Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and a hardworking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Wisconsin an additional 10 seconds.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams), the ranking member of the Investigations, Oversight, and Regulations Subcommittee of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), the co-chair of the Progressive Caucus.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind people that, of the people affected and the people that routinely work overtime, complying with the rule will add less than one-tenth of 1 percent to U.S. payrolls. The costs to nonprofits and to higher education, way under 1 percent. And the time has been sufficient. The last time this rule was changed, they got significantly less time to comply, and that rule was even more complex than this one. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the 40-hour workweek used to mean something. It was installed many years ago so that people wouldn't have to work 6 and 7 days a week, 10 or more hours a day. They could work 5 days a week, 8 hours, and have an opportunity to go home. Now the 40-hour workweek only applies to 7 percent of salaried workers, and they can be forced to work 45, 50, 60 hours, with no additional pay. We have heard the impact on universities. I think the gentleman from Alabama said that it would cost the Alabama system $17 million. Well, their budget is $2.4 billion; $24 million would be 1 percent. If his number is right--$17 million--that is still way under 1 percent of their expenditures. But there are a lot of ways to comply with this rule without any cost at all. You can let people go home after 40 hours, or you can honestly restate their salary. If it is $30,000 and a lot of overtime, call it $20,000 and they have got to make $10,000 overtime. They will get the same amount at the end of the year at no cost to the employer, but an honest way to assess the salary. It wouldn't cost anything. So there are ways of complying with this honestly that make the 40-hour workweek mean something. The new rule only covers about a third of the salaried workers. It is a good rule. It should not be delayed. In fact, it is not being delayed. This is the first step in trying to defeat the rule. This bill should be defeated. Let the people get their salaries on December 1. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3537, the so-called Dangerous Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2016. The legislation would add 22 synthetic drugs to Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. While some of these drugs may be indeed dangerous to the public, we know very little about many of them and adding them to Schedule I would seriously hinder research. Furthermore, by adding these synthetic drugs to Schedule I, the legislation would significantly expand the mandatory minimum found in title 21, section 841(b)(1)(C) of the U.S. Code. If an individual is convicted of selling, distributing, or making one of these drugs, he would be subject to a 20 year mandatory minimum sentence if someone is seriously injured or dies from using these drugs. And it doesn't stop there. Adding these synthetic drugs to Schedule I would also subject this 20 year mandatory minimum to other individuals that may get wrapped up in a drug conspiracy, per title 21, section 846. Technically, a girlfriend that takes a phone message or drives her drug dealer boyfriend to a drug deal for one of these synthetic drugs could be included in the boyfriend's drug conspiracy and be subject to the same 20 year mandatory minimum if someone is seriously injured or dies from using the drugs involved in the conspiracy. An individual who has intentionally sold, distributed, or manufactured these synthetic drugs, if they are indeed dangerous, should be held criminally responsible if someone is harmed or dies using them. However, I believe a judge, not Congress, should be the one determining the sentence based on the individual facts and circumstances. For decades now, research and evidence has demonstrated that mandatory minimums are ineffective deterrents, waste the taxpayers' money, force judges to impose irrational sentences, and discriminate against minorities, particularly with regards to drug offenses. Unfortunately, there are already too many mandatory minimums in the federal code. Mr. Speaker, many Americans wonder how low level drug offenders get decades long sentences. It's because of bills like this that there are thousands of low level, non-violent, first time offenders serving decades behind bars. If we ever expect to do anything about that problem and actually address the drivers of mass incarceration generally, the first step we have to take is to stop passing new mandatory minimums or bills that expand existing 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 might have been a good idea. Therefore, the only way to stop passing new mandatory minimums is to stop passing bills that contain mandatory minimums. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote No on H.R. 3537.