Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 100th anniversary of First Baptist Church Jefferson Park in Newport News, Virginia.

First Baptist Church Jefferson Park was established in the fall of 1918, following a long period of uncertainty and displacement for its future congregation. When the United States government purchased Mulberry Island in response to the outbreak of World War I, those already living on the island were forced to uproot their lives and relocate. This also meant that the thriving church community which had already made a home on the island had to be broken up; when Colossian Baptist Church's property was repurposed by the government and its congregation moved to their new location in Newport News, not everyone could go with it. Many former members were forced to live far apart following their relocation, branching off and eventually setting down roots in areas all across the city. Jefferson Park became such an area, and although the area was significantly underdeveloped with no public schools, mail delivery, or church, a small group of pioneers from Mulberry Island came to call it home.

Deacon William & Mrs. Lucy Wooten, also originally from Mulberry Island, heard the group's call for a church in their new location at Jefferson Park. With the help of other community members, Deacon William built their first place of worship, including the pews, pulpit, and communion table. At the time there was not sufficient money or space for a proper setup for an organ, piano, or formal choir, and the church was lit with kerosene lamps rather than electricity. Despite the limited space, enthusiasm and membership for the church grew under the leadership of Reverend Zechariah White, who served as a spiritual pillar for the congregation in the church's early days despite never serving as pastor. In 1925 Reverend J.O. Atkinson was able to oversee the construction of a larger church building to accommodate the congregation's needs.

Reverend Atkinson became First Baptist Church Jefferson Park's first official pastor in 1920, following the death of Reverend M. Massenburg, who was called to pastor the congregation but unfortunately passed before his installation. Following Reverend Atkinson's departure from the church in 1927, he was succeeded by Reverend T.H. Ashe in 1929, Reverend F.A. Rylander in 1937, Reverend Mack Samuel in 1940, and Rev. O.D. Henry in 1952.

The First Baptist Church Jefferson Park congregation expanded in 1967, following Reverend Dr. Bernard Schiele's purchase of nearby property and subsequent construction of a new church.

Reverend Dr. Reginald C. Woodhouse was installed as First Baptist Church Jefferson Park's next pastor in 1999, and the church has only continued to grow and expand since then. The church's community is incredibly active, participating in a variety of ministries and programs established by Rev. Dr. Woodhouse, including Youth Choir, Junior Gleaners, Little Angels Choir, Junior Deacons, Junior Trustees, Junior Clerks, and Youth Bible Study.

First Baptist Church Jefferson Park's congregation takes the call to community engagement seriously, which is evident in their annual Education Day Celebration, Church-School partnership with Newsome Park Elementary School, and Tutorial Program.

Over the last 100 years, The First Baptist Church Jefferson Park has been served by many dedicated men of faith--Rev. Zechariah White, Rev. M. Massenburg, Rev. J.O. Atkinson, Rev. T.H. Ashe, Rev. F.A. Rylander, Rev. Mack Samuel, Rev. O.D. Henry, Rev. Dr. W. Bernard Schiele, and Rev. Dr. Reginald C. Woodhouse.

Mr. Speaker, as First Baptist Church Jefferson Park of Newport News, Virginia celebrates this historic milestone, its congregation can take pride in an inspiring 100 years of fellowship, worship, and service. I would like to congratulate Reverend Dr. Reginald C. Woodhouse and all of the members of the church's congregation on this joyous occasion, and I wish them many more years full of growth and prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the United Steelworkers (USW) Local 8888, which represents nearly 10,000 shipbuilders at the Newport News Shipyard in Newport News, Virginia. These dedicated men and women build and repair our Navy's nuclear aircraft carriers and nuclear-powered submarines at this shipyard, which is the largest private sector employer in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The birth of this local union began with a secret ballot vote on January 31, 1978. While they received their charter from USW months later on September 15, 1978, it took the courageous efforts of thousands of workers to carry forward a difficult campaign to ultimately win recognition by the shipyard. Since that time, USW Local 8888 has advanced economic progress for tens of thousands of shipyard workers and has made the Newport News community more vibrant.

The union's advocacy has produced contracts over many years with higher wages, improved health benefits and better pensions. The USW Local 8888 contract established a health and safety committee, and created a fairer workplace by providing for wage progression and a grievance and arbitration procedure. The first six years following the first contract between Local 8888 and the shipyard resulted in more than a half-billion dollars in additional wages and benefits. The USW's current 52-month collective bargaining agreement with Huntington Ingalls Industries--the current owner of the shipyard--will increase average wages and benefits by over $15,000 per worker.

