Stacey Plaskett

Ms. PLASKETT

Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Speaker, this week, the United Nations is hosting its Climate Action Summit. Robust funding and sound policies are needed to ensure we effectively combat climate change. Threatened by increasingly more frequent and extreme changes in our climate, territories like the U.S. Virgin Islands stand at the front line of this quickly escalating climate crisis. Within the past decade, my district has reduced fossil fuel use by 20 percent and has become a regional leader in clean energy. States and territories have also passed regional and State-specific legislation to combat climate change, but we need a comprehensive, forward-looking national plan to address this threat to our children and our children's children. While we don't yet have all the tools to address rapid climate change, we must create them through increased Federal investment in research, development, and deployment of emerging technologies. Across the Nation, climate change is threatening our economy and our lives. Hurricanes like Irma and Maria collectively cost $140 billion, according to NOAA, and, most importantly, they cost thousands of lives. America must lead the charge to preserve our planet.

Ms. PLASKETT

Ms. PLASKETT. Madam Speaker, today, because federally regulated banks and other financial institutions may face prosecution if they offer their services to businesses selling legal cannabis products across 47 States, D.C., and four U.S. territories, many legal businesses are forced to operate in a cash-only business, making them targets for theft and creating opportunities for tax evasion and money laundering. It is simply unfair to deprive legal, State-approved businesses of financial services any longer. Social equity will go further by allowing businesses to come out of the shadows. As chair of the House Committee on Agriculture's Subcommittee on Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research, I am pleased that this legislation was made inclusive of hemp as it moved through the process. I have heard from a number of legal hemp businesses that have experienced similar issues. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), my colleague, for the inclusion of the territories.

Ms. PLASKETT

Ms. PLASKETT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the subject of this Special Order.

Ms. PLASKETT. Madam Speaker, I rise as a member of the Congressional Black Caucus to speak to this body about the issues that are important to Americans, everyday Americans. The Congressional Black Caucus is the conscience of the Congress, and we feel that it is our responsibility in our Special Order Hours to address those issues and concerns that are of most importance to the people of America. We represent 70 million Americans in our caucus, 55 Members strong, and we are using this time to address this Congress on the issues of agriculture and the Black community. Agriculture and the Black community, it is more than just SNAP for us. Madam Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott).

Ms. PLASKETT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that enlightening information that he has shared with us. We know that the years of experience and seniority that the gentleman has gained on the Agriculture Committee have given him not only a passion, but a real understanding of the issues that are important, not only to Americans who utilize SNAP, but to those farmers and those in our agricultural community who are supportive of the things that we are trying to push forward and that this administration is, in fact, trying to impede.

Ms. PLASKETT. Madam Speaker, I think of all the money that America spends on foreign aid, foreign food programs; and the fact that we, as Americans, are squabbling over feeding our own, of providing nutrition and assistance to those families, to veterans, to our elders, to our children who need these programs, it is astounding that we even have to have this conversation.

Ms. PLASKETT. Madam Speaker, as you can see, I am here alongside my colleagues of the Congressional Black Caucus in strong opposition to the administration's proposal to severely restrict broad-based categorical eligibility, or cat-el. This rule would kick millions of people struggling with hunger from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, most commonly known as SNAP, as well as approximately 250,000 children from preschool meals; 250,000 children who rely on this program to provide them with lunch, with breakfast, allowing them to be able to utilize their skills in school, allowing them to be able to learn on a daily basis. Many of these children, we know, without this program are unable to eat, are unable to be able to stay awake in school because of the hunger that is within them, right here in this country. And so we are fighting to make sure that those children are not removed; that those millions of Americans are not removed from this program. SNAP provides nutrition benefits to supplement the food budget of needy families so they can purchase healthy food and move toward self- sufficiency; providing food assistance that averages just $1.40 per person per meal, $1.40 per meal. SNAP is a modest benefit, with nearly half of the participants running out of benefits before the end of the month. If anything, policymakers should be debating how much to increase this supplemental benefit, given that there is no room for cuts. What's more, Trump's tax law gave more in tax breaks to the top 1 percent than SNAP costs in its entirety. And if the Trump administration is looking for strategies to achieve savings in SNAP, while actually helping workers, it need look no further than raising the Federal minimum wage. Raising the Federal minimum wage to $12, not even the $15 proposed in the Raise the Wage Act, would save $53 billion over the next 10 years, nearly four times as much as the proposed rule, by ensuring that workers earn more so that they are better able to afford food, instead of punishing labor market struggles with hunger. The Trump administration's proposed rule would recalculate how we measure poverty, a move that would more than likely result in reducing the eligibility criteria for individuals and removing people off certain Federal programs that are meant to assist poor and low-income families. Recently, the Trump administration proposed a rule that would recalculate how we measure poverty, a move that would more than likely result in reducing the eligibility criteria for individuals and removing people off certain Federal programs that are meant to assist poor and low-income families. The proposed rule would change how the Census measures poverty in a manner that will artificially drive down the number of people counted as officially poor. Because eligibility for a range of basic supports is calculated based on the poverty threshold, each year, as costs go up, many working people with low pay would gradually be stripped of SNAP, WIC, Medicaid, parts of Medicare, Head Start, school lunch, legal services, even tax credits under the Affordable Care Act. In my own district, due to Hurricanes Irma and Maria, the Virgin Islands Department of Human Services Division of Family Assistance executed Disaster SNAP, D-SNAP, and regular SNAP simultaneously. The Virgin Islands provided this Disaster SNAP to approximately 30,000 households, and SNAP to approximately 29,000 households. There are approximately now 22,000 people on SNAP in the Virgin Islands, where we have a 33 percent child poverty rate. As a member of the House Agriculture Committee, and a conferee on the 2018 farm bill, I am proud of the work we did on that bill. This proposal flies in the face of everything we worked on to build a bipartisan bill, a bipartisan consensus around the process of SNAP, and the funding, and the support we recognize that American families need. House Democrats and our colleagues in the Senate expressly rejected changes to cat-el; the end result was the most overwhelmingly bipartisan farm bill in history. This is only an attempt by an ideological White House at an end-run around congressional intent. The White House is trying to take away the authority of this body, and we will not stand by and allow that to happen. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), who has worked extensively on this issue, as well as poverty issues and issues on how to increase healthcare benefits to American families. I yield to the gentleman to speak about those issues.