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Kline, Subcommittee Chair Rokita, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Curbelo) for their work, and also, on our side, Representatives Davis of California, Adams, and Wilson of Florida for their work on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, juvenile courts were established by States over 100 years ago on the emerging legal theory that children should not be held fully responsible for their actions, a theory proven by scientific research into impulse control and brain development. The capacity to rehabilitate children became the focus of the system rather than punishment of offenders. Congress first articulated national standards of juvenile justice in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974. Long overdue for reauthorization, H.R. 5963 creates Federal guardrails that protect children in the juvenile justice system within each State. In the 14 years since Congress last reauthorized the program, there have been advancements in research and expansion of evidence informing improved methods to prevent inappropriate youth incarceration and to reduce delinquency. The bill we consider today includes necessary improvements in Federal policy firmly grounded in facts that demonstrate that public investments in services to our youth, particularly trauma-informed care and alternatives to incarceration, will produce positive results for at-risk youth. Those results, in turn, will lead to reduced crime and long-term cost savings. H.R. 5963 requires, for the first time, that State juvenile justice plans 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 use of scientific research, but if we don't, we will end up codifying and funding slogans and sound bites that have dictated our Nation's approach to crime policy over the years. These slogans and sound bites often do nothing to decrease crime, and, in fact, when studied, some slogans have been shown to actually increase the crime rate. H.R. 5963 encourages States to consider promising practices when developing State plans, such as programming to ensure youth access to public defenders in juvenile court, the use of problem-solving courts like drug courts as an alternative to conviction and confinement, efforts to inform and aid juveniles in the process of sealing and expunging juvenile records, and programming focused on the needs of girls in or at risk of entering the system. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill retools the Title V Local Delinquency Prevention Grant Program, which is now entitled Youth Promise Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Program, to support communities in the planning and implementing of comprehensive evidence-based prevention and intervention programs specifically designed to reduce juvenile delinquency and gang involvement. Grant recipients will 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 has shown that a communitywide, coordinated approach to delinquency prevention utilizing a continuum of services can actually save the community money and improve efficiencies. I would like to thank my colleagues for working with me on the Title V provisions, which are modeled after legislation that I have been working on for nearly 10 years--the Youth PROMISE Act. I am confident that if enacted, these incentive grants will vastly improve the lives of--and long-term economic opportunity for--our Nation's at-risk youth. Mr. Speaker, the collaborative work of this committee gives me hope that we can get the full JJDPA reauthorization over the finish line this year. The Senate Judiciary Committee has marked up and passed their version of the bill. I know Senators Grassley and Whitehouse are working hard to get their bill out of the Senate. I am optimistic that support for the bill, which builds on knowledge and experience of the past 14 years, will spur further action so that the bill can make 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 myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for his comments. He has been a strong advocate for good juvenile justice policy since he was in the Georgia legislature, and has an excellent reputation for that good work. I would like to thank the Act for Juvenile Justice Coalition for their leadership; Senators Grassley and Whitehouse; and staff members on this side, Denise Forte, Jacque Chevalier, and Christian Haines. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters from the National Prevention Science Coalition, the American Orthopsychiatric Association, and the NAACP. National Prevention Science Coalition Date: September 18, 2016. To: Chairman John Kline and Ranking Member Bobby Scott, House Committee on Education and the Workforce. Re In support of H.R. 5963, the Supporting Youth Opportunity and Preventing Delinquency Act of 2016. This letter comes in support of H.R. 5963, the Supporting Youth Opportunity and Preventing Delinquency Act of 2016. I really appreciate Representative Curbelo and Ranking Member Scott for their leadership in introducing the bill. As a 30+ year juvenile and criminal justice practitioner, educator and clinician, I have had many opportunities to work with various policy efforts involving at-risk and other youths who come in contact with the juvenile justice system. My background includes policy and practice experiences at federal, state, county and local municipal levels of government. I am also a member of the Board of Directors of the National Prevention Science Coalition to Improve Lives (www.npscoalition.org)--a bipartisan group of 500+ scientists, practitioners, advocates, clinicians, policy makers, foundation representatives, agency leaders, and other community stakeholders interested in assisting policymakers at all levels in designing and implementing policies that include a prevention mentality (e.g., the best that prevention and implementation science has to offer relative to improving the well-being of citizens). When implemented well, prevention science has been shown to provide significant cost savings