These gains did not come easily. Forty years ago, the shipyard workers had been represented by the Peninsula Shipbuilders Association (PSA)--which was a small association that many workers viewed as a company union. Wages and pensions for these shipbuilders were lower than those at other shipyards in the country. Some workers were stuck in jobs that never had a pay raise. The PSA held no membership meetings, no election of shop stewards, and did not have a safety clause in its ``contract.'' Workers wanted and demanded a better deal.

A group of shipyard workers reached out to the United Steelworkers to try to secure a stronger and more progressive union to represent them. Known as the ``front four,'' Oscar Pretlow, Eddie Coppedge, Ellis Cofield, and WT Hayes were amongst the early organizers. The effort to build support was not easy. The company sought to terminate those who were organizing support for the USW as a way to discourage support. However, in January 1978 thousands of shipyard workers voted through a secret ballot election to affiliate with the USW.

But the shipyard owner at that time--Tenneco--refused to recognize or bargain with USW, and it joined with the PSA to challenge the validity of election before the National Labor Relations Board. These delaying tactics were intended to wear down support for the union the workers had freely chosen.

A year to the day after the vote in January 1979, workers went on strike to demand recognition. The strike lasted 82 days while workers braved the cold on picket lines outside the shipyard gates and hostile police action on the streets. ``88, Close the Gate!'' became their rallying cry during this historic strike. The shipyard workers faced not only a deep-pocketed and determined employer, they faced a hostile Governor, and a Department of the Navy that continued to provide cashflow to the shipyard despite work coming to a halt during the strike--all while taking on this battle in a right-to-work state.

Their solidarity was tested many times; however, the shipyard workers received strike benefits from the USW, and many union members across Virginia and the country joined their picket lines. Ultimately, the NLRB and courts upheld the validity of the union election, and the company was obligated to bargain with USW.

Local 8888 has been blessed with strong leaders over the past 40 years including presidents Lucky Howard, Wayne Crosby, Edward ``Eddie'' Coppedge, Russ Axsom, Ray Coppedge, Thomas Crudup, Alton Glass, Arnold Outlaw, and its current President Charles Spivey. The union has also not forgotten those who led the original struggle, and the USW union hall in Newport News is named after Oscar Pretlow--one of the original ``front four.''

Mr. Speaker, the sacrifices of those shipbuilders who fought to have a union of their choosing in the late 1970s has borne fruit for the past 40 years and has paved the way for a brighter and safer future for those who come to work at the shipyard today. As the members of USW Local 8888 gather this weekend to celebrate the 40 years since they received their charter from USW, I want to commend and thank them for their tireless work representing the tens and thousands of shipbuilders and shipyard employees at the Newport News Shipyard. Their work has bettered the lives and working conditions for these workers and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct, but also to call for the inclusion of one specific improvement to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill that makes it clear that taxpayer money cannot be spent to arm teachers.

Two weeks ago, news reports revealed the Department of Education was considering allowing States to use Federal education funding to purchase firearms and firearms training for teachers. The Department has since confirmed those reports.

Last week, I was joined by 172 Members of the House to call on Secretary DeVos to issue formal guidance prohibiting the use of taxpayer money to put guns in classrooms. In response, the Secretary said she has no intention of taking any action on this issue.

In refusing to act, the Secretary is setting a new and dangerous policy. That is, the Secretary is allowing funding provided under Title IV-A of the Every Student Succeeds Act to be used to arm teachers. This move by the Secretary is unprecedented, as Federal funding has never been allowed for this purpose.

Secretary DeVos has pointed the finger at Congress and expressly called on us to clarify our intent, but congressional intent is already clear. Under the law, the Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grant Program authorized under Title IV-A affords local leaders the flexibility to tailor investments to meet local needs. It was designed to support a wide range of programs to help schools create a better learning environment by expanding students' access to important services like mental healthcare, art, and STEM classes, and new technology that better prepares students for the future.

However, when writing and enacting the law, Congress never contemplated such flexibility allowing the purchase of firearms. In fact, Congress denounced the presence of firearms in schools in a section in ESEA that promotes programs that foster ``the creation and maintenance of a school environment free of weapons.''

Mr. Speaker, Congress' opposition to taxpayer-funded guns in schools was reiterated in the STOP School Violence Act, which the House passed last March in the aftermath of the Parkland, Florida, shooting. This legislation, which passed 407-10, explicitly prohibits the program funds from being used for the purchase of firearms or firearms training. Even the Department of Homeland Security under Secretary Nielsen has acted through executive authority to prohibit grant funds specifically intended for school security from being used to purchase guns.