Ms. PLASKETT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the great information, the statistics, the science that is there that explains to us what happens when SNAP is denied to young people, as well as his heartfelt words about where our Nation is going when we are unable to feed our own. I have some remarks from another Member of the Congressional Black Caucus, Congresswoman Marcia Fudge, who is the chairperson of the Subcommittee on Nutrition, Oversight, and Department Operations of the Agriculture Committee. Madam Speaker, over 40 States and territories use broad-based categorical eligibility, or BBCE, to streamline the administration of SNAP and provide critical assistance to households receiving benefits and services through the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families block grant. BBCE is proven to help millions of working poor families move toward financial security by easing the benefits cliff as their earnings increase. On July 24, 2019, USDA published a proposed rule to restrict the use of BBCE and eliminate SNAP benefits for an estimated 3.1 million Americans. This includes children, working families, military veterans, disabled individuals, and our seniors. Most shameful is the proposal's impact on hungry school-age children. By USDA's own estimates, the new policy would take away direct access to free school meals for at least 500,000 schoolchildren. Nearly half a million children would be left to go hungry during the school day, shifting the burden to strapped school districts. In her State of Ohio, according to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, over 61,000 SNAP households would lose their benefits. USDA reports that, in 2017, the prevalence of food insecurity among those in Ohio was higher than the national average. 13.7 percent of Ohioans were food insecure in 2017 compared to 12.3 percent nationally. Even USDA admits the proposed changes to SNAP would make food insecurity worse and make it hard for millions of Americans to get by. Most notably, it would remove the current flexibility for States and territories to use BBCE to tailor SNAP to best meet the food needs of their own populations. Republicans love to talk about States' rights when it suits them, but when it comes to the flexibility of States to meet the needs of food- insecure populations, then they want something very different. As the economy continues to leave working families and our most vulnerable behind, programs like SNAP are needed more than ever. Congress already debated these issues. We came together and rejected this policy in both the 2014 and 2018 farm bills with a record bipartisan vote. This proposed rule is shameful, cruel, and contrary to the will of Congress. This unilateral action by the administration only complicates legitimate bipartisan efforts to make programs like SNAP more effective and efficient for millions of people who rely on it to put food on the table. I thank Congresswoman Fudge for her remarks, and she will include the remainder of her remarks in the Record. I would note that on May 22, 2019, I sent my own Governor of the Virgin Islands a letter reminding him of the need for us to speak out on the proposed rule that would recalculate how we measure poverty, a move that would make it more than likely to result in reducing the eligibility criteria for individuals and removing people off certain Federal programs that are meant to assist poor and low-income families. I include that letter in the Record. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, May 22, 2019. Governor Albert Bryan Jr., Christiansted, VI. Governor Bryan: Recently, the Trump Administration proposed a rule that would recalculate how we measure poverty, a move that would more than likely result in reducing the eligibility criteria for individuals and removing people off certain federal programs that are meant to assist poor and low-income families. The proposed rule would change how the Census measures poverty in a manner that that will artificially drive down the number of people counted as officially poor. Because eligibility for a range of basic supports is calculated based on the poverty threshold, each year as costs go up, many working people with low pay would gradually be stripped of SNAP (formerly food stamps), WIC, Medicaid, parts of Medicare, Head Start, school lunch, legal services, and even tax credits under the Affordable Care Act. Due to Hurricanes Irma and Maria, the Virgin Islands Department of Human Services Division of Family Assistance executed both Disaster SNAP--D-SNAP--and regular SNAP simultaneously. The Virgin Islands provided D-SNAP to approximately 30,000 households and SNAP to approximately 29,000 households territory-wide. As a result, members of the community were able to purchase desperately needed food. There are now approximately 22,000 people on SNAP in the Virgin Islands. This is an important a vital program for Virgin Islanders. There is a 45-day window to comment on the proposal and the deadline is June 21, 2019. I am requesting that the Government of the Virgin Islands submit its comment on the effect this rule will have on the residents of the Territory. Sincerely, Stacey E. Plaskett, Member of Congress.