and benefits to the health and well-being of persons across the lifespan. Based on these experiences, I consider H.R. 5963 to be a substantial improvement over its former JJDPA version. The proposed legislation provides a much needed, updated framework inclusive of evidence based, prevention-oriented thinking in federal policy for youths--not as a prescription to the states, rather as a policy vehicle to help guide the states through the availability of financial incentives (formula and incentive grants for local delinquency prevention programs), training, technical assistance, access to research and best practices. The legislation is clearly informed by research describing the importance of using prevention and developmental science when building local and state capacities as youths interact with the juvenile justice system. H.R. 5963 captures important knowledge gained from investments made through private and public resources over the past 25 years. Such investments have educated us as to the importance of building policies that include frameworks recognizing the developmental differences of youth (from adults) while still holding them accountable for their behaviors. Focus areas in the legislation address the impacts of trauma, mental health challenges, substance use/abuse, family conflict, interpersonal as well as community violence, gender responsivity, racial/ethnic disparities and are all critical issues. H.R. 5963 also provides a standardized set of expectations (e.g., the ``core requirements'') balancing public safety and accountability with the recognition that children and youth require tailored, developmentally appropriate, unbiased and prevention-focused interventions that must be properly implemented with transparency and accountability. Furthermore, H.R. 5963 clearly communicates an intention that states begin look to their local communities to find innovative, cost-beneficial and effective prevention strategies for vulnerable youths and their families. I request and encourage that you pass this critically needed legislation. States and territories, through their State Advisory Groups (included in this legislation), depend on your leadership in these matters. For 40+ years the JJDPA has been the sole federal policy vehicle for at-risk and court involved youth in this country. The historical results in large measure from JJDPA implementation are impressive-- juvenile crime rates are at some of their lowest levels in decades. The JJDPA (now called Supporting Youth Opportunity and Preventing Delinquency Act) will build on the past successes of the JJDPA, and guide states toward the evolution of systems that are much more effective in preventing youth problems and crimes before more expensive, less successful deeper end juvenile and criminal justice alternatives must be used. Thank you for considering these thoughts. Respectfully yours, Robert (Robin) Jenkins, Ph.D., Board of Directors, National Prevention Science Coalition to Improve Lives, Assistant Professor, Methodist University.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5587, the Strengthening CTE for the 21st Century Act, which would reauthorize the Perkins Career and Technical Education program. The research is clear: the United States workforce is suffering from a skills gap. According to one study, 65 percent of all jobs in the United States in the near future will require at least some education or training past the high school level--not necessarily a 4-year degree, but some education and training past the high school level. In Virginia alone, we have thousands of jobs in the tech sector that go unfilled because of the lack of qualified applicants. Some of those jobs have salaries of $88,000. Today's CTE program is not the vocational education of the past, where students pursued a career rather than academic studies. Now the current programs integrate the academic curriculum which will assist in preparing participants for postsecondary education and credentials. Mr. Speaker, people in the future will have to learn a new job; but if they don't have the academic background, we will be doing them a great disservice. This bill will allow students to pursue a career track; and if they change their mind later on, they are still getting the academics. They can go to a college-ready program. We need to make sure that we have greater accountability for program quality. We want to ensure that we have more inclusive collaboration between educational institutions, industries, employers, and community partners. And we need to make sure that those programs are aligned with our recent K through 12 education and workforce systems. I would like to thank all of the people who have been involved in this, particularly the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), along with Mr. Langevin from Rhode Island, who is the chair of the CTE Caucus, and all of the others who have worked across the aisle to bring us together today. This bill, as has been pointed out, has been reported unanimously from the Education and the Workforce Committee, has strong support across the aisle, and I trust that we will pass it. I hope the Senate will take it up as soon as possible.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our colleague from Roanoke for his leadership and the entire Virginia delegation for supporting the resolution. I urge support. 