Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. And I certainly miss my friends from Richmond.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I certainly am. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman for yielding, and want to point out that, as we discuss healthcare, we have to notice that the Republicans are using a very flawed reasoning to try to sell TrumpCare to the American public. They say: ``We have a bill, and if you don't like the status quo, therefore, you have to support the bill.'' And if you ask: ``Well, what's in the bill?'' They say: ``Well, you have to do something.'' ``What's in your bill?'' ``I don't like the Affordable Care Act.'' ``What's in your bill?'' ``The present law is called ObamaCare.'' There is no discussion about what the bill actually does or whether or not it improves the status quo and how the bill will affect American families every day. But we do know something, based on the CBO report, and that is that TrumpCare is significantly worse than the current policy on every level. They complain about costs. Costs will go up under this bill. And the only way anybody saves money on premiums is because the policies won't cover as much of the costs. That is because they will cover a lower percentage of the costs, and they will cover fewer benefits. This was confirmed today by the CBO, which said that 22 million fewer people will have health and coverage under this plan; and the policies that people buy will cover a lot less than they cover now. Mr. Speaker, at some point, we have to recognize fundamental principles of arithmetic. If you give massive tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and corporations, as TrumpCare is proposing, you will have less money to help those who actually need money to afford insurance. Less money means fewer people covered by Medicaid, fewer people receiving subsidies to help them buy their insurance, and policies that cover a smaller portion of the costs. According to the CBO, TrumpCare will have a severe impact on rural America, threatening the services covered by rural hospitals which, in many areas, are the biggest employers in the area. CBO also points out that the hardest hit will be those with preexisting conditions, low-income Americans, and seniors. But even those making $100,000, around $100,000, will also be hurt. Mr. Speaker, why is the Senate even considering this bill? Who benefits? Maybe it is just those wealthy Americans who will get a huge tax cut as people lose their insurance.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Hampton Jazz Festival on its 50th Anniversary. The idea for a jazz festival emerged after a visit between friends-- the President of Hampton Institute Jerome Holland and jazz entrepreneur and promoter George Wein, who was noted for his festivals in Newport, Rhode Island, New York, California, and New Orleans. This first festival was in 1968 when Hampton Institute--present day Hampton University--celebrated its 100th birthday with a musical night filled with jazz. This celebration took place on Hampton's campus at Armstrong Field. Artists that performed at the original festival included Dizzy Gillespie, Ramsay Lewis, Herbie Mann Quintet, Nina Simone and her Trio, Muddy Waters and his Blues Band, and many more. It was supposed to be just a one-time event, but the attendees loved it and wanted more. In 1970, the City of Hampton became the third partner when the festival moved from Hampton Institute to the newly built Hampton Coliseum due to growing crowds; it went on for three days and has been a tradition in Hampton Roads ever since. The Hampton Roads community welcomes fans who travel from all over for the weekend long Jazz Festival each year. Many think of it as more than just a few concerts. The festival is a celebration of jazz, pop, blues, soul, and R&B music and artists. It is a time for fans and artists to celebrate the culture and the life of jazz. It is a terrific opportunity for the community to come together for a great time listening to great music. As a result, many events surround the dates of the festival, including parties, family reunions, class reunions and other gatherings. There are fans who have attended the festival since its beginnings, and enjoy it just as much as they did when they were younger. And I count myself as one of those fans, as I attended the very first festival at Armstrong Field and have attended virtually every festival since. Because jazz is such a unique genre of music that crosses so many ethnic and cultural barriers, the festival is a way for different generations and diverse groups of people to come together and share in their love of jazz. I commend Hampton University and the City of Hampton for their ongoing partnership to bring well-loved and critically acclaimed artists and musicians to Hampton Roads for this annual event. A record was set in 2011 for the festival when all three shows, featuring the artists Charlie Wilson, Kem, Jonathan Butler, Chaka Khan, Boyz II Men, and Maze featuring Frankie Beverly, sold out. Last year's festival included Babyface, New Edition, Gladys Knight, and many more. Hampton strives to make the festival better and better each year with more artists and vendors, and I know this 50th Anniversary festival will be no different. The remarkable success of the Jazz Festival has helped the City of Hampton build up the reputation of the Hampton Coliseum as a premier