Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the motion to recommit.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of my point of order.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for providing me the opportunity to say some kind words about Danny Weiss. I want to recognize Danny as a true model of a public servant. From Riverdale, New York, he wasted no time coming to Washington and leaving an impressive mark right here. For almost 28 years, he has provided invaluable service to the House of Representatives. As we have heard, we know firsthand that Danny has been very effective in the House of Representatives because of his mastery of complicated issues that we face as Members of Congress. As chief of staff--first to Leader Pelosi and now to Speaker Pelosi--Danny has given wise counsel to me and my staff and, as we have heard, to many other Members on issues that arise from time to time that need special attention that Danny always provided. I would be remiss if I didn't note Danny's exemplary service to the Education and Labor Committee, under George Miller. Sitting here a few minutes ago, Danny asked me not to embarrass him--nice try. We talked to George, and George informed me that early on he was on the fence about hiring Danny, but over an Italian dinner with Danny's mother, Cora Weiss, George was informed rather emphatically that her son, Danny, would be a great hire and one of the best decisions that he ever made. George believes that mother knows best, and the rest is history. Thanks to Danny's mom, we have all been blessed with his decades of public service to the House of Representatives. Congratulations, Danny, on your years of service, and good luck in your future endeavors.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of my friend and colleague, Walter Beaman Jones, Jr., who passed away on February 10, 2019 at the age of 76. His passing is a deep loss to this institution, and we miss him dearly in the House of Representatives. Walter was proud to represent North Carolina's 3rd congressional district, a geographically diverse district, for over 24 years and always found a way to address the concerns of his coastal constituency as well as his rural inland residents. Those who knew Walter remember a tenacious, earnest and passionate Member of Congress, who tirelessly fought for what was right. Throughout his 24 years in Congress, Walter represented his district and constituents with a passion and intensity that I think we each strive to emulate. He followed a moral compass that rarely took him off course. In the rare event that it did, he did not let himself off the hook and dedicated his life and career to right any wrong. Walter was known for saying: ``I would rather do what I think is right than to sell my political soul.'' Walter spent much of his career in Congress serving on the Armed Services Committee. In this capacity, he stood up for military families, investigated corruption within the Department of Defense, and was relentless in his pursuit to bring our troops home from Iraq. Walter sent over 12,000 letters to families who had lost loved ones overseas and gave over 150 floor speeches to clear the names of two Marine Corps pilots who were unfairly blamed for a deadly military accident. He was also passionate about renaming the Department of the Navy to the Department of the Navy and the Marine Corps to better reflect the service and sacrifice of our Marines. Walter was one of the most independent voices in Congress. He was never afraid to vote against his party or President if it was what he thought was best for his constituents, his district, and the nation. I had the opportunity to work closely with Walter on several legislative initiatives. He was the lead Republican cosponsor of the Youth Promise Act, a comprehensive juvenile justice bill that I first introduced in 2007. We were proud to have core provisions of the Youth Promise Act included in the Juvenile Justice Reform Act passed by Congress and signed by President Trump late last year. We also worked together on legislation to protect the mid-Atlantic coast from offshore drilling. Madam Speaker, the House of Representatives lost one of its most dedicated public servants last month. We were all lucky and privileged to know and work with Walter Jones. I join my colleagues in expressing our sympathy to Walter's wife Joe Anne, his family, many friends, and constituents for their loss.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by Ms. Sherrill to the underlying bill. While I support the underlying bill, this amendment is overly broad in that it would prohibit qualified individuals from being employed under the bill if they had ever been convicted of a drug felony or any violent crime, even a misdemeanor. I support the other exclusions included in the amendment. The collateral consequences faced by individuals convicted of drug felonies, such as denial of employment when otherwise qualified, is counterproductive to the goal of reducing recidivism.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Bishop for his distinguished leadership, and I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to mention several of the issues relevant to the jurisdiction of the Education and Labor Committee. Madam Speaker, this legislation funds critical nutrition assistance programs that serve children and families. Nutrition programs are among the most important and cost-effective investments in the Federal budget. Study after study demonstrates that freedom from hunger is the foundation that children and families need to lift themselves out of poverty. Beyond the tragedy of any child going to school on an empty stomach, we cannot expect hungry children to reach their full potential at school or to grow up into healthy adults unless they have proper nutrition. This reckless shutdown has left our constituents with uncertainty and anxiety about their access to programs they rely on, such as WIC, SNAP, or school meals. Now, while these programs are still available and USDA is temporarily paying benefits, it is imperative that we secure funding for these vital programs to ensure that children and families are not left behind. This should not be a controversial bill. But the shutdown has created a crisis, so we are not going to go back and forth over the details. We are going to pass a bill. The Republican Senate passed this exact language with overwhelming support last year, and we have to pass something. Some have said we shouldn't pass this bill, but they have not said we should pass anything. We have to pass a bill to reopen the government. Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for her distinguished service as the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and I thank her for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. Legal scholars from across the ideological spectrum agree that this latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act is legally frivolous. However, because of the devastating impact that it will have on Americans, it is critical that we use our authority to intervene on their behalf. If Republicans successfully dismantle the Affordable Care Act, the consequences will be felt by all Americans, including the millions of people with employer-sponsored coverage. They will lose protections for patients with preexisting conditions; they will lose prohibitions on annual and lifetime coverage limits; they will lose access to low- or no-cost preventive care; and they will lose the popular provision which allows young people to stay on their parents' insurance policies up to the age of 26. These protections are all a product of the Affordable Care Act, and they are all at risk. We can't take the chance on this lawsuit being successful and then wait for a replacement, because we already know what the replacement will be. The House-passed replacement for the Affordable Care Act from a few years ago would have resulted in millions of fewer people with insurance and according to CBO, the costs would go up 20 percent the first year, insurance would cover less than it covers now; and those with preexisting conditions would lose their protections. That is what would happen if this lawsuit is successful. This vote is about fulfilling our responsibility to act in the best interests of the American people. I encourage my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 88. This package has been presented as tax relief for the victims of hurricanes, fires, and other natural disasters victims. In reality, it is a grab bag of almost $100 billion in unpaid for tax breaks-- including tax breaks for the health care industry. This bill also allows tax exempt religious organizations to engage in political activity. Moreover, the bill conspicuously omits a provision that would ensure the solvency of the trust fund that provides health care and compensation for coal miners with black lung disease. On December 31, 2018, the excise tax rate that funds the Black Lung Benefits Disability Trust Fund will drop by 55 percent, unless Congress takes action to extend the tax rate. That tax rate of $1.10 per ton for underground coal and 55 cents per ton for surface was extended in 2008 for 10 years. Allowing the tax rate to sunset at the end of this year will have grave fiscal consequences. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the failure to extend the tax rate will cause the deficit in the Trust Fund to skyrocket from approximately $5 billion today to $15 billion in 2050. Once the tax rate drops, the annual costs for benefits, medical care and administrative costs will exceed revenues every year for the foreseeable future. The only way these benefits can be paid going forward is if the Trust Fund borrows from taxpayers. Congress designed the Black Lung Benefits Act to be financed by a tax on coal production--not the taxpayers. Another consequence of failing to act is that the accumulated debt will pile up each year. The Trust Fund will have to borrow to also pay debt service and interest costs each year. When the debt reaches the breaking point, the only solution is a taxpayer bailout. It is irresponsible to allow the coal industry to privatize gains and socialize the costs. Although black lung disease had been on the decline after the passage of the 1969 Coal Act, in recent years it has returned with a vengeance. Recent studies show that rates of black lung disease have reached 25 percent in Appalachia. The rates of progressive massive fibrosis, the most severe form of black lung disease, are now at epidemic levels, and are now being diagnosed in younger miners. Treating these miners will require costly medical care. Mr. Speaker, allowing the excise tax rate to expire does a great disservice to coal miners, their families, and taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today is a great day for our nation's youth and their communities. I would like to take a moment and reflect on the passage of H.R. 6964 as amended by the Senate, the Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 2018, a comprehensive reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (JJDPA), which is now headed to the President's desk for his signature. Last authorized in 2002, JJDPA sets the federal guardrails that protect children in the custody of our state juvenile justice systems. JJDPA contains four core protections for youth in state juvenile justice systems: Jail Removal: Children in the system cannot be housed in the same facility as adult offenders, except under limited circumstances. Sight and Sound Separation: In the limited circumstances that children are housed in the same facility as adult offenders, they must have sight and sound separation. Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO): Children who have committed status offenses--infractions based solely on their age (e.g., underage drinking, truancy--cannot be placed in secure detention, except under limited circumstances. Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC): State systems must detertmine if their system has disproportionate contact with minority offenders. These protections were created and refined over time through Congressional reauthorizations that built upon the evidence-based best practices of states. I'm proud to say that H.R. 6964 makes strides to improve each of the four core protections. The bill improves the `Jail Removal' and `Sight and Sound Separation' core protections by simplifying the definition of contact and phasing in sight and sound separation for youth under the age of 18 being held pretrial in adult criminal court. It strengthens the DSO core protection by increasing the oversight required when a state uses one of the limited circumstances available in the law--the valid court order (VCO)--to detain a status offender. And the bill refines the DMC core protection to ensure that states must collect and report data on decision points in the juvenile justice system to identify where disparities occur. This is a contravention of harmful proposals offered by the current Administrator of the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). While enactment of H.R. 6964 is a good first step, I join my House Republican colleagues who championed this bill in expressing regret that the legislation in its final form does not go far enough to improve the core protections. Specifically, I am disappointed that H.R. 6964 does not eliminate the VCO exception to DSO. The VCO exception was added to JJDPA in the 1980's after a push by juvenile court judges. It is used by judges to detain repeat status offenders and juveniles who fail to appear in court. But the research suggests that the VCO exception has not been effective as a means of reducing juvenile delinquency and has been responsible, in part, for the explosive growth of young girls in the juvenile justice system. The use of the VCO exception has been phased out in about half of the states, and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, who once advocated for its inclusion, have strongly lobbied for its removal. Both bipatiisan versions of this legislation previously passed by the full House would have required states to phase-out use of the VCO by September 30, 2020, with an allowance for states to apply for a hardship extension through OJJDP. Due to the objection of just one Senator, this provision could not receive unanimous consent in the Senate. Rather than stopping the other improvements in the bill from becoming law, this VCO phase-out was removed H.R. 6964. H.R. 6964, however, will provide additional safeguards for status offenders in locked facilities, including limits on how long status offenders may be detained. I urge Congress to eliminate the VCO exception once and for all in subsequent legislation. JJDPA is more than just a floor of federal protection--it also requires states to develop coordinated plans to serve juvenile offenders and prevent children from ever becoming involved in delinquent activity. H.R. 6964 requires, for the first time, state juvenile justice plans to consider the latest scientific research on adolescent development and behavior, recognizing the importance of prevention and early intervention in juvenile crime policy. Congress should not have to mandate consideration of evidence and research, but slogans and soundbites have unfortunately dictated our nation's approach to crime policy--even juvenile crime. These slogans and soundbites often do nothing to decrease crime. In fact, when studied, many been shown to actually increase crime. H.R. 6964 also encourages states to consider promising practices: Programming to ensure youth access to public defenders with juvenile court experience; the use of `problem-solving courts' as an alternative to probation and confinement; efforts to inform and aid juveniles in the process of sealing and expunging their juvenile record; and programming to address the needs of girls in or at risk of entering the system when developing state plans. And finally, the bill retools and retitles Title V of JJDPA, the Local Delinquency Prevention Grant program, as the Youth Promise Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Program. Title V will now support communities in the planning and implementation of evidence- based prevention and intervention programs specifically designed to reduce juvenile and delinquency and gang involvement. Grant recipients would be required to analyze the unmet delinquency prevention needs of youth in the community, then develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to address those unmet needs with an emphasis on program coordination. Research shows that a community-wide, coordinated approach to delinquency prevention that utilizes a continuum of services can actually save the community money and improve efficiencies. I'd like to especially thank my colleagues for working with me on the Title V provisions, which are modeled after a bill I've been working on for nearly ten years--The Youth P.R.O.M.I.S.E. Act. I am confident that, if implemented correctly, this incentive grant program will vastly improve the lives of--and long-term economic opportunity for--at-risk youth across the country. I look forward to working with OJJDP as it implements this new title. H.R. 6964 also includes a two-year reauthorization of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (RHYA). RHYA was originally passed as part of JJDPA because this Congress recognized the importance of alternatives to detention for youth who were not delinquent but had run away from home or foster care. While originally passed as a part of JJDPA in 1974, RHYA and JJDPA have always been administered separately, and they have been reauthorized separately since 1988. Like JJDPA, RHYA is long overdue for reauthorization, as it was last reauthorized in 2008. This temporary reauthorization of RHYA demonstrates our commitment to its programs, particularly considering last year's groundbreaking research showing that homelessness was experienced by at least 700,000 unaccompanied minors age 14 to 17 and 3.2 million young adults age 18 to 24 in any given year. I want to note that this two-year reauthorization does not serve as a substitute for a full examination of evidence-based best practices for service-delivery impacting runaway and homeless youth. We still need to pass a comprehensive RHYA reauthorization that