Ms. PLASKETT. I include in the Record letters from AARP, as well as the United States Conference of Mayors, that have written in during the comment period to speak out against and in opposition to the proposed rule changes by this administration.

Ms. PLASKETT. Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time I have remaining.

Ms. PLASKETT. Madam Speaker, President Trump's latest attempt to slash SNAP would be harmful to Americans across the country, but certain communities face particular risks. Six of the groups that Trump's proposed rules would hit hardest include rural communities, Black and Latinx America, people with disabilities, people with criminal records who are trying to move on, those in the LGBTQ community, and women. Given that 76 percent of rural adults report that good jobs are scarce in their areas, rural communities will be among the hardest hit by Trump's proposed rule, as it would tie States' hands and remove the flexibility they need to help residents of high-unemployment areas put food on the table. Indeed, while urban areas experienced a net gain of 3.6 million jobs from 2007 to 2015, rural areas lost 400,000 jobs during that time, meaning that many rural areas have struggled to recover from the Great Recession. Additionally, Black and Hispanic households are especially likely to be food insecure and thus disproportionately rely on SNAP to help them meet basic needs, accounting for about 30 percent, and nearly 20 percent of SNAP benefits in 2016, respectively. This is due in large part to the systematic barriers that African Americans and Latinx Americans face to building wealth, purchasing homes, accessing education, and escaping poverty. Poverty rates in these communities are more than double those of White Americans, and the Black unemployment rate is still more than twice that of White workers, despite what is spoken of in the White House. In 2016, Black Americans' median wealth was only $13,460, compared with $142,000 for White Americans. People with disabilities: The proposed rule purports to apply only to ``able-bodied adults without dependents.'' What does that mean? Many of the more than 11 million people with disabilities who receive SNAP assistance could lose that assistance under the rule, as people who face limited work capacity due to disability or poor health are regularly misclassified as able-bodied for the purposes of SNAP. In fact, based on analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the author estimates that 12 percent of SNAP recipients ages 18 to 59 have at least one physical, functional, or work limitation but are not counted as disabled under SNAP. People with criminal records: The proposed rule particularly harms people who come into contact with the criminal justice system. Nearly nine in ten employers use criminal background checks in hiring. This means that even an old, minor criminal record can serve as a life sentence to poverty and joblessness. As a result, the unemployment rate among formerly incarcerated individuals is approximately 27 percent. What is more, one study shows that 60 percent of formerly incarcerated individuals remain unemployed 1 year following their release. By helping people put food on the table while they get back on their feet, SNAP is a powerful tool for supporting reentry and preventing recidivism. In fact, one study shows that when formerly incarcerated people are subjected to harsher SNAP requirements, compounded by the substantial barriers they already face, recidivism rates increase. Taking SNAP away from workers as they struggle to rebuild their lives and reenter the labor market would thus directly undercut the bipartisan gains that the President and Congress say they support in the FIRST STEP Act. The LGBTQ people: Trump's proposed rule would also be particularly burdensome for the LGBTQ community. According to a 2017 nationally representative CAP survey, LGBTQ people are more than twice as likely as non-LGBTQ people to receive SNAP benefits, with 26 percent of LGBTQ women and 18 percent of men reporting that they or their families received SNAP. The disproportionate receipt of benefits is just one reason that this rule would be particularly burdensome for the LGBTQ community. The rule would especially harm workers because they are especially likely to face labor market barriers that make it more difficult for them to find employment. Women: Women make up two-thirds of the low-wage workforce, making them especially likely to face the unstable schedules that would be punished by the Trump proposal's punitive time limits. In addition to the challenges of low-wage work, women are disproportionately likely to be caregivers, including caring for people who may not be considered dependents under Trump's proposed SNAP rule. For example, women are literally 1.4 times more likely than men to provide unpaid care and help to people who live outside of their home. While women struggle to manage the challenges of unstable low-wage work and caregiving, they are also more likely to face workplace discrimination than men. For example, nearly 36 percent of women who filed sexual harassment charges from 2012 to 2016 claimed that they faced retaliation as a result, such as their employers forcing them out of their jobs or reducing their hours. Therefore, women who face discrimination may be more likely to be subject to the proposed rule. African Americans on average have the lowest household incomes among all racial/ethnic groups except Native Americans. The poverty rate for African Americans is almost two times greater than the general U.S. population. These are, in fact, issues that we all face and should be aware of. SNAP