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 in support of H. Con. Res. 138, a resolution designating the George C. Marshall Museum and the George C. Marshall Research Library in Lexington as the National George C. Marshall Museum and Library. This concurrent resolution was introduced by my friend and colleague, Bob Goodlatte, and is cosponsored by the entire Virginia delegation. General George C. Marshall is a national hero and a distinguished public servant. The George C. Marshall Museum and Library is located in Lexington, Virginia, on the post of the Virginia Military Institute, the alma matter of General Marshall. General Marshall served our country with distinction as the Army Chief of Staff during World War II, Special Ambassador to China, Secretary of State, president of the American Red Cross, and Secretary of Defense. He is one of only five Army five-star generals in United States history. After World War II, General Marshall was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1953 for his role in developing the European Recovery Program, which is now widely known as the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan contributed to European integration and growth in the aftermath of World War II. Mr. Speaker, 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 appropriate to designate the George C. Marshall Museum as the National George C. Marshall Museum and Library. I urge my colleagues to support the concurrent resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5528, the Simplifying the Application for Student Aid Act, and I encourage my fellow Members to support it as well. Under this bill, students and parents will be able to apply for financial aid when filling out college applications and will no longer have to wait until they have filed the current year's tax returns in order to complete the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA, form. Prior to this change, some families could not fill out the FAFSA form until they had filled out their taxes in April--or even later, with an extension--and, therefore, many students could not receive financial aid in a timely manner. In a 2013 report from the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators report on using what is called using prior-prior year FAFSA data, they found that the expected family contribution of low-income students does not change much over time and concluded that the potential benefits of using prior-prior year data outweighed the potential cost. So last year, President Obama directed the Department of Education to switch to prior-prior year on the FAFSA form through executive action. Now, this bill will make that change permanent. Another important provision of the bill will require the Secretary to periodically report to Congress on the needs of limited English- proficient students. To make sure that a college education is within reach for all students, the Department should make the FAFSA form more accessible to students and families with limited English proficiency. Mr. Speaker, research has unfortunately shown us that too many students fail to attend college simply because of the complexity of the FAFSA form. This simplification will make it possible for them to fill out the form and to achieve their dream of achieving higher education. We know how important higher education is, and I am pleased that we could come together in a bipartisan fashion to make these important changes. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill, and I would like to say a few brief words about the package of higher education bills being considered today. These bills will simplify the financial aid application process; they will help students make well-informed decisions when selecting a college and determining how to finance the education; and they will financially strengthen Historically Black Colleges and Universities. This bill expands access for high school students to dual and concurrent enrollment programs at Hispanic-Serving Institutions. Taken together, this package represents a step in the right direction for students and families. A college degree remains the surest path out of poverty and into the middle class. Census data shows that earnings increase as the level of education increases. In other words, the more you learn, the more you earn. In addition to increased earnings, individuals with higher levels of education are less likely to be unemployed, less likely to receive public assistance, less likely to work in unskilled jobs with little upward mobility, and less likely to become involved in the criminal justice system. The ability to attend college for many students is due in large part to the significant investment we have made in higher education through the Higher Education Act of 1965. As President Johnson said when he signed the HEA into law over 50 years ago: ``It means that a high school senior, anywhere in this great land of ours, can apply to any college or any university in any of the 50 States and not be turned away because his family is poor.'' HEA's goal was, and still is, to provide a pathway to the middle class for millions of working families around the country by making college affordable and accessible to everyone. Unfortunately, the initial promise of HEA has eroded. For far too many of our students, the principles of access and economic opportunity are in jeopardy. The bills considered today take a major step in restoring the original purpose of the Higher Education Act so that no child will be denied access to the opportunities afforded by higher education because his family is poor.