makes needed programmatic updates and ensures authorization for appropriate funding levels. I look forward to working with the Gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx and my colleagues in this chamber who have long advocated for a full reauthorization of RHYA, as well as advocates for runaway and homeless youth providers, to move a full reauthorization of RHYA in the next Congress. Prevention efforts, especially those targeted at our nation's youth, are our most effective way of reducing crime over time. We can choose to be as strict or as lenient as we want on adult criminal offenders, but if we are not focusing our efforts on changing the trajectory of delinquent youth, we have little chance of reducing crime in the future. It is my sincere hope that H.R. 6964 will help to change the trajectory of many young people and get them on the track to succeeding in school and life, which will strengthen communities across the country. In closing, I'd like to thank Chairwoman Foxx and Representative Lewis of Minnesota and their staffs for their steadfast work over multiple Congresses to successfully advance JJDPA reauthorization through both chambers and to the President's desk. I'd also like to thank my hardworking committee and personal office staff past and present, specifically Christian Haines, Bobby Vassar, Erin Davies, Rashage Green, Carol Chodroff, Evan Chapman, David Dailey, Veronique Pluviose, Ilana Bruner, and Jacque Chevalier Mosely for their tireless work on both the Youth P.R.O.M.I.S.E. Act and comprehensive JJDPA reauthorization.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 125th anniversary of Olive Branch Baptist Church in Portsmouth, Virginia. Olive Branch Baptist Church was formed in 1893 when a small group of parishioners separated from Zion Baptist Church and formed Zion's Chapel. Under the leadership of Dr. John Armistead, Zion's Chapel was established in a nearby facility called Copeland's Hall and attracted worshippers two Sundays each month. By 1897, membership had grown so large that a new and larger location was necessary. With assistance from their mother church, Zion Baptist Church, Zion's Chapel was able to purchase an older sanctuary, previously known as Olive Branch Methodist Church. With the guidance of Reverend H.W. Chiles, the new church was renamed Olive Branch Baptist Church. It is impossible to commemorate the 125th anniversary of this historic church without recognizing former pastors. Reverend H.W. Chiles served as the first pastor of Olive Branch Baptist Church. Under his leadership, the Sunday School, the Home Mission Circle and the Senior Choir was established. In 1905, Dr. H. L. Barco took the helm. During his 11-year tenure, the church did very well financially and was able to pay off the church's mortgage. In addition, he organized the Foreign Mission Circle and the Senior Usher Board. Olive Branch Baptist Church's first male auxiliary was established in 1918 when Reverend A. S. Hoard was installed as the third pastor. The auxiliary was responsible for installing the bell that still sits inside the belfry today. Despite the absence of a pastor from 1926 to 1928, Olive Branch Baptist Church continued to grow. During these years, the church purchased land adjacent to the church grounds to serve as a parking lot and cemetery. Beginning in 1928, Reverend J.W. Shaffer served as Shepherd of the flock. During his five-year tenure, Olive Branch Baptist Church continued to attract local residents and spread the good word of God. Reverend Lamar Sharp served as the fifth pastor of Olive Branch Baptist Church. He was a resident of Norfolk, Virginia, and traveled to preach on the first and third Sunday of every month for 27 years. Due to poor health, Reverend Sharp retired in 1963 and his nephew, Reverend James Benjamin Sharp, was chosen as the sixth pastor of Olive Branch Baptist Church. During Reverend James Sharp's pastorate, on January 5, 1986, Olive Branch Baptist Church suffered a fire. God's grace provided that little damage occurred to the sanctuary, however the congregation was forced to relocate to another church during the four-month repair. Reverend James Sharp retired on December 31, 2000, after serving 37 years. Upon his retirement, the members of Olive Branch Baptist Church presented him with the honorary title of Pastor Emeritus. From 2001 until 2003, Olive Branch Baptist Church was once again without a pastor. However, after a three-year search, the pulpit Search Committee chose Reverend Ernest L. Reid as their seventh pastor. He was Olive Branch Baptist Church's youngest pastor and gave new life to the mission of the church. Olive Branch Baptist Church's current pastor is Reverend Michael L. Williams. Reverend Williams was installed on March 30, 2014 and is the eighth pastor in Olive Branch Baptist Church's 125 years of service to the Portsmouth community. His vision for the church is simple--Bridge the Past; Bless the Present; Build the Future. Over the four years that he has served as pastor, Reverend Williams has revitalized the Men's Ministry and Nursing Ministry and formed the Women's, Culinary and Mentoring Ministries. Through these organizations, Reverend Williams, along with Olive Branch Baptist Church's congregation, is continuing to build a church that worships, witnesses and serves with a spirit of excellence. Mr. Speaker, as Olive Branch Baptist Church celebrates this historic milestone, its congregation can take pride in an inspiring 125 years of fellowship, worship and service. I would like to congratulate Reverend Michael L. Williams and all the members of the church's congregation on this joyous occasion, and I wish them many more years full of growth and prosperity.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 150th anniversary of Chapel Grove United Church of Christ in Windsor, Virginia. In 1868, founding members of Chapel Grove United Church of Christ left Antioch, the Baptist church of their former slave owners where they had been forced to worship in the balcony. Led by their ``Spiritual Leader,'' Isom Lawrence, the congregation began meeting under a bush arbor once a month for service. The origins of the church starting under a bush arbor is significant. For centuries, African slaves traditionally gathered in these sites for religious services. Worshippers of Chapel Grove traveled from near and far, and the journey was often a full day affair. In 1899, Reverend Jetson Copeland and the congregation purchased property alongside present day Blackwater Road. After 17 years of construction, the church finally opened its doors in 1916. Even after several series of remodeling and expansion, the original sanctuary remains part of the church's foundation and reminds us of years of fellowship and service. Originally called Chapel Grove Christian Church, this historic church has been renamed several times through the years. After merging with the Congregational Church, it was named Chapel Grove Congregational Christian Church. In 1957, after merging with the United Church of Christ, it procured its current name of Chapel Grove United Church of Christ. Today, the church is part of the Eastern Virginia District of the Southern Conference of the United Church of Christ. This association represents 35 local black churches and 45 local white churches and continues to teach the word of God around the nation. While Chapel Grove is primarily a place of worship, the church provides civic, health, cultural and educational programs that benefit the community. A few programs that I would like to highlight are ``Ident-a-Kid'', Celebrate Recovery and Career Day. Additionally, Chapel Grove has sponsored college scholarships, a community daycare service called ``Happy Hearts'' and a weekend backpack stuffing program for students at Georgie D. Tyler Middle School. These programs are made possible by collaborating with local governments, including Isle of Wight Sheriff's Department. Clearly, Chapel Grove United Church of Christ's congregation takes the call to community engagement seriously and that engagement is evident in their role in community sponsored events. Parishioners were influential in the Town of Windsor's Centennial Celebration and helped establish the Schoolhouse Museum in Smithfield, Virginia. Moreover, members of Chapel Grove participate in ``Souper Saturday,'' an annual community soup lunch charged with raising money to provide financial assistance for wintertime heating. Mr. Speaker, as Chapel Grove United Church of Christ celebrates this historic milestone, its congregation can take pride in an inspiring 150 years of fellowship, worship and service. I would like to congratulate Reverend H. Carlyle Church, Jr. and all the members of the church's congregation on this joyous occasion, and I wish them many more years full of growth and prosperity.