is a powerful anti-poverty program for all people. In a typical month in 2017, SNAP helped about 13 million African Americans put sufficient food on the table. Its benefits lifted about 2.1 million African Americans, including 1 million children, above the poverty line in 2015. SNAP also kept 1.2 million African Americans out of deep poverty--above half of the poverty line--that year. Approximately $20 billion in SNAP benefits, about 30 percent of the total, went to African American households in fiscal year 2016. On average, African American households that participate in SNAP receive $260 in SNAP each month, just $260. A typical participating African American family of three has an average monthly income of $940, or 56 percent of the poverty line. When their $390 SNAP benefit, the average for a family of three, is added to their cash income, total monthly income rises by 29 percent, to $1,330. But this is just an example of what this administration is doing. One, going against what this Congress has already proposed and agreed to, bipartisan support, getting something across the line, bringing it to the President's desk, he signs it, and then through the administration, agencies, or executive order, attempting to slash at the authority of this body, of this first branch of government, who in fact, makes laws. I know that firsthand, as that is exactly what is happening right now in the Virgin Islands with the disaster relief funding that this body came up with. We recall that this body decided that it was, in fact, going to give the territories money for disaster relief, and now we are facing FEMA guidance delays on new resiliency and rebuilding provisions. Additionally, FEMA denying local administration of FEMA permanent housing reconstruction programs; FEMA not willing to advance funding for major recovery projects, taking too long to improve major worksheets; HUD delaying releasing CDBG recovery funding and segregating it from the rest of the country; action plan for unmet needs was approved on March 1, but still no grant agreement 6 months later, 2 years after the hurricanes; FEMA administrations denying cost share waivers on FEMA aid, which was given to the Katrina area; refusal to exercise clear statutory authority to do this for the Virgin Islands. This is what this administration appears to be doing: allowing Congress to come up with bipartisan legislation, whether it be SNAP, assistance to farmers, food programs, disaster relief, having bipartisan support in both chambers, getting it across the line, signing it and then undercutting it, undermining this body, undermining the democratic process that is in place. We must do something about it. In January of 1865, when Union General William T. Sherman issued an order to allocate 40 acres to each freedman, the Black ministers who lobbied for the policy envisioned vibrant, self-governed Black agrarian communities dotting the southern countryside. Unfortunately, President Andrew Johnson's revocation of this order later that year and the institution of the Jim Crow regime after reconstruction left rural Black Americans to build their farming communities from scratch. It wouldn't be the first time the U.S. Government worked to undermine Black farmers, and it certainly wasn't the last. We are seeing that even today. Yet, even in the face of broken promises, not to mention the violence and discrimination aimed at Black farmers and Black Americans by White landowners and lenders, those farms secured a foothold in American agriculture. At the height of Black farming in 1920, Black farmers operated 925,710 farms, about one-seventh of all farm operations in the United States. Today, going from one-seventh, as of 2012, Black farmers make up less than 2 percent of all farmers. In the Virgin Islands, we recognize this. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has a long and well-documented history of discrimination against Black farmers. The unequal administration of government farm support programs, crucial to protecting farmers from an inherently risky enterprise, has had a profound impact on rural communities of color. We have got to stay on this administration to make sure that all Americans have a fair shot, not only at food and food security through SNAP, but also to ensure that those farmers, American farmers, particularly minority farmers, have a fair shot at being part of that food production. We know that in the Virgin Islands, our farmers farm very small acreages of land, but we are hoping and looking for the support of the USDA to live up to their example and the ideal that they are there to support farmers, not to undermine them; they are there to support not just the commodities, but to those specialty crop workers, those smaller farmers who are providing food and sustenance to Americans here in this country. We know that fresh food is the best food for our children as part of the school lunch program, and we must expand support for the farm-to- the-schoolroom programs, those programs that allow local farmers to be the ones to provide the food for those school programs that are in place, and not allow the administration to undercut any part of the process. We know that the Congressional Black Caucus will be vigilant at ensuring that this administration does not cross the line, and we will be vigilant at bringing to the American people the message that this Congress will not sit back and allow any administration, Democrat, Republican, anybody, to shirk their responsibility to the American people. As the conscience of the Congress, that is our charge, and we will continue to do that work. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PLASKETT