venue for the region. Thanks in part to the high profile acts that performed at the Jazz Festival, the Hampton Coliseum has been able to attract many popular artists and other events. As the Festival has grown in popularity, annual attendance is usually around 25,000 fans in recent years. Mr. Speaker, I wish to mention a few names who have been instrumental to the success of the festival over the years--Dr. William Harvey, Joe Santangelo, John Scott, Joe Tsao, George Wallace, and Lucius Wyatt. The 50th Anniversary of the Hampton Jazz Festival is to take place as it always does during the last full weekend in June and will include many fan favorites, including Jill Scott, Kem, Brian Culbertson, the O'Jays, Patti Labelle, and Maze featuring Frankie Beverly. Mr. Speaker, as a fan of jazz and a regular attendee, I congratulate Hampton University and the City of Hampton as the Hampton Jazz Festival celebrates its 50th Anniversary. I look forward to a great weekend listening to some of my favorite artists knowing that this Hampton Roads tradition will continue for many years to come.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his leadership on this legislation. I rise in support of H.R. 2353, the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act, which will reauthorize the Perkins Career and Technical Education program. H.R. 2353 builds on the House's bipartisan efforts in the last Congress, when this Chamber passed CTE reauthorization by a vote of 405-5. The research is clear: The United States workforce is suffering a skills gap. According to Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, by 2020, 65 percent of all jobs in the United States will require at least some postsecondary education or skills acquisition. Yet, if the current trend holds, by 2020, our Nation will have more than 5 million fewer skilled workers than necessary to fill the high-skilled jobs which will be available. In Virginia alone, that is 30,000 open jobs; 17,000 are in the area of cybersecurity, and those jobs have salaries starting at $88,000. This bipartisan, comprehensive reauthorization will improve program quality and services for students most in need of skills. It will also update the Federal investment in CTE to provide increased State and local flexibility, while ensuring greater accountability for program quality. It ensures that there remains in place a Federal focus on equity of opportunity and the role of the U.S. Department of Education to protect and promote the civil rights of all students and compliance with Federal laws. The bill also strengthens the Federal commitment to support delivery of high-quality CTE programs by retaining the Department of Education's full authority to approve or disapprove State and local plans. The bill also requires Federal oversight, monitoring, and technical assistance to support program improvement and maintains full authority of the Secretary to enforce compliance with statutory program requirements and Federal civil rights laws. I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) for their bipartisan leadership, and the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) for his leadership as the chair of the CTE Caucus and for his dedication to realizing a comprehensive program reauthorization.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this bill was unanimously reported by the committee. It has nearly unanimous support from business groups, educators, and community stakeholders, so I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I rise in opposition to the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act. In addition to what else is wrong with the bill, there are two significant problems with it impacting the jurisdiction of the Education and the Workforce Committee, where I serve as the ranking Democratic member. First, the bill essentially eliminates the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Bureau has played a crucial role in making sure student loan borrowers are treated fairly and receive the protections that they deserve. It has shut down fraudulent student loan debt relief scams, resolved countless consumer complaints, and secured hundreds of millions of dollars in loan forgiveness for borrowers tricked into taking out costly private loans. The bill also repeals the Department of Labor's fiduciary rule, which simply ensures that financial advisers put their retirement clients' interests first. Workers getting ready to retire often seek assistance in making what would be the biggest financial decision in their life. Let's be clear: many of these just set aside a few hundred dollars a month throughout their career, and now have hundreds of thousands of dollars to invest. They are counting on their financial adviser to do right by them and their families. This rule simply says that they have to do right for the families and the workers, not what may generate the highest fees. Mr. Chairman, this bill undermines key policy priorities impacting student loans and retirement savings. We should stand up for students and retirees and reject this bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my Virginia colleagues for their leadership, and I urge my colleagues to support the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 33, designating the George C. Marshall Museum and George C. Marshall Research Library in Lexington, Virginia, as the National George C. Marshall