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 100th anniversary of New Grafton Baptist Church in Newport News, Virginia. New Grafton Baptist Church was established on November 10, 1915. It began as The Grafton Mission, named in honor of the Grafton Baptist Church in Grafton, Virginia. Reverend Silas Crowley, originally a member of Grafton Baptist Church, led his fledgling congregation in meetings at 1111 35th Street, Newport News, Virginia before they moved their services to Reverend Corsey's home in 1916. After years of fundraising and growing in membership, Reverend Corsey was finally able to purchase a lot at 3913 Roanoke Avenue, and from there they began to build their new church. Reverend Corsey oversaw the construction of their new church building in 1918, and the name was officially changed from The Grafton Mission to New Grafton Baptist Church. Reverend Corsey served as New Grafton Baptist Church's pastor until his retirement in 1923. Following his departure from the church, he was succeeded by Reverend N. E. Jackson in 1924, Reverend Isaac Daniels in 1928, and Reverend R. H. Green, DD in 1933. The New Grafton Baptist Church congregation continued to worship at their Roanoke Avenue location until 1963. Reverend W. M. Alston, DD, elected as pastor in 1937, oversaw the construction efforts and helped to ease the church's transition into their new building. New Grafton Baptist Church expanded again in 1988 under the leadership of Reverend S. D. Sparrow, who had ambitious plans for how to grow the church and give back to the local community. A number of choirs and ministries were established under his leadership, as well as the New Grafton Baptist Church Governing Board. Reverend Dr. Michael L. Sumler became the church's eighth pastor in 2000, and the church has continued to grow and expand since then. New Grafton Baptist Church now supports a variety of ministries and programs aimed at bolstering fellowship and strengthening the church's community, including a Virtuous Women's Ministry, Community LINK program, Boys and Girls Scouts programs, Youth Ministry, Pastoral Care Ministry, and more. Reverend Sumler also led the congregation as they renovated the church and built a new, larger sanctuary in 2006. New Grafton Baptist Church enjoys a strong fellowship with Grafton Baptist Church--Dare Road and Grafton Baptist Church--Harris Grove, founded in 1777 and 1860 respectively. These three churches share a rich and deep common history, and their congregations regularly meet for joint picnics and worship services. Together they formed a Steering Committee, dedicated to celebrating their shared experiences as linked congregations that flourished in Virginia ``from slavery to the present.'' Over the last 100 years, New Grafton Baptist Church has been served by many dedicated men of faith--Rev. Silas Corsey, Rev. N. E. Jackson, Rev. Isaac Daniels, Rev. R. H. Green, DD, Rev. W. M. Alston, DD, Rev. D. M. Willis, Sr., Rev. S.D. Sparrow, Sr., and Rev. Dr. Michael Sumler. Mr. Speaker, as New Grafton Baptist Church of Newport News, Virginia celebrates this historic milestone, its congregation can feel affirmed by 100 years of successful discipleship and service to both their community and to each other. I would like to congratulate Reverend Michael Sumler and all of the members of the church's congregation. I wish them another 100 years full of growth and prosperity.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6847. The legislation exposes additional persons to preexisting mandatory minimum sentences of 15, 25, 35, or even mandatory life in prison. While I support the underlying goal of punishing sex offenders and I agree that they should be punished harshly, I stand against mandatory minimums. For decades now, extensive research and evidence has demonstrated that mandatory minimums fail to reduce crime; they discriminate against minorities; they waste the taxpayer's money; and they often require a judge to impose sentences so bizarre that they violate common sense. Unfortunately, there are already too many mandatory minimums in the Federal code. If we ever expect to do anything about that problem and actually address this driver of mass incarceration, the first step we have to take is to stop passing or expanding mandatory minimums. The mandatory minimums in the code today did not get there all at once. They got there one at a time, each one part of a larger bill, which, on balance, would seem like a good idea. Giving lip service to the suggestion that you would have preferred that the mandatory minimum not be in the bill but then vote for the bill anyway not only creates the new mandatory minimum, but it also guarantees that those who support mandatory minimums would include them in the next crime bill. Therefore, the only way to stop passing new mandatory minimums is to stop passing bills that contain or broaden the application of mandatory minimums. This bill is particularly appalling because it would impose mandatory minimum sentences on teenagers who are doing what many teenagers do. For example, teenage sexting is widespread, that is, texting sexually explicit pictures. Under this bill, teenagers who privately send photos of a sexual nature to each other may be prosecuted, and, if convicted, the judge must sentence them to at least 15 years in prison. The bill explicitly states that some of these mandatory minimums will apply equally to attempts or conspiracies. That means if a teenager attempts to obtain a photo of sexually explicit conduct by requesting it from his teenage girlfriend, the judge must sentence that teenager to at least 15 years for making that attempt. Or if a teenager encourages a friend to ask another classmate to send the sexually explicit image, the friend agrees to do so and asks her, they are both guilty of conspiracy and the judge must sentence both of them to at least 15 years in prison. Now, the term ``sexually explicit conduct'' actually includes simulated conduct. This means if a teenager asks another teenager for a photo simulating sex, then that minor, even if the minor is fully clothed, the law is violated. The teenager must get 15 years in prison. The bill does not allow the judge to consider the fact that the conduct may be consensual conduct between minors or consensual between a 17-year-old or an 18-year-old. These circumstances are irrelevant when the sentence is mandatory. In many cases covered by the bill, the draconian penalties are appropriate; in others, the penalties are just absurd. But because they are mandatory in the bill, they would have to be imposed anyway. This bill wouldn't be controversial if it did not expand mandatory minimum sentences, but, unfortunately, it does. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 100th anniversary of First Baptist Church Jefferson Park in Newport News, Virginia. First Baptist Church Jefferson Park was established in the fall of 1918, following a long period of uncertainty and displacement for its future congregation. When the United States government purchased Mulberry Island in response to the outbreak of World War I, those already living on the island were forced to uproot their lives and relocate. This also meant that the thriving church community which had already made a home on the island had to be broken up; when Colossian Baptist Church's property was repurposed by the government and its congregation moved to their new location in Newport News, not everyone could go with it. Many former members were forced to live far apart following their relocation, branching off and eventually setting down roots in areas all across the city. Jefferson Park became such an area, and although the area was significantly underdeveloped with no public schools, mail delivery, or church, a small group of pioneers from Mulberry Island came to call it home. Deacon William & Mrs. Lucy Wooten, also originally from Mulberry Island, heard the group's call for a church in their new location at Jefferson Park. With the help of other community members, Deacon William built their first place of worship, including the pews, pulpit, and communion table. At the time there was not sufficient money or space for a proper setup for an organ, piano, or formal choir, and the church was lit with kerosene lamps rather than electricity. Despite the limited space, enthusiasm and membership for the church grew under the leadership of Reverend Zechariah White, who served as a spiritual pillar for the congregation in the church's early days despite never serving as pastor. In 1925 Reverend J.O. Atkinson was able to oversee the construction of a larger church building to accommodate the congregation's needs. Reverend Atkinson became First Baptist Church Jefferson Park's first official pastor in 1920, following the death of Reverend M. Massenburg, who was called to pastor the congregation but unfortunately passed before his installation. Following Reverend Atkinson's departure from the church in 1927, he was succeeded by Reverend T.H. Ashe in 1929, Reverend F.A. Rylander in 1937, Reverend Mack Samuel in 1940, and Rev. O.D. Henry in 1952. The First Baptist Church Jefferson Park congregation expanded in 1967, following Reverend Dr. Bernard Schiele's purchase of nearby property and subsequent construction of a new church. Reverend Dr. Reginald C. Woodhouse was installed as First Baptist Church Jefferson Park's next pastor in 1999, and the church has only continued to grow and expand since then. The church's community is incredibly active, participating in a variety of ministries and programs established by Rev. Dr. Woodhouse, including Youth Choir, Junior Gleaners, Little Angels Choir, Junior Deacons, Junior Trustees, Junior Clerks, and Youth Bible Study. First Baptist Church Jefferson Park's congregation takes the call to community engagement seriously, which is evident in their annual Education Day Celebration, Church-School partnership with Newsome Park Elementary School, and Tutorial Program. Over the last 100 years, The First Baptist Church Jefferson Park has been served by many dedicated men of faith--Rev. Zechariah White, Rev. M. Massenburg, Rev. J.O. Atkinson, Rev. T.H. Ashe, Rev. F.A. Rylander, Rev. Mack Samuel, Rev. O.D. Henry, Rev. Dr. W. Bernard Schiele, and Rev. Dr. Reginald C. Woodhouse. Mr. Speaker, as First Baptist Church Jefferson Park of Newport News, Virginia celebrates this historic milestone, its congregation can take pride in an inspiring 100 years of fellowship, worship, and service. I would like to congratulate Reverend Dr. Reginald C. Woodhouse and all of the members of the church's congregation on this joyous occasion, and I wish them many more years full of growth and prosperity.