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

Ms. PLASKETT

Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairwoman Lowey, and I thank the leadership for bringing this CR and health extenders legislation to the floor. The bill contains critical Medicaid relief for my district, the Virgin Islands. It extends the disaster-related 100 percent Federal funding to sustain Medicaid on our islands through November 21. While the territories are part of America, and we are American citizens, Federal law unfairly places Medicaid funding caps on the islands--unlike the States, where funding is open-ended--and it requires them to pay a much greater percentage of Medicaid than the States. Supplemental funding has only been provided on a temporary basis. Without the fix in this bill, the rate of Federal funding would plummet nearly 50 percentage points to the permanent, capped level of 55 percent. Cuts to that funding put basic healthcare at risk for many Americans living on our islands. The fundamental problem is that the U.S. territories are forced to operate Medicaid under capped funding. A more equitable matching rate is needed on a permanent basis. I know that the Energy and Commerce Committee has done so in its legislation. We are hopeful that when we work on a final budget, that will take place. I have sponsored legislation, H.R. 1354, to remove these caps permanently. I thank everyone for advancing this cause and this CR.

Ms. PLASKETT

Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Speaker, every day, 100 Americans are killed with guns and hundreds more are shot and injured. That is 36,500 people a year who lose their lives to gun violence. The effects extend far beyond those casualties and shape the lives of millions of Americans who witness it, know someone who was shot, or live in fear of the next shooting. This senseless loss of life is all too common in the United States and its territories. As of August 26, we have lost 26 lives to gun violence in the Virgin Islands. In 2018, the United Nations released a report naming the territory as the new murder capital in the Caribbean, with 52.64 murders per 100,000 people. For the families, friends, and communities of victims in the Virgin Islands, this pain will never pass, just as it will not pass for the loved ones of thousands of other people who have died from gun violence in the U.S. Time for action is overdue. Earlier this year, the House passed the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, requiring checks for all gun purchases. We need to push for universal background checks, assistance and increasing funds to border control for the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico to stop guns coming into the territories, and enhanced treatment and resources for mental health. I look forward to working with all to come up with some form of sensible gun law legislation.

Ms. PLASKETT

Ms. PLASKETT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor former Postmaster Louis A. Jackson, a native son of the Virgin Islands who dedicated 46 years of his life to the United States Postal Service and serving the American people. During his time with the Postal Service, Mr. Louis Jackson was integral in the building of new post offices, expanding delivery routes, and has served as a mentor for many. An accomplished and venerable Postmaster, he made a significant difference to the postal system throughout the Virgin Islands and is a three-time winner of the Postal Service's prestigious National Benjamin Award. Many in the community relied on the steady hand and calm demeanor of Mr. Jackson in resolving postal and other issues in the community. Outside of the Postal Service, Postmaster Jackson is an active member of the community. He has served as a mentor and counselor for the countless young people in the Virgin Islands and taught martial arts to over 3000 students. He also served as the Chairman of the St. Croix chapter of the American Cancer Society, Vice President of the National League of Postmasters, and much more. Postmaster Louis Jackson has lived his life enriching his community and it is my honor on behalf of the 116th Congress and everyone who has been touched by his work and kind spirit, to say thank you.

Ms. PLASKETT

Ms. PLASKETT. Madam Speaker, I want to respond first to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the minority leader, when he talked about us doing work. He asked us if work was being done here in Congress and said that we weren't responding to the daily needs of America. Madam Speaker, I would remind him and remind the Speaker that we, in fact, have passed the Violence Against Women Act in the Judiciary Committee. The Energy and Commerce Committee passed the prescription drug bill that came to this floor. The Energy and Commerce Committee is working on Medicaid as we speak, right now. So 150 bills have been passed by this body and are sitting on the desk of his friend, the Senate leader, Mitch McConnell, who has decided that he is not interested in the work of the people of the United States. But guess what. We can walk and chew gum at the same time, as I have said. This committee's responsibility is oversight, not anything else. And that is what we are doing is oversight of this administration. I know that is difficult for that side of the aisle to want to think about, overseeing and reining in individuals who may be acting outside of the law. Last year when Secretary Ross testified before Congress, he said he added the citizenship question solely to help the Department of Justice enforce the Voting Rights Act. We understand now that may not have been true. And he has given us unresponsive--that is a legal term--unresponsive documents in those thousands of documents that he has turned over to us, not the documents that we have asked for. It is our responsibility as the Oversight Committee to hold individuals responsible. I would ask that my colleagues across the aisle consider their responsibility on this committee if you want to sit on the committee, to do the work of the committee, and that is overseeing this administration. I think that we have done our job, and we are doing it well. Madam Speaker, if he has not been responsive, we must hold him in contempt.