Museum and Library. I appreciate my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), for sponsoring the resolution and note that the entire Virginia delegation has signed on as original cosponsors. General George C. Marshall is a national hero, a distinguished public servant, and treasured piece of Virginia's history. Located in Lexington, Virginia, the George C. Marshall Museum and Library are located on the campus of the Virginia Military Institute, his alma mater. General Marshall served our country as the Chief of Staff during World War II, Special Ambassador to China, Secretary of State, president of the Red Cross, Secretary of Defense, and is one of only five Army five-star generals in the United States. After World War II, General Marshall was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1953, for his role in developing the European Recovery Program better known as the Marshall Plan. This week we are commemorating the 70th anniversary of the Marshall Plan speech given on June 5, 1947, at Harvard University. The Marshall Plan contributed to European integration and growth in the aftermath of World War II. As the holder of the George C. Marshall papers and with a mission to collect, preserve, and share information regarding the life and career of General Marshall, it is apt to make this institution the National George C. Marshall Museum and Library. Mr. Speaker, considering the important place in our Nation's history that General Marshall holds, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1761. I first want to point out that the case outlined by the chair of the Judiciary Committee that failed in Federal court could have been brought in State court and the defendant would have been subjected to extremely long, lengthy prison time for the heinous conduct that he had participated in. Mr. Speaker, this legislation expands the use of preexisting mandatory minimum sentences. Although the bill does not technically create new mandatory minimums, it does expose additional defendants to preexisting mandatory minimum sentences of 15, 25, and 35 years. While I support the underlying goal of punishing sex offenders--and they should be punished harshly--the use of mandatory minimums has time and time again been shown to be inappropriate. This expansion of mandatory minimum sentences comes on the heels of the Attorney General's memorandum of May 12, 2017, which has been roundly criticized for directing all Federal prosecutors to pursue the most serious charges and maximum sentences, to include mandatory minimum sentences. This directive takes away from Federal prosecutors and judges the ability to individually assess the unique circumstances of each case, including any factors that may mitigate against imposing mandatory minimum sentences. This law is particularly appalling because it would apply to people who I think we should all agree should not be subject to these long mandatory minimum sentences. I am talking about teenagers. Teenage sexting is widespread. Under this law, teenagers who engage in consensual conduct and send photos of a sexual nature to their friends or even to each other may be prosecuted and the judge must sentence them to at least 15 years in prison. The law explicitly states that the mandatory minimums will apply equally to an attempt or a conspiracy. 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 prison for at least 15 years for making such an attempt. If a teenager goads a friend to ask a teenager to take a sexually explicit image of herself, just by asking, he could be guilty of conspiracy or attempt, and the judge must sentence that teenager to at least 15 years in prison. Under the Federal code, the term ``sexually explicit conduct'' includes actual or simulated conduct. That means if a teenager asks another teenager for a photo simulating sex, even if the minor is fully clothed, that attempt would violate the law and the teenager must get a sentence of at least 15 years mandatory minimum for making that attempt. This law does not allow the judge to consider whether or not the conduct may have been consensual between minors. This circumstance is irrelevant when the sentence is mandatory. For decades now, the extensive research and evidence has demonstrated that mandatory minimum sentences fail to reduce crime, discriminate against minorities, waste the taxpayers' money, and 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 the problem and actually address this major driver of mass incarceration, the first step we have to take is to stop passing new mandatory minimums or bills that expand existing mandatory minimums. Mr. Speaker, we have to recognize that mandatory minimums in the code did not get there all at once. They got there one at a time, each part of a larger bill, which, on balance, might seem like a good idea. Therefore, the only way to stop passing new mandatory minimums is to stop passing bills that contain or broaden the application of mandatory minimums. Giving lip service to the suggestion that you would have preferred that the mandatory minimum had not been in the bill and then voting for the bill anyway not only creates that new mandatory minimum, but it also guarantees that mandatory minimums will be included in the next crime bill. Mr. Speaker, this bill would not be controversial if it did not contain mandatory minimums, but, unfortunately, it does. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1761.