Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this bill to improve access to quality health coverage, protect the Affordable Care Act, and cut prescription drug costs for consumers.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the administration has consistently undermined quality, affordable coverage that Americans have come to expect. House Republicans actually passed a bill last year that CBO concluded would provide coverage for over 20 million fewer people, would increase premiums 20 percent the first year, would cover less, and would jeopardize protections for those with preexisting conditions.

We can do better.

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak on one important provision of H.R. 987 that reverses the administration's attempt to proliferate junk insurance plans.

Mr. Chairman, for healthier, younger Americans, short-term junk plans may sound like a good idea. Unfortunately, those policies will fail to cover essential benefits and will lack consumer protections. They may not provide decent coverage for when they get sick.

The major problem with the proliferation of junk plans is the fact that they allow insurance companies to sell plans to healthy people only, meaning that everybody else would be in an insurance pool that is sicker than they are today. While a privileged few may pay less, everybody else will pay more.

In fact, one study showed that the combination of all these junk plans and lack of mandates and other sabotage of the Affordable Care Act could result in thousands of dollars more for everybody else to pay.

These plans will raise costs for most Americans, and that is a step in the wrong direction.

Mr. Chairman, we should be reducing the cost of insurance for most Americans, not increasing the cost.

Mr. Chair, this bill will prevent the administration from going in the wrong direction, so I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 987.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Wild).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Shalala).

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining.

Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close?

Mr. Chairman, I am ready to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a final word about these junk plans.

The problem with them is that you allow them to screen for preexisting conditions and have lower benefits. That might be a good idea for the person buying the plan, but what happens is under the Affordable Care Act everybody pays an average. If you let healthy people buy these junk plans, everybody else's premium will go up.

This sabotage has been estimated with this and the other sabotage, thousands of dollars more for everybody else left behind.

So I rise today in support of the bill, which will improve access to quality health coverage, protect the Affordable Care Act and cut prescription drugs cost.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today, on behalf of Representatives Danny Davis, Gregory Meeks, David Scott, Emanuel Cleaver, Al Green, Steven Horsford and myself, to recognize and honor the life and legacy of Robert Harold Ogle--a founding member of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Incorporated and a trailblazer in the United States Congress.

Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Incorporated was established on December 4, 1906 at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. The founding members of Alpha Phi Alpha are affectionately known as the Seven Jewels. These men were pioneers in their respective fields and their accomplishments were monumental considering the racial attitudes of our nation in 1906.

Jewel Henry Arthur Callis became a practicing physician and a Professor of Medicine at Howard University. He was also the only member of the ``Cornell Seven'' to become General President of the fraternity.

Jewel Charles Henry Chapman was a leader in higher education and became a Professor of Agriculture at what is now Florida A&M University.

Jewel Eugene Kinckle Jones became the first Executive Secretary of the National Urban League.

Jewel George Biddle Kelley was the first African American engineer registered in the state of New York.

Jewel Nathaniel Allison Murray pursued a career in education and taught in public schools in Washington, D.C.

Jewel Vertner Woodson Tandy was the first architect registered in New York and the first African American to pass the military commissioning exam, becoming a First Lieutenant in the 15th Infantry of the New York State National Guard.

As members of Alpha Phi Alpha gather on Capitol Hill this week for Alpha Days on the Hill, it is only fitting to recognize the life and legacy of Jewel Robert Harold Ogle, who was the first known African American to have served as a professional Senate committee staffer.

Jewel Ogle was born in Washington, D.C. in 1886. He was educated at the historic M Street School, one of the nation's first public high schools for African American youth. After graduating from the M Street School, Jewel Ogle studied at Cornell University where he earned a degree in agriculture with an emphasis on business administration.

Senate records show that Jewel Ogle was originally hired in 1919 as a ``laborer'' for the Senate Appropriations Committee, chaired by Senator Francis E. Warren of Wyoming. His title was changed to ``messenger'' for the committee in 1921, and he was finally named an ``additional clerk'' in 1930.