Ms. PLASKETT

Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford) for yielding and thank him for the work he is doing on this issue and so many issues that affect American families. Sometimes here in Congress we can be distracted by issues that come up on a daily basis, but the gentleman from Nevada has kept his mind focused on the things that everyday Americans are concerned with, that is, proper wages, livable homes, good education, affordable housing. I am appreciative that we have kept our eyes on the prize, kept our eyes focused on the policy and the things that move the needle on this. I was so happy to hear just a few moments ago from the gentleman from Philadelphia, Mr. Evans, because, although he talks quite a bit about Philadelphia, there is one area he talks about quite a bit, and that is sustaining the Black middle class, sustaining Black homeownership. This minimum wage bill, Raise the Wage Act of 2019, supports those kind of initiatives. It gradually raises, as we have said, the Federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 over several years, over the next 6 years, to lift millions of workers out of poverty, even those who are working, who are still the working-class poor, stimulate local economies, and restore the value of the minimum wage. It gives 40 million Americans a raise. As we heard from the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence), my colleague and good friend, it helps women and workers of color. Today, more than 40 percent of Black workers and one-third of Hispanic workers will get a raise under this bill. Women make up nearly two-thirds of all minimum wage workers. In areas like the Virgin Islands, where many of the homes and percentages of homes are run by single-person households, those being predominantly Black women, this is very important that women are two- thirds of the minimum wage workers. For them to be lifted out raises families. One thing that I think this touches on and is part of that hasn't really been expressed as yet is wealth disparity. The wealth, the measure of an individual's or a family's financial net worth, provides all sorts of opportunities for American families. Wealth makes it easier for people to seamlessly transition between jobs, move to new neighborhoods, and respond to emergency situations. Unfortunately, wealth in this country is unequally distributed by race, particularly between White and Black households. African American families have a fraction of the wealth of White families, leaving them more economically insecure and with far fewer opportunities for economic mobility. Even after considering positive factors such as increased education levels, African Americans still have less wealth than Whites. Less wealth translates into fewer opportunities and is compounded by lower income levels and fewer chances to build wealth or pass accumulated wealth down to future generations. This also is very symptomatic and has a well-documented history of mortgage market discrimination. It means that Blacks are significantly less likely to be homeowners than Whites, which means they have less access to savings and tax benefits that come with owning a home. Persistent labor market discrimination and segregation also force Blacks into fewer and less advantageous employment opportunities than their White counterparts. Even when they have homeownership, they have less access and ability to be able to use that homeownership. In the Virgin Islands, surprisingly, almost 60 percent of families of Black people own their home, but they are unable, and the banks are unwilling, to allow them to leverage that wealth for education, for second mortgages, to start businesses. The scrutiny is high. When we are talking about wages, in the Virgin Islands, we make 75 percent of what is the national average. The average for a Virgin Islands family is $37,254; whereas, the estimated national average is $50,221. And 13.5 percent of U.S. Virgin Islanders have family income levels below $10,000 a year--for a family. That is horrendous. This bill, however, and passage of this bill would mean lots of wealth and lots of opportunities for Black families, African Americans, the working poor, White poor families, Hispanic families. African Americans own approximately one-tenth of the wealth of White Americans. In 2016, the median wealth for nonretired Black households 25 years old and older was less than one-tenth that of similarly situated White households. Those are White households, making the same and having the same access as Black families, which are making one- tenth that of similarly situated White households. The Black-White wealth gap has still not recovered from the Great Recession. In 2007, immediately after the Great Recession, the median wealth of Blacks was nearly 14 percent of Whites. Although Black wealth increased at a faster rate than White wealth in 2016, Blacks still owned less than 10 percent of White's wealth at the median. Black households have fewer and are in greater need of personal savings than their White counterparts. For a variety of reasons, Blacks are more likely to experience negative income shocks but are less likely to have access to emergency savings. As a consequence, Blacks are more likely to fall behind on their bills and go into debt during times of emergency. The systematic challenges in narrowing the wealth gap for African Americans with Whites persists. The wealth gap persists regardless of a household's education, marital status, age, or income. This is something that we are fighting for. We are grateful for this legislation that is going to make a difference in African American lives. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for bringing this important matter to the floor for us to discuss here this evening, and it is my plea for my colleagues to pass this legislation, for it to go to the Senate so that it can make a tremendous difference in so many Americans' lives. Raising the income level of the less fortunate assists all Americans in raising the tide of Americans' ability to excel.

Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that discussion about what is happening in Nevada and raising the minimum wage, what that is going to do in the gentleman's State. Kudos to the Governor to take that bold leap. There is concern about what happens with small businesses, and I know that the chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor has been thinking about that as well, that this bill does take this into account, that there are small businesses that this may be difficult for. But we have to understand what the entire objective is of this bill. I know that there are amendments by other good Democrats to look at the Government Accountability Office to determine employment impacts. That is much more helpful than what was done with the tax bill that the Republicans passed. They aren't trying to see what the impact has been of their legislation. They didn't ask for a lookback to see is this, in fact, stimulating the economy, because the objective was not to stimulate the economy. The objective was to give the 1 percent--those corporate CEOs and others--additional money. It was not to put money into the economy. Because, if it was, then we would be looking at it right now: What is the impact on America? That was not put into that tax bill. But the Democrats are willing to do that. The Democrats want to make sure that this legislation is doing what it is meant to do; that is, to be for the people, for the larger American people, by supporting that. When I was talking earlier about the wealth gap and income, income and employment are obstacles to the wealth gap. The income gap has actually worsened over time. According to a 2016 Economic Policy Institute report, the income gap between Blacks and Whites has grown since the 1970s, not lessened. In 1979, for example, Black men earned 22 percent less than White men. In 2015, Black men earned 31 percent less. The report's authors note that, in 1979, Black women's wages reached near parity with White women's wages, but that by 2015 the gap had risen to 19 percent. We are not getting better. The equality gap is not narrowing. We need to face the statistics. And Democrats are willing to do something about that. The report also found that the gap persists across women's educational levels and worsens for those with higher levels of educational attainment. The gap at a higher level of education for White women and Black women with similar education is worse than it is for those lower. In 1980, college-educated Black women with more work experience actually earned slightly higher wages than college-educated White women with the same experience. By 2014, however, the gap had widened to 10 percent in White women's favor. That is a reversal. Similarly, while the gap between college-educated Black and White men in 1980 was slightly less than 10 percent, it rose to 20 percent by 2014. In 2017, researchers from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco similarly concluded that the Black-White earning gap is growing, and that the growth can largely be attributable to so-called immeasurable factors. What are some of those factors? Those factors that play a role in the Black-White income and employment gap include employment discrimination, weak enforcement of antidiscrimination laws, and racial differences in unobserved skill levels, as opposed to measurable factors such as educational attainment or work experience. I am grateful that we have this time this evening to talk about this, to let the American people see the truth--not a tweet, not what is happening on the news on a regular basis, but the things that everyday Americans care about: wages; minimum wage; having quality of life; and, as my colleague from Nevada said, the ability to have one job to sustain your family, not having to juggle two and three jobs, leaving your children at home and not being able to be an important and positive force in your children's lives because you have to work. We are concerned as well about what is happening to our young children who don't have that supervision in the evening. Those are some of the issues where we have concern in Black communities, not because parents aren't working and they are not there for their children because they are shiftless, they are lazy, et cetera, the things that you hear. It is because parents have two jobs. They are trying to hold it together. Single households, even those households that have both parents working, they have to have two jobs to make ends meet. This is a means to get people to be able not only to get out of poverty but to support their families, to support their communities, to create wealth, to have homeownership, which allows access to so many other things such as education and so many things that are, in fact, the American Dream.

Ms. PLASKETT. Every day, every week, and definitely every month, they are trying to juggle which bill they are going to pay, and which bill they are not going to pay. Are they going to be able to keep the lights on? Are they going to be able to pay the rent? In the Virgin Islands, public school students wear uniforms. Are they going to be able to scrounge up money at the end of the summer to be able to provide clothing for their children to be able to go to school? Those are the things that people are concerned with working minimum wage jobs, and working them hard; and then maybe at night having a nighttime job somewhere else; and making sure that maybe one of the older children is watching the younger ones; making sure that they are asleep while they are away at that job; and praying that nothing happens while they are there, not because they are negligent parents, but that they care enough to be trying to put food on the table. Those are the stories that I am sure you hear in your district; that I know I hear in the Virgin Islands; and that I am sure all of our colleagues, if they are willing to listen to the people that are on the ground, the people that have put them here in Congress, are facing every day.