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to congratulate Judge Roger L. Gregory on his ascension to the rank of Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on Saturday, July 9, 2016. As the highest ranking judge of the Richmond-based Fourth Circuit, Judge Gregory will preside as ``first among equals'' over 15 active and two senior judges that are responsible for appellate cases rising from Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina--a jurisdiction that includes almost 30 million people. Judge Gregory's service on the bench is historic in a couple of respects. He is the first African American to serve on the Fourth Circuit, which was the only remaining federal circuit in the nation where all of the judges were white. He came to the Fourth Circuit as a recess appointment of President William Jefferson Clinton on December 27, 2000. Despite the bipartisan support of the Commonwealth of Virginia's two U.S. Senators, John Warner (R) and Charles Robb (D)--and the fact that the Fourth Circuit had several vacancies--Judge Gregory's nomination in June 2000 to the Fourth Circuit was effectively blocked by Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina who opposed efforts to diversify the courts. Judge Gregory made history again when he became the only person in United States history to have been appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals by presidents of two different political parties. He was reappointed by President George W. Bush, with the support of Senator John Warner and newly elected Senator George Allen, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on July 20, 2001. During the past 15 years on the bench, Judge Gregory has developed a reputation as a distinguished and brilliant jurist. He is seen as a leader in forging consensus in the Fourth Circuit and providing legal analysis that has helped to evolve the thinking of the court. Judge Gregory was on the panel of judges that heard two groundbreaking cases that were eventually heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2014, Judge Gregory was part of the Fourth Circuit's unanimous ruling in King v. Burwell to conclude that the government's interpretation of the final rule implementing the premium tax credit provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act should be given deference. On July 28, 2014, Judge Gregory was part of the Fourth Circuit's majority decision that ruled 2-1 in Bostic v. Schaefer to strike down Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage as ``impermissibly infring[ing] on its citizens' fundamental right to marry.'' The Supreme Court eventually affirmed the ruling in King v. Burwell and denied a writ of certiorari in Bostic v. Schaefer, letting that decision stand. Judge Gregory's legal stewardship was displayed in the case of Henry v. Purnell, an important case about excessive force by police and qualified immunity In the original three-judge panel opinion, he filed a dissenting opinion. But when the case was heard en banc, before all the judges of the Fourth Circuit, Judge Gregory amassed a wide 10-3 majority of the court to support his position and hold that the use of force was objectively unreasonable. Judge Gregory's reasoning in his Fourth Circuit dissents was also the basis of two U.S. Supreme Court's majority decisions. One case that reversed a Truth-in-Lending Act decision in the Koons Buick Pontiac v. Nigh (2004) and another that approved Judge Gregory's approach in FEC v. Beaumont (2003). Equally remarkable is Judge Gregory's personal story and professional successes. Roger Gregory was born in Philadelphia, but was adopted by a family and raised in the ``Heights'' section of Petersburg, Virginia. On reflecting on his parents, Judge Gregory said ``I think about my parents. They worked in a tobacco factory and had very little formal education. They got up early and worked more time to earn wages so I could learn my letters.'' Judge Gregory ``learned his letters'' and then some. He attended segregated schools until the eleventh grade and became the first person in his family to graduate from high school. He graduated summa cum laude from Virginia State University and earned a law degree from the University of Michigan in 1978. He also holds honorary degrees from Virginia Union University, Virginia State University, Virginia Commonwealth University, Widener University and Saint Paul's College. After a stint at corporate law firms, he formed the law firm of Wilder & Gregory with former Virginia Governor L. Douglas Wilder. He practiced law at Wilder & Gregory and served as managing partner and head of the litigation section of the firm until his appointment to the Fourth Circuit in 2000. Judge Gregory is widely admired and respected by his colleagues on the bench and in the Virginia Bar. He has supported numerous charitable, legal, and educational organizations and currently serves on the board of trustees of the University of Richmond and the John Marshall Foundation. Judge Gregory is a past rector and member of the Board of Visitors of Virginia Commonwealth University and served on the Board of Visitors of Virginia State University, where he taught as an adjunct professor of Constitutional Law. Judge Gregory is an active member of Good Shepherd Baptist Church, in Petersburg, Virginia, where he serves as Artistic Director of the Drama Ministry. He is a member of Omega Psi Phi Fraternity and the Alpha Beta Boule of the Sigma Pi Phi Fraternity. The appointment of Roger Gregory as Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit will be celebrated by many who value the wisdom of a wise jurist who holds the deepest respect for the U.S. Constitution. This honor is celebrated especially by his wife Velda Edwards Gregory; his daughters Adriene, Rachel and Christina; and Kai, his only granddaughter and the ``apple of [his] eye.'' Mr. Speaker, I offer my heartfelt congratulations to Judge Gregory. The people of the Fourth Circuit should be reassured that they have a defender of justice and fairness.