It is important that we honor Jewel Ogle, who a century ago, paved the way for African American congressional staffers today. He established and exemplified the ideals of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity in leadership, scholarship, and service. At his funeral service, Jewel Nathaniel Allison recognized Jewel Ogle for ``his unabated enthusiasm and his fighting spirit.'' As members of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity visit the United States Capitol this week for Alpha Days on the Hill with a commitment to ``Advocacy and Action,'' Jewel Ogle's ``fighting spirit'' goes with them, as well as with each of the Members of Congress who are proud members of this fraternity.

Madam Speaker, Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity has been at the forefront of advocacy for our communities and in uplifting the downtrodden for 113 years. The tremendous work and accomplishments of this fraternity and its members would not have been possible without the Seven Jewels. And here on Capitol Hill, the legacy of Jewel Robert Harold Ogle lives on today in each of the African American congressional staffers who serve behind the scenes of this august institution. I thank Jewel Ogle for being a true trailblazer for these remarkable men and women who followed in his footsteps.

Mr. Speaker, too often, we forget what our healthcare system was like before we passed the Affordable Care Act.

Before the ACA, healthcare costs were skyrocketing; insurers could deny people coverage if they had a preexisting condition; policies did not have to provide essential benefits; and people were losing their insurance at alarming rates. Before the Affordable Care Act, insurers could place annual and lifetime caps on insurance coverage.

Today, the Affordable Care Act ensures that 130 million Americans with preexisting conditions can have access to the healthcare peace of mind and financial security that comes with quality, affordable health coverage.

Now, we have heard a lot about what we can do to make things better. We have heard about a bill that just protects those with preexisting conditions. The problem with that, Mr. Speaker, is, if you allow people to wait until they get sick before they buy insurance, they will wait until they get sick before they buy insurance. Those buying insurance are, on average, sicker, and the costs tend to go up. Fewer people can afford it. The healthy people drop out, and the costs go up.

There is a name for this cycle. It is called the death spiral. Every time they try to protect those with preexisting conditions without the supports of the Affordable Care Act, there is a death spiral out of control.

In Washington State, for 3 years, they tried that. In the 3 years, nobody could buy insurance.

New York was in the death spiral when we passed the Affordable Care Act. When we passed the Affordable Care Act, the costs for individual insurance dropped more than 50 percent.

So we know we just can't protect those with preexisting conditions without the supports and tax credits available under the Affordable Care Act. But we do know what a replacement plan looks like.

The Republicans voted on such a thing. It was actually evaluated by the Congressional Budget Office, finding that, if the bill passed, about 20-some million fewer people would have insurance.

They talk about costs. Under their plan, the costs would go up 20 percent the first year. Insurance policies would not have to cover essential benefits, as they do now, and those with preexisting conditions would lose many of their protections.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and support people with preexisting conditions so that they can have access to the care they need to live healthy and fulfilling lives.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for her decades of leadership fighting for working women.

In 1963, the Equal Pay Act codified the right to ``equal pay for equal work regardless of sex.'' In fact, the Equal Pay Act was enacted 1 year prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that, for the first time, provided for the enforcement of antidiscrimination laws. Over the past 55 years, the Equal Pay Act, in combination with title VII of the Civil Rights Act, has produced substantial progress toward addressing inequities for women in the workplace.

Yet, loopholes and insufficient enforcement have allowed gender-based wage discrimination to persist. Today, women earn, on average, 80 cents on the dollar compared to White men in similar jobs. The wage gap is even worse for women of color. It exists in every sector, regardless of education, experience, occupation, industry, or job title.

Drawn out over a lifetime, the persistent wage gap could cost a woman anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million. For many, this is the difference between financial stability and poverty. In fact, we know that achieving pay equity would actually cut the poverty rate for working women more than 50 percent.

That is why we are considering this historic legislation today. After decades of failing to address persistent wage inequity, the Paycheck Fairness Act is our opportunity to strengthen the Equal Pay Act, bolster the rights of working women, lift families out of poverty, and, finally, align our remedies for gender discrimination with other established antidiscrimination laws by eliminating caps on damages when employers act with malice or reckless indifference, consistent with the laws governing discrimination based on race or national origin, treating attorney fees consistent with title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and restricting an employer's inquiry and reliance on a prospective employee's previous salary. This is consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, and similar restrictions regarding an applicant's marital or pregnancy status.

As chair of the House Committee on Education and Labor, I urge my colleagues to join me in casting a vote for final passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act and making equal pay for equal work a reality for working women across this country.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the sponsor of the bill.