Ms. PLASKETT

Ms. PLASKETT. Madam Speaker, yesterday the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the lawsuit where Republicans sued to not only strike down protections for people with preexisting conditions, but eliminate every last protection and benefit provided by the Affordable Care Act. House Democrats have used our vote to send a strong message against this lawsuit, and yesterday, the House general counsel argued in support of people with preexisting conditions and the healthcare of all Americans. While our Republican colleagues attempt to undermine people with preexisting conditions, House Democrats will do everything in our power to protect the healthcare of the American people. If the administration's position is supported by the Fifth Circuit, it will destroy the protection for more than 130 million people with preexisting conditions, Medicaid expansion coverage for 15 million Americans, significant savings that our elders receive and seniors receive due to ACA's closing of the doughnut hole in Medicare drug coverage, bans on discriminatory insurance practices that force women to pay more for coverage, and young adults' ability to remain on their parents' insurance until age 26. Madam Speaker, Democrats will continue to deliver on our For the People agenda and American healthcare.

Ms. PLASKETT

Ms. PLASKETT. Madam Speaker, as Americans begin many of the pastimes of summer that are quintessentially American--baseball, backyard barbeques, family road trips--Caribbean Americans spend the month of June reflecting on their contributions and melded cultures in the United States. Congress adopted H. Con. Res. 71 which established the Caribbean American Heritage month, sponsored by Congresswoman Barbara Lee and signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2006. ``Whereas people of Caribbean heritage are found in every State of the Union . . .'' is the first line of the U.S. House of Representatives' resolution to establish a Caribbean American Heritage month. While the Act establishing Caribbean American Heritage month emphasized the present influence of Caribbean Americans, American history would not be complete without the integration and support of Caribbean people. From America's founding to the present, Caribbean people have supported and assisted in the creation of a collective American identify--the articulation of the nation's rightful place in the world, its traditions, its language and cultural style. Despite being ostracized and alienated by many of his contemporaries for his Caribbean roots--but for Alexander Hamilton's contribution to our military, creation of our banking system and assistance in drafting the Constitution--our country would not be as strong today as it is. From American Revolution Haitian gens de couleur libre (free men of color) fighting troops, slave revolt leader Denmark Vessey to Colin Powell's shock and awe doctrine, the Caribbean emphasis on revolutionary and righteous principles enforced through martial force. The Caribbean is a melting pot of different races, cultures, ethnicities, and languages; it is the southern reflection of the American experience. Caribbean Americans like all who come to this country desire to make themselves and this country better.

Ms. PLASKETT

Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of this Special Order.

Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise today to co-anchor the Congressional Black Caucus Special Order hour. For the next 60 minutes, we have a chance to speak directly to the American people on issues of great importance to the Congressional Black Caucus, Congress, the constituents we represent, and all Americans. Tonight, we will discuss and honor the legacy of Judge Damon J. Keith from Detroit, Michigan, and discuss, as well, this administration's, President Trump's, recent attempts to roll back safety net programs. Damon Keith, a Federal judge in the Midwest whose rulings championed equality and civil rights, notably in a landmark Supreme Court decision striking down Nixon administration wiretapping in domestic security cases without a court order, died April 28 of this year in Detroit, Michigan. He was 96 years old. In one of the Federal judiciary's longest and most prolific careers, Judge Keith was a fountainhead of regional rulings with national implications. He attacked racial segregation in education, housing, and employment; conservative efforts to limit African American voting; and after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, secret hearings to deport hundreds of immigrants deemed suspicious. Judge Keith's tenure spanned more than a half century, first as President Lyndon B. Johnson's choice for a district court judgeship in Detroit, with jurisdiction in eastern Michigan, and then as President Jimmy Carter's selection for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, presiding in Cincinnati over cases arising in Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, and Tennessee. In a blistering 2016 dissent in an Ohio case that restricted early and absentee voting, Judge Keith, even in the later years, worked tirelessly and accused two circuit court colleagues of scorning African American voters and the memory of Black people slain in the struggle for voting rights. In a, frankly, emotional rebuke, he incorporated into his opinion photographs and biographies of 36 such victims, including the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ``By denying the most vulnerable the right to vote, the majority shuts minorities out of our political process. . . . The unfettered right to vote is the bedrock of a free and democratic society. Without it, such a society cannot stand.'' One of America's oldest Federal jurists, Mr. Keith served in the segregated Army in World War II, cleaned bathrooms at the Detroit News, attended historically Black undergraduate and law schools, and witnessed deadly riots in Detroit in 1967. My colleagues are here with me today to discuss his legacy and the work of Judge Keith, not just for African Americans, but for the American people. I am happy to be coanchored in the CBC Special Order by my friend and colleague from Nevada, Steven Horsford.

Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams), my colleague.

Ms. PLASKETT. I yield to the gentleman from Nevada.