Secretary DeVos has both the authority and the responsibility to follow legal precedent, congressional intent,

as well as common sense about gun violence by prohibiting taxpayer- funded guns in schools. But seeing as the Secretary is shirking that responsibility, Congress must take immediate action to protect students and teachers from a policy that will recklessly endanger students and teachers.

The final version of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill must make clear that no taxpayer money can be used to arm teachers. This has not been a partisan issue in the past and should not be a partisan issue today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise as ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce in support of H.R. 2353, the Strengthening CTE for the 21st Century Act, which will reauthorize the Perkins Career and Technical Education Program, the CTE program.

Mr. Speaker, the House passed the CTE reauthorization in the last Congress and again last year. The Senate made minor changes to the bill, and now we are on the verge of final passage today. In passing the bill, we will be updating the Federal investment in CTE to provide increased State flexibility, while ensuring greater accountability for program quality.

H.R. 2353 will also require a more inclusive collaboration between educational institutions, industry, employers, and community partners.

Today's CTE will not be the vocational education of the past. Workers rarely hold the same job for 40 years. Workers often have several jobs throughout their careers, which is why modern CTE programs must help ensure that students receive a foundational education that will help students switch in their career or academic tracks at any time.

I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) for their bipartisan leadership, and, of course, the chair of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, Dr. Foxx. Because of their work, the House was able to produce a comprehensive reauthorization of Perkins CTE, which will improve program quality and services for students, and support educational programming that engages all students by linking core academic content with real-world, work-based skills development.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, Federal administrative law judges, commonly known as ALJs, decide over 1 million cases a year, covering everything from appeals of Social Security Disability and Medicare claims to disputes over black lung benefits and securities law violations. These are cases that can touch virtually all of our constituents.

On July 10, President Trump issued an executive order that will undermine the quality and independence of ALJs and the impartiality of the decisions they render. It does so by changing the hiring standards for judges.

The current standards guarantee that ALJs are fully qualified to serve. The executive order will replace those standards with a far more lenient system that would allow ALJs to be hired based on ideology or cronyism rather than experience and competence.

This executive order, titled, ``Exempting Administrative Law Judges from the Competitive Service'' will open the door for the politicization of a profession that plays a defining role in the lives of millions of American families.

Representatives Elijah Cummings, David Cicilline, John Larson, and I filed an amendment to defund the executive order and preserve the impartiality, independence, and competence of administrative law judges. Unfortunately, the majority on the Rules Committee has refused to allow Members of Congress to vote on or even debate our amendment.

The longstanding hiring standards for ALJs were designed to guarantee the legitimacy of their decisions. ALJs were required to have 7 years of trial-level experience as an attorney and successfully complete a six-part examination. To insulate judicial decisionmaking from agency political pressure, the examination was conducted by the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, which maintained a list of the highest scoring applicants from which agencies can then select their candidates.

All of that was jettisoned by the President's executive order, which removes ALJs from the competitive service. Now the only requirements are that an ALJ must be a lawyer in good standing.

This executive order is strongly opposed by a broad spectrum of organizations. The Federal Administrative Law Judge Conference, a nonpartisan, voluntary professional association, warns, ``now, any agency that wants to hire an ALJ needs no approval from OPM and can hire any attorney regardless of skill or experience. The new appointment process will not afford members of the public the due process and fair hearings they deserve. Instead, it will give agency insiders and political loyalists a job for which they may not be qualified but for which they will feel indebted.''

The Association of Administrative Law Judges, which represents over 1,600 ALJs at the Social Security Administration, states that the President's order ``will politicize our courts, lead to cronyism, and replace independent and impartial adjudicators with those who do the bidding of political appointees.''

The American Association for Justice writes: ``It is important for all cases overseen by ALJs to have a neutral ALJ handling the case, not someone who may be beholden to a particular political party, hostile to a particular agency or program, or otherwise politically motivated in their decisionmaking.''

The American Bar Association writes: ``By giving agency heads sole discretion to hire ALJs who will be making determinations affirming or overturning decisions rendered by that agency, the executive order has the potential to politicize the appointment process and interfere with the decisional independence of ALJs.''

The American Bar Association says further that: ``Nothing less than the integrity of the administrative judiciary is at issue here. That is why it is critical that Members of Congress have an opportunity to participate in the debate and help formulate a solution. The first step is to halt implementation of the executive order.''