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in support of H.R. 4539. The 400 Years of African-American History Commission Act was introduced earlier in the Senate by Senators Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, and I was proud to introduce the House version with the support of Representatives Rigell, Butterfield, Forbes, Beyer, Wittman, Lewis, and many others. I would like to thank Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Cummings, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle) for their assistance in bringing the bill to the floor today. This bill would establish a commission to begin planning programs and activities across the Nation to recognize the many contributions of African Americans since the first arrival of Africans in the English colonies at Point Comfort, Virginia, in 1619. African Americans have contributed greatly to our Nation, and their achievements deserve to be celebrated. The history of Virginia and our Nation cannot be fully understood without recognizing the role played by the slave trade. Slavery was an abhorrent institution; but for hundreds of years, it was the foundation of the colonial and early American agricultural system and was essential to its economic sustainability. The 20 Africans who arrived at Point Comfort, Virginia, in Hampton, Virginia, in 1619 were the first on record to be forcibly settled as involuntary laborers in the English colonies. The 400 Years of African-American History Commission Act will be instrumental in recognizing and highlighting the resilience and contributions of African Americans since 1619. From slavery, to fighting in the Civil War, to working against the oppression of Jim Crow segregation, to the civil rights movement, the rich history of African Americans and their contributions to our Nation began hundreds of years ago but obviously does not end there. The commission established by this bill will be charged with the important task of planning, developing, and implementing a series of programs and activities throughout 2019 to fully tell the story of African Americans, their contributions, and their resilience over the last 400 years and even earlier, as Africans were brought to North America by the Spanish more than a century earlier. The efforts of this 15-member commission, which will include historical experts and not politicians, will ensure that the legacy of those Africans in colonial America, along with other African American leaders whose contributions have helped move our Nation forward, are recognized appropriately. It would be a great disservice not only to African Americans but all Americans if we failed to appropriately recognize this important upcoming milestone in our Nation's history. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the ranking member, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania for their leadership in this effort. And I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Virginia, Free and Accepted Masons, Incorporated and its subordinate lodges, who will be celebrating Founder's Day on Sunday, May 22nd in Petersburg, Virginia. This organization has worked in continuous and faithful service for 140 years within the Commonwealth of Virginia. Prince Hall lodge has a long history in the Commonwealth, tracing its own history to 1775, when Prince Hall and fourteen other free blacks joined a British army lodge of Masons stationed in Boston, Massachusetts and, following their departure, formed their own lodge: African American Lodge Number 1. Prince Hall became the lodge's first Grand Master. By establishing this organization, Prince Hall and his compatriots were, in 1775, taking some of the first steps to form one of American's first formal African-American institutions. Established in Virginia in 1875 as Universal Lodge Number 1 in Alexandria, countless members of the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Virginia, Free & Accepted Masons have served in community and elected leadership positions. Through their service to the Commonwealth of Virginia and our nation, members of the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Virginia, Free & Accepted Masons and its subordinate lodges have sought to ``inspire noble principles, moral values, and profound convictions in the lives of each individual'' their work touches. They have sought to teach the principles of family, the values of philanthrophy through charity and volunteer work, and the convictions of acceptance and compassion through honor, integrity, and respect. Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my enthusiastic congratulations to Roger C. Brown of Richmond, Virginia, who currently serves as the 78th leader of the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Virginia and to all its Grand Lodge Officers, Worshipful Masters, Worshipful Past Masters and members on their celebration, on December 16th, 2015, of 140 years of continuous service in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and on the celebration of Founder's Day on May 22, 2016 in Petersburg, Virginia. It is my profound hope that through their work, members of the Grand Lodge will continue to inspire and provide support and service to communities in the Commonwealth of Virginia.