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Lewis) for working with this side of the aisle on bipartisan comprehensive reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. Juvenile courts were established by States in the first half of the 20th century based on the emerging legal theory that children should not be held as fully responsible for their actions as adults, a theory borne out over time by scientific research on impulse control and brain development. The opportunity to rehabilitate children became the focus of the system rather than punishment of offenders. Congress first articulated national standards for juvenile justice in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, or JJDPA. Long overdue for reauthorization, the bill creates important core protections for our children in the juvenile justice system in each State. In the 15 years since Congress last reauthorized the program, there have been advancements in research and expansion of evidence when it comes to the prevention of youth incarceration and delinquency. The bill we will consider today includes necessary improvements to Federal policy grounded in facts proving that the public investments in a continuum of trauma-informed care and alternatives to incarceration and secure detention produce positive results for at-risk youth. These results, in turn, will reduce crime and create long-term savings. H.R. 1809 requires, for the first time, that State juvenile justice plans have to take into account the latest scientific research on adolescent development and behavior, recognizing the importance of prevention and early intervention in juvenile crime policy. We shouldn't have to legislate this, but we have seen too often that slogans and sound bites have dictated our national approach to crime policy, particularly juvenile crime. These slogans and soundbites often do nothing to decrease crime. In fact, some have been actually shown to increase the crime rate. H.R. 1809 encourages States to consider promising practices such as programming to ensure that youth have 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 records, and programming to address the needs of girls in or at risk of entering the system when developing State plans. Finally, the bill retools the current title V Local Delinquency Prevention Grant programs retitled as the Youth Promise Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Program to support communities in the planning and implementation of evidence-based prevention and intervention programs specifically designed to reduce juvenile delinquency and gang involvement. Grant recipients would be required to analyze the unmet delinquency needs of the youth in the community and 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. Mr. Speaker, I would like to especially thank my colleagues for working with me on the title V provisions which are modeled after a bill I have been working on for nearly 10 years, the Youth PROMISE Act. I am confident that, if enacted, this incentive grant program will vastly improve the lives of and long-term economic opportunity for at- risk youth across the country. The collaborative work of this committee gives me hope that we can get full JJDPA reauthorization over the finish line this year. Senators Grassley and Whitehouse have introduced a bill in the Senate already. I am optimistic that we will be able to produce a bill together that builds on the knowledge and experience of the last 15 years and makes its way to the President's desk for signature. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wilson), a strong supporter of at-risk youth.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas), who has been working on juvenile justice issues since he was in the California Legislature and Los Angeles City Council.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank, again, the gentleman from Minnesota for his leadership. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1808, the Improving Support for Missing and Exploited Children Act. This bill will strengthen recovery and prevention efforts of missing and exploited children by renewing and updating support for the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, or NCMEC. The terror experienced by parents of a missing child is unfathomable. Both the child and the parents experience pain, trauma, fear, and uncertainty. This is why affected families need the full support of law enforcement, schools, businesses, and other entities that may be able to assist in locating and recovering missing or exploited children. In 2013, Congress reauthorized the Missing Children's Assistance Act and updated the role of NCMEC. The organization was required, at that time, to coordinate with the Interagency Council on Homelessness in order to address the high number of sex trafficking victims who were homeless youth. Now, in 2017, Congress is including several additional improvements. As this bill heads to the Senate, I will work with my colleagues in both Chambers to improve the reporting of characteristics of children trafficked as it relates to the Office of Juvenile Justice's triennial incidence of missing children study. Mr. Speaker, despite the best efforts of NCMEC, more than 10,000 children go missing each year, and scores of children are forced into sexual exploitation and trafficking. I am hopeful that the enactment of these initiatives will assist in the efforts to end exploitation and trafficking. I am also hopeful that Congress will empower the work of NCMEC by appropriate funding in fiscal year 2018 and above. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1862. While I support the underlying goal of punishing sex offenders, the existing Federal statutes already severely punish these offenses. This legislation, unfortunately, will impose a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. This expansion of mandatory minimum sentences of life without parole comes on the heels of Attorney General Sessions' memorandum of May 12, 2017, which has been roundly criticized for rescinding the Holder memo. The Sessions memo directs all Federal prosecutors to pursue the most serious charges and the maximum sentence to include mandatory minimum sentences. This directive takes away from Federal prosecutors and judges the ability to individually assess unique circumstances of each case, including any factors that may mitigate against imposing a life sentence in every case. A life sentence is a most severe form of punishment, second only to the death penalty. Careful consideration should be given when our society imposes a life sentence, and judges should have the discretion in determining when this severe punishment should be imposed. Now, I point out that this punishment would be imposed not only on the ringleader, but on anyone involved in a conspiracy. We have seen how that works in drug conspiracies where a girlfriend who takes a phone message or drives her boyfriend to a deal would be included in the boyfriend's conspiracy and subject to the same draconian mandatory minimum the boyfriend is subjected to. In this case, the defendant would have to have a prior conviction. But life without parole would be the penalty upon a conviction, with no consideration being given to how long ago the conviction occurred or how serious a conviction was or what role the defendant played in the instant case. For decades now, extensive research and evidence has demonstrated that mandatory minimums fail to reduce crime, they waste the taxpayers' money, they discriminate against minorities, and often require a judge to impose a sentence so bizarre as to 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 address this major driver of mass incarceration, the first step we have to take is to stop passing new mandatory minimums or bills that expand mandatory minimums. Mandatory minimums did not get in the Federal code all at once--they got there one at a time, each one part of a larger bill, which, on balance, might have been a good idea. The only way to stop passing new mandatory minimums is to stop passing bills that contain mandatory minimums. Giving lip service to a suggestion that you would have preferred that the mandatory minimum not have been in the bill and then voting for it anyway, just creates another mandatory minimum, and guarantees that those who support mandatory minimums will include them in the next bill. That is how we became number one in the world on incarceration. Recent studies have shown that we lock up so many people that our incarceration rate is actually counterproductive. There are so many people in jail, so many people being raised with parents in prison, so many people with felony records, and so much of the Justice Department budget being used on prisons that aren't doing any good, that could have been used for constructive activities. We lock up so many people that the incarceration rate is actually counterproductive. Mr. Speaker, I support the underlying goals of H.R. 1862 to punish sex offenders against children, but I do not support expanding mandatory minimums, in this case, life without parole. Mr. Speaker, this bill would not be controversial if it had not included mandatory minimums, but, unfortunately, it does. So I, therefore, urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1862.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1842. While I support the underlying goal of punishing sex offenders, the existing sentencing laws already provide serious punishment for this conduct. Unfortunately, this legislation expands nonmandatory minimums to additional offenders. This expansion of mandatory of minimums comes at the heels of Attorney General Sessions' memo, which has been roundly criticized for rescinding the Holder memo and directing all Federal prosecutors to pursue the most serious charges and the maximum sentence, to include mandatory minimum sentences. The Sessions memo takes away, from Federal prosecutors, the ability to individually assess the unique circumstances of their cases and any factors which would mitigate against seeking the harshest sentence in every case. Once that offense triggers a mandatory minimum and once that is charged, the sentencing judge loses any discretion to assess the unique circumstances of the case and, upon conviction, must impose the mandatory minimum provided in the code. This legislation is remarkable in that it extends a number of exceptionally high mandatory minimums to most defendants. The mandatory sentence of life without parole is expanded to apply to more cases. The mandatory sentence of 35 years is expanded. In other cases, the mandatory minimum would triple from 5 years to 15 years. These are grave sentences, and the judge should have discretion in determining when they should be imposed. And these sentences would apply not only to