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the United Steelworkers (USW) Local 8888, which represents nearly 10,000 shipbuilders at the Newport News Shipyard in Newport News, Virginia. These dedicated men and women build and repair our Navy's nuclear aircraft carriers and nuclear-powered submarines at this shipyard, which is the largest private sector employer in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The birth of this local union began with a secret ballot vote on January 31, 1978. While they received their charter from USW months later on September 15, 1978, it took the courageous efforts of thousands of workers to carry forward a difficult campaign to ultimately win recognition by the shipyard. Since that time, USW Local 8888 has advanced economic progress for tens of thousands of shipyard workers and has made the Newport News community more vibrant. The union's advocacy has produced contracts over many years with higher wages, improved health benefits and better pensions. The USW Local 8888 contract established a health and safety committee, and created a fairer workplace by providing for wage progression and a grievance and arbitration procedure. The first six years following the first contract between Local 8888 and the shipyard resulted in more than a half-billion dollars in additional wages and benefits. The USW's current 52-month collective bargaining agreement with Huntington Ingalls Industries--the current owner of the shipyard--will increase average wages and benefits by over $15,000 per worker. These gains did not come easily. Forty years ago, the shipyard workers had been represented by the Peninsula Shipbuilders Association (PSA)--which was a small association that many workers viewed as a company union. Wages and pensions for these shipbuilders were lower than those at other shipyards in the country. Some workers were stuck in jobs that never had a pay raise. The PSA held no membership meetings, no election of shop stewards, and did not have a safety clause in its ``contract.'' Workers wanted and demanded a better deal. A group of shipyard workers reached out to the United Steelworkers to try to secure a stronger and more progressive union to represent them. Known as the ``front four,'' Oscar Pretlow, Eddie Coppedge, Ellis Cofield, and WT Hayes were amongst the early organizers. The effort to build support was not easy. The company sought to terminate those who were organizing support for the USW as a way to discourage support. However, in January 1978 thousands of shipyard workers voted through a secret ballot election to affiliate with the USW. But the shipyard owner at that time--Tenneco--refused to recognize or bargain with USW, and it joined with the PSA to challenge the validity of election before the National Labor Relations Board. These delaying tactics were intended to wear down support for the union the workers had freely chosen. A year to the day after the vote in January 1979, workers went on strike to demand recognition. The strike lasted 82 days while workers braved the cold on picket lines outside the shipyard gates and hostile police action on the streets. ``88, Close the Gate!'' became their rallying cry during this historic strike. The shipyard workers faced not only a deep-pocketed and determined employer, they faced a hostile Governor, and a Department of the Navy that continued to provide cashflow to the shipyard despite work coming to a halt during the strike--all while taking on this battle in a right-to-work state. Their solidarity was tested many times; however, the shipyard workers received strike benefits from the USW, and many union members across Virginia and the country joined their picket lines. Ultimately, the NLRB and courts upheld the validity of the union election, and the company was obligated to bargain with USW. Local 8888 has been blessed with strong leaders over the past 40 years including presidents Lucky Howard, Wayne Crosby, Edward ``Eddie'' Coppedge, Russ Axsom, Ray Coppedge, Thomas Crudup, Alton Glass, Arnold Outlaw, and its current President Charles Spivey. The union has also not forgotten those who led the original struggle, and the USW union hall in Newport News is named after Oscar Pretlow--one of the original ``front four.'' Mr. Speaker, the sacrifices of those shipbuilders who fought to have a union of their choosing in the late 1970s has borne fruit for the past 40 years and has paved the way for a brighter and safer future for those who come to work at the shipyard today. As the members of USW Local 8888 gather this weekend to celebrate the 40 years since they received their charter from USW, I want to commend and thank them for their tireless work representing the tens and thousands of shipbuilders and shipyard employees at the Newport News Shipyard. Their work has bettered the lives and working conditions for these workers and their families.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct, but also to call for the inclusion of one specific improvement to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill that makes it clear that taxpayer money cannot be spent to arm teachers. Two weeks ago, news reports revealed the Department of Education was considering allowing States to use Federal education funding to purchase firearms and firearms training for teachers. The Department has since confirmed those reports. Last week, I was joined by 172 Members of the House to call on Secretary DeVos to issue formal guidance prohibiting the use of taxpayer money to put guns in classrooms. In response, the Secretary said she has no intention of taking any action on this issue. In refusing to act, the Secretary is setting a new and dangerous policy. That is, the Secretary is allowing funding provided under Title IV-A of the Every Student Succeeds Act to be used to arm teachers. This move by the Secretary is unprecedented, as Federal funding has never been allowed for this purpose. Secretary DeVos has pointed the finger at Congress and expressly called on us to clarify our intent, but congressional intent is already clear. Under the law, the Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grant Program authorized under Title IV-A affords local leaders the flexibility to tailor investments to meet local needs. It was designed to support a wide range of programs to help schools create a better learning environment by expanding students' access to important services like mental healthcare, art, and STEM classes, and new technology that better prepares students for the future. However, when writing and enacting the law, Congress never contemplated such flexibility allowing the purchase of firearms. In fact, Congress denounced the presence of firearms in schools in a section in ESEA that promotes programs that foster ``the creation and maintenance of a school environment free of weapons.'' Mr. Speaker, Congress' opposition to taxpayer-funded guns in schools was reiterated in the STOP School Violence Act, which the House passed last March in the aftermath of the Parkland, Florida, shooting. This legislation, which passed 407-10, explicitly prohibits the program funds from being used for the purchase of firearms or firearms training. Even the Department of Homeland Security under Secretary Nielsen has acted through executive authority to prohibit grant funds specifically intended for school security from being used to purchase guns. Secretary DeVos has both the authority and the responsibility to follow legal precedent, congressional intent, as well as common sense about gun violence by prohibiting taxpayer- funded guns in schools. But seeing as the Secretary is shirking that responsibility, Congress must take immediate action to protect students and teachers from a policy that will recklessly endanger students and teachers. The final version of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill must make clear that no taxpayer money can be used to arm teachers. This has not been a partisan issue in the past and should not be a partisan issue today.