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the letters from those four organizations.

American Association for Justice,

July 13, 2018.

Hon. Members of the House,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Member of Congress: The American Association for

Justice strongly opposes the Trump Administration's recent

executive order regarding the hiring and role of federal

Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). An impartial judiciary is

central to the strength of our justice system, and ALJs

should not be involved in the political process. The ALJ

executive order threatens the American people's right to a

neutral arbiter and right to due process.

It is vital that ALJs be independent and impartial. This

executive order eliminates the process of selecting ALJs

based on their qualifications, and instead allows these

positions to be filled by political appointees without any

merit-based procedure. Administrative proceedings should

continue to be overseen and adjudicated by ALJs who are

qualified, such as attorneys with at least seven years of

litigation experience and who are vetted by the Office of

Personnel Management, as was the prior process. The

appointment of ALJs with no experience, who can gain

appointment solely due to their financial contributions or

other political incentives so long as they possess a bar

license, could result in unfair, biased rulings for millions

of Americans.

The executive order will have a devastating effect on a

vast array of cases, including cases before the Social

Security Administration, Department of Labor, National Labor

Relations Board, and Department of Health and Human Services.

There are about 2,000 ALJs that decide over a million cases

each year. Approximately 1,600 of those ALJs hear Social

Security disability cases and render almost 700,000 decisions

each year at the hearing level. It is important for all cases

overseen by ALJs to have a neutral ALJ handling the case, not

someone who may be beholden to a particular political party,

hostile to a particular agency or program, or otherwise

politically motivated in their decision-making. AAJ is

especially concerned about bias against claimants seeking

Social Security disability benefits.

We urge you to oppose this executive order and to support

Amendment #55, sponsored by Reps. Scott (VA), Cummings,

Cicilline and Larson (CT), to Division B of Rules Committee

Print 115-81 (H.R. 6147). We greatly appreciate your support

in protecting the American people's right to due process.

Sincerely,

Linda Lipsen,

CEO, American Association for Justice.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, by refusing to allow this amendment to come to the floor, the majority has denied Members the opportunity to have an important debate on this issue. Rather than avoiding the issue, the majority should be standing up for a just and impartial review process. Rather than refusing a vote on this amendment, the majority should be joining us in holding the administration to account.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed by the majority's opposition to consider this issue that affects so many constituents across the country. I, therefore, urge Members to oppose the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Pauline A. Ellison, the sixth National President of the Links, Inc. The Links, Inc. is an international not-for-profit and one of our nation's oldest and largest volunteer service organizations committed to enriching, sustaining, and ensuring the culture and economic survival of African Americans and other persons of African ancestry. This week, the Links, Inc. gather for their 41st National Assembly in Indianapolis, Indiana where they will honor their current and past national presidents.

Pauline A. Ellison was born in Iron Gate, Virginia and graduated from Watson High School in Covington, Virginia. She was valedictorian of her class and matriculated to Howard University on a full scholarship. As a student at Howard University, she majored in Chemistry and graduated with honors. After college, she became the first African American woman to be named as an employee relation's officer at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). During her tenure at HUD, she served as the Vice President of the Hubert Humphrey Committee on Back- To-School programs and assisted with President Lyndon B. Johnson's Youth Programs where she helped train and educate thousands of young people.

Through her strong interest in the academic development of young people, she founded the Northern Virginia Chapter of Jack and Jill and served on the boards of Burgundy Farm Country Day School and the United Way. Mrs. Ellison attended Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service and was nominated to attend the Federal Executive Institute in Charlottesville, Virginia. Following her time at Georgetown, Mrs. Ellison received her Master's in Public Administration from American University. She spent two years in Germany and served as the vice president of the Hahn Officers Wives' Club, where she developed and implemented programs for American-German orphans and American Girl Scouts.

Pauline A. Ellison was one of several members who charted the Arlington Chapter of The Links, Inc., on November 19, 1966. She served as vice president and president of the Arlington Chapter and was later appointed as the National Director of Services to Youth. In that role, she compiled and distributed a single publication listing the activities of every chapter in each program facet. During The Links, Inc. National Assembly in 1974, Pauline A. Ellison was elected to serve as the 6th National President.

Under Mrs. Ellison's administration, she implemented a national headquarters with paid staff. It wasn't until the end of her second term, that the headquarters was fully operational. As national president, she continued her support of national and community service programs by representing The Links, Inc. in other major service organizations such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the National Urban League, Opportunities Industrialization, Inc., and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. One of her biggest accomplishments was the fulfillment of The Links' pledge to contribute half a million dollars to the United Negro College Fund (UNCF). Due to her transformative leadership, Mrs. Ellison was honored by numerous national and civic organizations for her tireless dedication to public service.