the ring leader, but to everyone who may be involved in the activity and subject to a conspiracy conviction. The mandatory minimum eliminates the ability of the judge to consider the individual circumstances of the case or the culpability or the role of the defendant in that case. For decades now, extensive research has been done on mandatory minimums, and the conclusions are: they do not reduce crime; they do not protect anybody; they waste the taxpayers' money; they discriminate against minorities; and they often require judges to impose sentences so bizarre that they violate common sense. When you see how these are worked in drug cases, you can be reminded of President Obama's policy to consider full commutation. Those who are, essentially, first offenders who have been convicted of nonviolent, low-level activity in a drug case would be considered for commutation after 10 years. Now, that seems reasonable, but what you ought to ask is the question: How did a low-level, nonviolent first offender get so much time that, after 10 years, they still need help from the President? The answer is: mandatory minimums. The judge had no choice but to impose that bizarre sentence. Unfortunately, there are already too many mandatory minimums in the Federal code. If we ever expect to do anything about the problem and address that driver of mass incarceration, the first step we have to take is to stop passing new mandatory minimums or bills that expand existing mandatory minimums. Mandatory minimums in the code did not get there all at once; they got there one at a time, each, part of a larger bill which, on balance, seemed like a good idea. Therefore, the first step we have to take in reducing mandatory minimums is to stop passing new ones or to stop passing bills that expand mandatory minimums. For these reasons, while I support the underlying goals of H.R. 1842, to punish sex offenses against children, I oppose expanding the application of severe mandatory minimum sentences such as the 15 and 35 and life imprisonment. Mr. Speaker, this bill would not be controversial without the mandatory minimums; but, unfortunately, they are in the bill, and I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose the legislation.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 984, the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act and I want to thank my fellow Virginian, Congressman Rob Wittman for introducing this bill, and the gentleman from Utah, Chairman Bishop and the gentleman from Arizona, Ranking Member Grijalva, for their leadership and cooperation in bringing the bill to the floor. Four hundred ten years ago, the first English settlers founded Jamestown, Virginia. The founding of Jamestown represented a first step in the creation of our great Republic, and the success of this colony is owed to the help of the indigenous people of Virginia. With this assistance, the Jamestown colony weathered a difficult first few years in the New World before expanding, with English colonists pushing further inland. The same Native Americans who had helped those first settlers were pushed from their land without compensation. Treaties, many of which precede our own constitution, were made in an effort to compensate Virginia's Native Americans. Unfortunately, as history has repeatedly shown, these treaties were not often honored. Like many other Native Americans, and many other groups who were not white, and despite their contributions to the founding of our nation, Virginia's Indian Tribes were pushed to the fringes of society. They were deprived of their land, prevented from getting an education, and denied a role in our society. Virginia's Native Americans were denied their very fundamental human rights and the very freedoms and liberties enshrined in our Constitution. This bill will finally grant federal recognition to the Chickahominy Tribe, the Eastern Chickahominy Tribe, the Upper Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe, the Monacan Indian Nation, and the Nansemond Tribe. Federal recognition of Virginia's Indian Tribes will promote tribal economic development and allow Virginia's tribes to flourish culturally. Federal recognition, a process that has been ongoing for these tribes for over 30 years, will lead to a bright future for a whole new generation of tribe members. Mr. Speaker, I was a member of the Virginia General Assembly in 1983 when many of these tribes first gained formal recognition from the Commonwealth of Virginia, and I am proud to be here today supporting federal recognition for these tribes. The time has come for this Congress to act, and I therefore urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip. (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I remind my colleague that her vote for this bill could increase premiums for people with breast cancer in Tennessee by over $38,000. Mr. Speaker, let's begin with a few facts: Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, costs have gone up at the lowest rate in 50 years; Those with preexisting conditions get insurance at the standard rate; Instead of millions of people losing their insurance every year, 20 million more people have insurance; Personal bankruptcies are down 50 percent. Still, all we hear are complaints, press releases, and promises about something better. But CBO has debunked this proposal by pointing out that 24 million fewer people will have insurance, that costs will go up, and insurance will cover less. So, whatever you think about the Affordable Care Act, this bill makes things worse--except for millionaires, who get a tax cut. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote for this bill could take healthcare protections away from over a million people in Tennessee with preexisting conditions. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), the vice ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote for this healthcare bill will take away protections for over 600,000 people in Oregon with preexisting conditions. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano). (Mr. TAKANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote for this bill could take away protections of over 4.5 million people with preexisting conditions in Texas who might have access to coverage, but if they have diabetes, their rates could go up $5,000. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Common Sense Kids Action that explains that: ``This jeopardizes the health and well-being of America's kids and will alarm any parent who understands the importance of health insurance for their children and family.'' common sense kids action, April 25, 2017. Re H.R. 1628--OPPOSE. Hon. Diane Black, Chairwoman, House Budget Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Black: On behalf of the millions of American kids and families who rely on comprehensive, dependable health insurance to stay healthy and to get medical treatment when they need it, we are writing to respectfully express our strong opposition to your bill, H.R. 1628, the American Health Care Act (AHCA). We have added this bill to our Common Sense Legislative Ratings Tool as an ``Against Kids'' bill and will communicate our position to our parent and teacher members. Common Sense is the nation's leading independent nonprofit organization dedicated to helping kids thrive in a rapidly changing world. We empower parents, teachers, and policymakers by providing unbiased information, trusted advice, and innovative tools to help them harness the power of media and technology as a positive force in all kids' lives. The policy arm, Common Sense Kids Action, is building a movement of parents, teachers, business leaders, and others dedicated to making kids our nation's top priority by supporting policies at the state and federal level that contribute to the building blocks of opportunity for kids. Access to affordable and quality medical care for kids is certainly one of those key building blocks. Thanks to current law, including the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), 95% of young children in the U.S. today have health insurance. That's a remarkable achievement. With health insurance, parents are more likely to seek medical care for themselves and for their children, helping to prevent illnesses from developing and shortening their duration when they occur. However, the AHCA will result in 24 million fewer Americans having coverage, including millions of children. This jeopardizes the health and well-being of America's kids and will alarm any parent who understands the importance of health insurance for their children and family. The Affordable Care Act certainly needs to be fixed, but if Congress has the goal of making sure that all families and businesses have access to affordable and comprehensive health insurance, it could improve the law for everyone without forcing millions of kids and their parents to lose access to critical medical care. As Congress continues to grapple with this issue, health insurance programs, we think these facts about children's health insurance from the Congressional Budget Office and the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families are important to keep in mind: Ninety-five percent of children age 0-5 are insured today. Forty-five million of those children access health care through two programs: about 37 million through Medicaid (a federal-state program) and 8 million through CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program. Children are the single-largest group of persons covered under Medicaid. Under the Affordable Care Act, as you know, many states expanded Medicaid with help from the federal government, increasing coverage for kids and families, including coverage for mental health care. Changes being considered, including under the AHCA, would cut funding to Medicaid by as much as $880 billion over the next 10 years. The AHCA, when compared with current law, would result in 24 million fewer Americans with health insurance by the year 2026. Even with changes recently suggested to your bill, America's kids will be best served by strengthening the Affordable Care Act and preserving Medicaid and CHIP, not by repealing the Affordable Care Act and block granting or establishing a per capita cap on Medicaid. We urge you to keep our children's future foremost in your thinking, withdraw your bill, and work on a bipartisan basis to support measures that protect and strengthen children's health care. Thank you for your consideration of our views and we would be happy to talk with you at any time about this and other issues that matter to America's children and families. Sincerely, Danny Weiss, Vice President, Federal Policy, Common Sense Media/Kids Action.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries). (Mr. JEFFRIES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)