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise as ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce in support of H.R. 2353, the Strengthening CTE for the 21st Century Act, which will reauthorize the Perkins Career and Technical Education Program, the CTE program. Mr. Speaker, the House passed the CTE reauthorization in the last Congress and again last year. The Senate made minor changes to the bill, and now we are on the verge of final passage today. In passing the bill, we will be updating the Federal investment in CTE to provide increased State flexibility, while ensuring greater accountability for program quality. H.R. 2353 will also require a more inclusive collaboration between educational institutions, industry, employers, and community partners. Today's CTE will not be the vocational education of the past. Workers rarely hold the same job for 40 years. Workers often have several jobs throughout their careers, which is why modern CTE programs must help ensure that students receive a foundational education that will help students switch in their career or academic tracks at any time. I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) for their bipartisan leadership, and, of course, the chair of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, Dr. Foxx. Because of their work, the House was able to produce a comprehensive reauthorization of Perkins CTE, which will improve program quality and services for students, and support educational programming that engages all students by linking core academic content with real-world, work-based skills development.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, Federal administrative law judges, commonly known as ALJs, decide over 1 million cases a year, covering everything from appeals of Social Security Disability and Medicare claims to disputes over black lung benefits and securities law violations. These are cases that can touch virtually all of our constituents. On July 10, President Trump issued an executive order that will undermine the quality and independence of ALJs and the impartiality of the decisions they render. It does so by changing the hiring standards for judges. The current standards guarantee that ALJs are fully qualified to serve. The executive order will replace those standards with a far more lenient system that would allow ALJs to be hired based on ideology or cronyism rather than experience and competence. This executive order, titled, ``Exempting Administrative Law Judges from the Competitive Service'' will open the door for the politicization of a profession that plays a defining role in the lives of millions of American families. Representatives Elijah Cummings, David Cicilline, John Larson, and I filed an amendment to defund the executive order and preserve the impartiality, independence, and competence of administrative law judges. Unfortunately, the majority on the Rules Committee has refused to allow Members of Congress to vote on or even debate our amendment. The longstanding hiring standards for ALJs were designed to guarantee the legitimacy of their decisions. ALJs were required to have 7 years of trial-level experience as an attorney and successfully complete a six-part examination. To insulate judicial decisionmaking from agency political pressure, the examination was conducted by the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, which maintained a list of the highest scoring applicants from which agencies can then select their candidates. All of that was jettisoned by the President's executive order, which removes ALJs from the competitive service. Now the only requirements are that an ALJ must be a lawyer in good standing. This executive order is strongly opposed by a broad spectrum of organizations. The Federal Administrative Law Judge Conference, a nonpartisan, voluntary professional association, warns, ``now, any agency that wants to hire an ALJ needs no approval from OPM and can hire any attorney regardless of skill or experience. The new appointment process will not afford members of the public the due process and fair hearings they deserve. Instead, it will give agency insiders and political loyalists a job for which they may not be qualified but for which they will feel indebted.'' The Association of Administrative Law Judges, which represents over 1,600 ALJs at the Social Security Administration, states that the President's order ``will politicize our courts, lead to cronyism, and replace independent and impartial adjudicators with those who do the bidding of political appointees.'' The American Association for Justice writes: ``It is important for all cases overseen by ALJs to have a neutral ALJ handling the case, not someone who may be beholden to a particular political party, hostile to a particular agency or program, or otherwise politically motivated in their decisionmaking.'' The American Bar Association writes: ``By giving agency heads sole discretion to hire ALJs who will be making determinations affirming or overturning decisions rendered by that agency, the executive order has the potential to politicize the appointment process and interfere with the decisional independence of ALJs.'' The American Bar Association says further that: ``Nothing less than the integrity of the administrative judiciary is at issue here. That is why it is critical that Members of Congress have an opportunity to participate in the debate and help formulate a solution. The first step is to halt implementation of the executive order.'' Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the letters from those four organizations. American Association for Justice, July 13, 2018. Hon. Members of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Member of Congress: The American Association for Justice strongly opposes the Trump Administration's recent executive order regarding the hiring and role of federal Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). An impartial judiciary is central to the strength of our justice system, and ALJs should not be involved in the political process. The ALJ executive order threatens the American people's right to a neutral arbiter and right to due process. It is vital that ALJs be independent and impartial. This executive order eliminates the process of selecting ALJs based on their qualifications, and instead allows these positions to be filled by political appointees without any merit-based procedure. Administrative proceedings should continue to be overseen and adjudicated by ALJs who are qualified, such as attorneys with at least seven years of litigation experience and who are vetted by the Office of Personnel Management, as was the prior process. The appointment of ALJs with no experience, who can gain appointment solely due to their financial contributions or other political incentives so long as they possess a bar license, could result in unfair, biased rulings for millions of Americans. The executive order will have a devastating effect on a vast array of cases, including cases before the Social Security Administration, Department of Labor, National Labor Relations Board, and Department of Health and Human Services. There are about 2,000 ALJs that decide over a million cases each year. Approximately 1,600 of those ALJs hear Social Security disability cases and render almost 700,000 decisions each year at the hearing level. It is important for all cases overseen by ALJs to have a neutral ALJ handling the case, not someone who may be beholden to a particular political party, hostile to a particular agency or program, or otherwise politically motivated in their decision-making. AAJ is especially concerned about bias against claimants seeking Social Security disability benefits. We urge you to oppose this executive order and to support Amendment #55, sponsored by Reps. Scott (VA), Cummings, Cicilline and Larson (CT), to Division B of Rules Committee Print 115-81 (H.R. 6147). We greatly appreciate your support in protecting the American people's right to due process. Sincerely, Linda Lipsen, CEO, American Association for Justice.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, by refusing to allow this amendment to come to the floor, the majority has denied Members the opportunity to have an important debate on this issue. Rather than avoiding the issue, the majority should be standing up for a just and impartial review process. Rather than refusing a vote on this amendment, the majority should be joining us in holding the administration to account. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed by the majority's opposition to consider this issue that affects so many constituents across the country. I, therefore, urge Members to oppose the rule.