Madam Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wilson).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Underwood).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar).

Madam Chair, I yield the gentlewoman from Minnesota an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Chair, I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Madam Chair, I would like to inquire how much time I have left.

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I just want to make a couple of closing comments.

We have heard speaker after speaker complain that, if this bill passes, lawyers will get paid. Most lawyers, in fact, only get paid when they have a winning case; so if they want lawyers to stop getting paid, they could do this if we would stop discriminating.

The only way to enforce the laws against discrimination is to hire a lawyer and go to court, and that is when lawyers get paid. Stop the discrimination; stop the lawyers from getting paid.

There is also a suggestion that we ought to limit the amount of money that can be paid to lawyers. The fact is that no group supporting women support that limitation because the limitation sometimes can be so low that you can't hire a lawyer. It is only supported by groups supporting those representing people accused of discrimination.

It is also one-sided. There is no proposal to limit the amount of money that the guilty can pay their lawyers.

A comment was made about unlimited damages. The damages, in fact, in this bill are the same as you can get under race and religious discrimination, and the purpose of the bill is to conform the process for gender discrimination to the process for other forms of discrimination like race and religion.

The EEOC data, as my colleague from Virginia pointed out, is available, and if you do not report this data, you could have gross disparities. You could pay all the men one thing and all the women less, and until that is reported, nobody might notice.

Madam Chair, there are pay gaps. Discrimination still exists, and this legislation is one step in closing that pay gap. We need to pass the legislation.

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

Madam Chair, I include in the Record a letter from the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers in support of this legislation.

International Federation of Professional & Technical

Engineers, AFL-CIO & CLC,

Washington, DC, March 26, 2019.

Dear Representative, On behalf of the 90,000 members

represented by the International Federation of Professional

and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), we are writing in support of

H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act. Sponsored by Congresswoman

Rosa DeLauro, this legislation will amend the Fair Labor

Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to

victims of gender-based discrimination in the payment of

wages. With a floor vote scheduled this week, IFPTE urges you

to vote for H.R. 7.

Today, women earn 80 cents to every one dollar earned by

their male counterparts. It is even worse for African-

American women, who earn only 61 cents on the dollar compared

to white non-Hispanic men, while Hispanic and Latina women

earn only 53 cents

on the dollar compared to white non-Hispanic men. While these

glaring differences should be unacceptable in any day and

age, the impact is even greater today with poverty rates

among women recently reaching their highest peak in nearly

two decades.

The problem of unequal pay for equal work spans every

sector and all educational levels. According to a 2017

Department of Professional Employees (DPE, AFL-CIO) fact

sheet, Professional Women: A Gendered Look at Inequality in

the U.S. Workforce, women with a bachelor's degree or higher

earned $1,230 in median weekly wages in 2015, while men with

a comparable education earned $1,420. The DPE fact sheet also

looked at wage disparities per occupational category and

found that, without exception, women's wages lag far behind

men. Despite comprising 55 percent of workers in professional

and related occupations, women in those professions earn 28

percent less than men.

The Paycheck Fairness Act is aimed at closing the pay

discrimination gap by strengthening the Equal Pay Act of

1963. This legislation will:

Clarify acceptable reasons for differences in pay to ensure

that a wage gap is legitimate and truly a result of factors

other than gender;

Allow for reasonable comparisons between employees to

determine fair wages;

Prohibit employer retaliation against workers who inquire

about employee wages in general, or disclose their own wage;

Provide women with the option to proceed in an opt-out

class action lawsuit and allow women to receive punitive and

compensatory damages for pay discrimination;

Increase training for Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC) staff to better identify and handle wage

disputes;

Require EEOC to develop regulations directing employers to

collect wage data;

Require the Department of Labor to reinstate activities

that promote equal pay (i.e. educational programs, technical

assistance to employers, promoting research about pay

disparities between men and women); and,

Establish salary negotiation skills training for women and

girls.

The Paycheck Fairness Act is a long overdue bill to help

close the pay gap suffered by women workers. IFPTE urges you

to support H.R. 7.

Sincerely,

Paul Shearon,

President.

Matthew Biggs,

Secretary-Treasurer/Legislative Director.

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

Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of my point of order.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.