; Daniel Rubinfeld University of California, Berkeley, Ph.D.; Emmanuel Saez, University of California, Berkeley, Ph.D.; Isabel Sawhill, Brookings Institution, Ph.D. Peter Schaeffer, West Virginia University, Ph.D.; William Schaniel, University of West Georgia, Ph.D.; Stephen J. Schmidt, Union College, Ph.D.; John Schmitt, Economic Policy Institute, Ph.D.; Geoffrey Schneider, Bucknell University, Ph.D.; Juliet Schor, Boston College, Ph.D.; Robert E Scott Economic Policy Institute Ph.D.; Heidi Shierholz, Economic Policy Institute, Ph.D.; Rachel Silbermann, Connecticut Voices for Children, Ph.D.; Andna Smythe, Howard University, Ph.D. Younghwan Song, Union College Ph.D.; Sarah Spell, Ph.D.; Case Sprenkle, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Ph.D.; William E. Spriggs, Howard University and AFL-CIO, Ph.D.; Marshall Steinbaum, Roosevelt Institute, Ph.D.; James Stewart, The Pennsylvania State University, Ph.D.; Frank Stricker, CSU Dominguez Hills, Ph.D.; Kenneth P. Thomas, University of Missouri-St Louis, Ph.D.; Chris Tilly, Univeisity of California Los Angeles, Ph.D. Laura Tyson, University of California Berkeley, Ph.D.; Johan Uribe, Denison University, Ph.D.; Paula Voos, Rutgers University, Ph.D.; Richard Walker University of California, Berkeley, Ph.D.; Robert Wassmer, California State University, Sacramento, Ph.D.; David Weil, Brandeis University, Ph.D.; Joann Weiner, The George Washington University Ph.D.; Jeannette Wicks-Lim, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Ph.D.; Charles Wilber, University of Notre Dame, Ph.D.; Sarah Wilhelm, Ph.D.; Robert B. Williams, Guilford College, Ph.D.; Valerie Wilson, Economic Policy Institute, Ph.D.; Yavuz Yasar, University of Denver, Ph.D.; Alexandria Zhang, Ph.D.; Ben Zipperer, Economic Policy Institute, Ph.D.

Ms. ADAMS

Ms. ADAMS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. ADAMS. Madam Chair, I want to first offer my thanks to Chairwoman DeLauro and our other appropriators for their tireless work on this year's Labor-HHS bill. I offer this amendment to recognize the important work of the National Center for College Students with Disabilities and to press the Senate to act. The national center, located in Huntersville, North Carolina, sets as its mission to improve retention and graduation rates of U.S. college students with disabilities. It accomplishes this through technical assistance and outreach and the dissemination of peer-reviewed research that tries to determine the needs of disabled college students, their families, disabled service providers, and higher education staff and faculty. Additionally, the center has developed and is constantly updating a public clearinghouse that contains disability resources at institutions of higher education across the U.S. This allows disabled students to access crucial information to intelligently assess their higher education options. Last but not least, the center empowers its students through the dissemination of a weekly newsletter that reports current events and news about the disabled in higher education, promulgated by its student group DREAM, or Disability Rights, Education, Activism, and Mentoring. To sum up, the center has been a godsend for the 20 percent of college students who have some form of disability since its $2.5 million authorization in 2015, and that expires at the end of this fiscal year. Madam Chair, this amendment would add $500,000 to the higher education account, which funds the national center. If passed, it will be used in conference with the Senate to justify a new authorization. Without more funding, the center will close in June 2020, wasting 5 years' worth of taxpayer dollars used to create groundbreaking research for our disabled students. It would leave thousands of higher education staff, faculty, and students without support for the disabled in higher education. The center has bipartisan support on the Education and Labor Committee, and it is expected to be included in the next Higher Education Act reauthorization. I thank the chair of the Higher Education and Workforce Development Subcommittee, Representative Susan Davis, as well as Representatives Huffman, Moulton, Bonamici, and Lowenthal for cosponsoring this amendment, and I urge the House for its support. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ADAMS. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Ms. ADAMS. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ADAMS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. ADAMS. Madam Chair, my amendment would add $3 million to the Children and Families Services Programs account. I do want to thank Chairwoman DeLauro for her work on the Labor-HHS bill, particularly the inclusion of a line item for the Social Services/Income Maintenance Research program, as well as report language to support Community Resource Centers. These centers, or CRCs, as they are called, help administer social programs such as Medicaid, WIC, and SNAP. But, unlike other State one- stop shops, CRCs have completely integrated services, which allow for greater efficiency. Instead of repeating their story to multiple administrative staff during the screening process, customers can be screened and assessed at one central administrative service area, which provides initial screening and assessment for all programs and services offered in the CRC. If a customer needs to access multiple county services or partner agencies, staff arranges cross-service coordination, which allows individuals to assess their eligibility and apply for multiple Federal programs in a quick, efficient manner. H.R. 2740 will, for the first time, allow the Federal Government to evaluate the viability of CRCs and determine whether their expansion can help save taxpayer money and make social services more accessible to everyday Americans. That is not all that CRCs do. They also partner with local workforce development boards to connect job seekers with employers, putting a dent in our Nation's skills gap. If this amendment passes, an additional $3 million will be provided to the Children and Families Services account, which will fund the research into CRCs. We then will work with Senate colleagues to ensure that the funding is used for the purpose of this groundbreaking research. Madam Chair, Congress should support initiatives that make Federal programs more accessible for Americans and do it in a way that saves taxpayer money. Community Resource Centers are a perfect example of that, and I applaud H.R. 2740's recognition of that fact. I urge the House to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ADAMS. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), our distinguished subcommittee chair.