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Pauline A. Ellison, the sixth National President of the Links, Inc. The Links, Inc. is an international not-for-profit and one of our nation's oldest and largest volunteer service organizations committed to enriching, sustaining, and ensuring the culture and economic survival of African Americans and other persons of African ancestry. This week, the Links, Inc. gather for their 41st National Assembly in Indianapolis, Indiana where they will honor their current and past national presidents. Pauline A. Ellison was born in Iron Gate, Virginia and graduated from Watson High School in Covington, Virginia. She was valedictorian of her class and matriculated to Howard University on a full scholarship. As a student at Howard University, she majored in Chemistry and graduated with honors. After college, she became the first African American woman to be named as an employee relation's officer at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). During her tenure at HUD, she served as the Vice President of the Hubert Humphrey Committee on Back- To-School programs and assisted with President Lyndon B. Johnson's Youth Programs where she helped train and educate thousands of young people. Through her strong interest in the academic development of young people, she founded the Northern Virginia Chapter of Jack and Jill and served on the boards of Burgundy Farm Country Day School and the United Way. Mrs. Ellison attended Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service and was nominated to attend the Federal Executive Institute in Charlottesville, Virginia. Following her time at Georgetown, Mrs. Ellison received her Master's in Public Administration from American University. She spent two years in Germany and served as the vice president of the Hahn Officers Wives' Club, where she developed and implemented programs for American-German orphans and American Girl Scouts. Pauline A. Ellison was one of several members who charted the Arlington Chapter of The Links, Inc., on November 19, 1966. She served as vice president and president of the Arlington Chapter and was later appointed as the National Director of Services to Youth. In that role, she compiled and distributed a single publication listing the activities of every chapter in each program facet. During The Links, Inc. National Assembly in 1974, Pauline A. Ellison was elected to serve as the 6th National President. Under Mrs. Ellison's administration, she implemented a national headquarters with paid staff. It wasn't until the end of her second term, that the headquarters was fully operational. As national president, she continued her support of national and community service programs by representing The Links, Inc. in other major service organizations such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the National Urban League, Opportunities Industrialization, Inc., and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. One of her biggest accomplishments was the fulfillment of The Links' pledge to contribute half a million dollars to the United Negro College Fund (UNCF). Due to her transformative leadership, Mrs. Ellison was honored by numerous national and civic organizations for her tireless dedication to public service. Following the completion of her term as National President, she served in several other roles with The Links, Inc., as a member of the Executive Council for four years and the National Personnel Committee for eight years. She also assisted in the organization, staffing, and implementation of personnel policies and procedures for the national headquarters. She continued her service to the County of Arlington, Virginia by serving in numerous leadership roles in local civic organizations. For six years, she served as a delegate and president of the International Service Club Council--an organization of 32 recognized service organizations in Arlington County. Mrs. Ellison served as community advisor to the Board of Directors of Arlington Hospital and as secretary of the Women's Committee of the Washington Performing Arts Society. Concurrently, she served as community advisor to the Northern Virginia Junior League and assisted the county as a member of the Classification and Pay Committee, responsible for advising the county in a comprehensive study and revision of its total classification and pay system for all employees. She was the first African American woman to become a member of the Board of Directors of Central Fidelity Banks, Inc., where she served on the public policy committee. While serving on the board, the corporation contributed one million dollars to support education of minority students. Mr. Speaker, Pauline A. Ellison has never sought public recognition for her hard work and dedication to the community. She has dedicated her life to the advancement, growth, and success of The Links, Inc. and to the County of Arlington, Virginia, in which she still resides. Her efforts and dedication as the 6th National President have elevated the organization to one of prominence and service to the community. She has been supported by her husband, Dr. Oscar Ellison, Jr., her children, Oscar Ellison III, Paula Mitchell, and Karla Ellison. As the Links, Inc. gather in Indianapolis for their 41st National Assembly, I join them in paying tribute and honoring the remarkable service of Pauline A. Ellison.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate a historic neighborhood in the Hampton Roads region of Virginia. Historic Hilton Village in Newport News will celebrate its centennial on July 7, 2018. To mark the occasion, I would like to take a moment to highlight the history of this neighborhood and recognize its contributions to our community. Hilton Village sits on 100 acres of forested land between the James River and C&O Railroad in the city of Newport News, Virginia. It was constructed in 1918 to address the severe housing shortage for shipbuilders employed by the Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Company. At the time, the United States had just entered World War I and Newport News Shipbuilding had received contracts to build naval ships and thousands of shipbuilders came to the area to assist with the war effort. Hilton Village stands out in United States history as the first government experiment in urban planning and the first federally funded war-housing project. The President of Newport News Shipbuilding, Homer L. Ferguson, first lobbied Congress for additional housing to support his burgeoning workforce when he traveled to Washington in 1917 to voice his concern with the overcrowding of shipbuilder's quarters. Shortly after his visit, Congress provided the United States Shipping Board with $1.2 million to plan and build Hilton Village. Henry Vincent Hubbard, a Harvard graduate and one of the best town planners at the time, served as the village planner. Francis Joannes was the village architect and Francis H. Bulot was the project engineer. They designed the buildings with the most modern methods based on input of shipbuilders' wives. Hilton Village was designed to offer many local services. The plan even included tracks for a trolley car to allow workers to commute to the Shipyard and to the greater Newport News region where city services and shopping were centered. The first development of Hilton Village consisted of a block of English village style homes owned by Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Company, plots for four churches, a library and a strip of stores. By 1920, Hilton Village had developed into almost 400 homes, a fire-house, a business district, an elementary school which is still open to this day--Hilton Elementary School--and a small park with a beach and pier known as Hilton Pier. After World War I, the chairman of the board at the shipyard, Henry E. Huntington purchased Hilton Village from the government and operated the community as the Newport News Land Company. Huntington's Newport News Land Company rented out Hilton homes to community residents and in 1922 sold the properties to private owners. Gradually, Hilton Village became a community for families, business owners, retirees and young adults. In 1969, Hilton Village was listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which deemed it worthy of preservation for its historical significance. Four streets--Hopkins Street, Post Street, Ferguson Avenue and Palen Avenue--are named after former Newport News Shipyard and Drydock Company executives. Two other avenues, Hurley and Piez were named in honor of U.S. Shipping Board and Emergency Fleet Corporation executives involved in the project. Today Hilton Village boasts 27 unique boutiques, eateries, art galleries and salons and continues to thrive as one of Newport News' prized cultural centers. In 2009, Hilton Village was designated one of 10 Great Neighborhoods by the American Planning Association, because it is a prime example of timeless neighborhood planning. It was the first out of about 100 federally financed housing projects during World War I, and it remains a national model for communities that are looking to plan and build inclusive, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the residents of Hilton Village on their centennial celebration and for helping make Newport News a great place to live and raise a family.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend both Mr. Courtney and Mr. Wittman for their tireless effort on the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee. As they have already stated, our Navy is being squeezed and desperately needs more ships, especially submarines. Numerous civilian and military officials, including Secretary Mattis, have testified about the need for these submarines. The goal of this amendment to ensure the Navy has the necessary resources in 2019 so that they can officially pursue and negotiate the multiyear contract is extremely important. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut and my colleague from Virginia for their hard work. Mr. Chair, following are my remarks in their entirety: I would like to commend both Mr. Courtney and Mr. Wittman for their tireless work on the Seapower Subcommittee on the House Armed Services Committee supporting our nation's Navy and our shipbuilding industrial base. As I have the honor of representing Newport News, Virginia, home to thousands of shipbuilders, I appreciate their work and commitment to this issue. As Mr. Courtney and Mr. Wittman have already stated, our Navy is being squeezed and desperately needs more ships, especially Virginia- class attack submarines. Numerous civilian and military officials, including Defense Secretary Mattis, have testified before Congress that we need more submarines. And that's the goal of this amendment--to ensure that the Navy has the necessary resources in FY2019 that they would need in order to efficiently pursue and negotiate the next multiyear block contract in the early 2020. Specifically, this amendment provides funding for a submarine reactor, industrial base support and other critical items. The amendment does not bind Congress or the Navy into any specific course of action. If the Navy opts not to pursue the option to purchase additional submarines, that reactor and other material purchases with these funds will be absorbed into submarines that the Navy has already contracted to buy. Our shipbuilding industrial base is critical to our national security. Making these investments today will both save money for our Navy and provide more certainty for our shipbuilders. This amendment is supported by unions, the Navy League, and retired flag officers. Mr. Chair, we have heard warnings for years that our submarine fleet is at risk of dropping to levels that would make in incredibly difficult for the Navy to achieve its mission. This amendment guards against that from becoming a reality. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so that Congress can preserve the option for the Navy to build as many submarines as possible, and as cost-effective as possible, in the next five-year block contract.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding the time, and I thank her for her leadership in opposing this bill. I, too, oppose the bill. This bill is yet another in a long line of so-called tough-on-crime bills that Congress has enacted since President Nixon declared a war on drugs nearly 50 years ago. These laws have, without question, failed to win the so-called war. But they have succeeded in placing the United States as number one in incarceration rates in the world to the extent it is so bad that some studies have actually shown that our incarceration rate is so bad that it actually adds to crime because so many children are being raised by parents who are incarcerated. So much of the Department of Justice budget has been on prisons that aren't doing any good when that money should be spent on things that could do some good. Too many people have felony records and can't find jobs who are actually adding to crime by this so-called war on drugs. Mr. Chairman, there are three main reasons why I oppose this bill. First, the bill abandons evidence and expertise in exchange for expediency. By giving the Attorney General the power to permanently designate analogue substances to a new drug schedule, he will be free to ignore the experts at the Department of Health and Human Services and the Federal Drug Administration. This is the Attorney General whose judgment has led him to rip children from their parents at the border. The bill also codifies drug equivalency laws which are used at sentencing absent any input from the United States Sentencing Commission, which is already conducting an in-depth study of analogue drugs. In addition to research and expertise, the Sentencing Commission also possesses the flexibility to adjust sentencing guidelines as necessary if its knowledge of analogue substances changes. Second, the bill will add to the problem of mass incarceration. By enacting higher sentences without a mens rea requirement, people could serve longer sentences even if they did not know that a drug contained an analogue substance. Third, we simply do not need the bill. The Department of Justice already prosecutes cases involving drug analogues under existing law. The then-Acting Administrator of the DEA said as much in her testimony before the Judiciary Committee on December 12 of last year when she described the current legal process as workable but resource intensive. Mr. Chairman, let's not enact yet another law that sends more people to prison while ignoring the root cause of the current crisis; that is, substance abuse, which is a public health problem and should be treated as such. Other opioid bills we have been considering take this public health-- not criminal justice--approach. That is the approach we should take, and we should pursue that strategy by rejecting this bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, 6 months ago, Congress passed a tax cut that cost almost $2 trillion that overwhelmingly benefited corporations and the wealthy. Today, the Republicans are asking struggling children and families to foot the bill. Nearly half of the $15 billion in cuts in the Trump-GOP recessions package targets the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP. While $7 billion may be a rounding error in the corporate tax cut, eliminating this funding from CHIP will jeopardize its ability to ensure access to healthcare for the children and families who depend on the program every year. The bill contains an 80 percent cut to the CHIP contingency fund. That is particularly shortsighted and dangerous. The need for healthcare assistance is greatest when our Nation experiences unexpected challenges, including recessions, public health emergencies, and national disasters. Hopefully, that money will not be needed, but we should not be stealing from the fund that provides vital care for children and families when their communities are confronted by these unforeseen but inevitable challenges. In addition, the bill also includes cuts to the Corporation for National and Community Service, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, health infrastructure, rural water programs, and many other small but important programs that protect our citizens, create jobs, and grow the economy. In an attempt to give taxpayers the illusion of fiscal responsibility, my colleagues have once again revealed their misguided priorities. We should not be paying for the irresponsible tax cuts by making even more reckless cuts to the investments in our future. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As the Representative of Hampton Roads, Virginia, I support the significant increase in Navy shipbuilding in the NDAA. But while we consider national defense, we must also consider school construction. Yesterday, U.S. banks reported $56 billion in first quarter profits. At the same time, our teachers are being forced to go on strike for a living wage and adequate funding for our public schools. But when the majority pushed its tax bill through Congress, it was the banks, not teachers and not the schools, that received the biggest benefit. H.R. 2475, the Rebuild America's Schools Act, would be a step forward in correcting our priorities by investing desperately needed funding into our public school infrastructure. This $100 billion proposal, which is barely 5 percent of what was spent on the tax cut for corporations and the wealthiest Americans, would go towards repairing crumbling public school buildings to ensure that every student has access to safe, healthy, and high-quality learning facilities. Not only would this proposal improve school conditions and student academic outcomes, it would create jobs. Research from the Economic Policy Institute shows that for every $1 billion invested in school construction, 18,000 jobs are created. Therefore, a $100 billion Federal investment translates into about 1.8 million new jobs over the next decade. That is many times more than are projected from the $1.5 trillion tax cut. Last week, we honored the 64th anniversary of the Supreme Court landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education that found separate is inherently unequal and ordered public education to integrate to provide equitable learning opportunities for all. Now, how can we now say that we followed the order in Brown when, just this winter, public schools in Baltimore were forced to close because they didn't have heat? And how could we justify handing a massive tax cut to the wealthy and corporations while abandoning students and educators in public schools across the country? The answer is we can't. The Rebuild America's Schools Act would put us on a path to give students the safe and high-quality education they deserve, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.