Following the completion of her term as National President, she served in several other roles with The Links, Inc., as a member of the Executive Council for four years and the National Personnel Committee for eight years. She also assisted in the organization, staffing, and implementation of personnel policies and procedures for the national headquarters. She continued her service to the County of Arlington, Virginia by serving in numerous leadership roles in local civic organizations. For six years, she served as a delegate and president of the International Service Club Council--an organization of 32 recognized service organizations in Arlington County.

Mrs. Ellison served as community advisor to the Board of Directors of Arlington Hospital and as secretary of the Women's Committee of the Washington Performing Arts Society. Concurrently, she served as community advisor to the Northern Virginia Junior League and assisted the county as a member of the Classification and Pay Committee, responsible for advising the county in a comprehensive study and revision of its total classification and pay system for all employees.

She was the first African American woman to become a member of the Board of Directors of Central Fidelity Banks, Inc., where she served on the public policy committee. While serving on the board, the corporation contributed one million dollars to support education of minority students.

Mr. Speaker, Pauline A. Ellison has never sought public recognition for her hard work and dedication to the community. She has dedicated her life to the advancement, growth, and success of The Links, Inc. and to the County of Arlington, Virginia, in which she still resides. Her efforts and dedication as the 6th National President have elevated the organization to one of prominence and service to the community. She has been supported by her husband, Dr. Oscar Ellison, Jr., her children, Oscar Ellison III, Paula Mitchell, and Karla Ellison. As the Links, Inc. gather in Indianapolis for their 41st National Assembly, I join them in paying tribute and honoring the remarkable service of Pauline A. Ellison.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate a historic neighborhood in the Hampton Roads region of Virginia. Historic Hilton Village in Newport News will celebrate its centennial on July 7, 2018. To mark the occasion, I would like to take a moment to highlight the history of this neighborhood and recognize its contributions to our community.

Hilton Village sits on 100 acres of forested land between the James River and C&O Railroad in the city of Newport News, Virginia. It was constructed in 1918 to address the severe housing shortage for shipbuilders employed by the Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Company. At the time, the United States had just entered World War I and Newport News Shipbuilding had received contracts to build naval ships and thousands of shipbuilders came to the area to assist with the war effort.

Hilton Village stands out in United States history as the first government experiment in urban planning and the first federally funded war-housing project. The President of Newport News Shipbuilding, Homer L. Ferguson, first lobbied Congress for additional housing to support his burgeoning workforce when he traveled to Washington in 1917 to voice his concern with the overcrowding of shipbuilder's quarters. Shortly after his visit, Congress provided the United States Shipping Board with $1.2 million to plan and build Hilton Village. Henry Vincent Hubbard, a Harvard graduate and one of the best town planners at the time, served as the village planner. Francis Joannes was the village architect and Francis H. Bulot was the project engineer. They designed the buildings with the most modern methods based on input of shipbuilders' wives. Hilton Village was designed to offer many local services. The plan even included tracks for a trolley car to allow workers to commute to the Shipyard and to the greater Newport News region where city services and shopping were centered. The first development of Hilton Village consisted of a block of English village style homes owned by Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Company, plots for four churches, a library and a strip of stores. By 1920, Hilton Village had developed into almost 400 homes, a fire-house, a business district, an elementary school which is still open to this day--Hilton Elementary School--and a small park with a beach and pier known as Hilton Pier.

After World War I, the chairman of the board at the shipyard, Henry E. Huntington purchased Hilton Village from the government and operated the community as the Newport News Land Company. Huntington's Newport News Land Company rented out Hilton homes to community residents and in 1922 sold the properties to private owners. Gradually, Hilton Village became a community for families, business owners, retirees and young adults. In 1969, Hilton Village was listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which deemed it worthy of preservation for its historical significance. Four streets--Hopkins Street, Post Street, Ferguson Avenue and Palen Avenue--are named after former Newport News Shipyard and Drydock Company executives. Two other avenues, Hurley and Piez were named in honor of U.S. Shipping Board and Emergency Fleet Corporation executives involved in the project.

Today Hilton Village boasts 27 unique boutiques, eateries, art galleries and salons and continues to thrive as one of Newport News' prized cultural centers. In 2009, Hilton Village was designated one of 10 Great Neighborhoods by the American Planning Association, because it is a prime example of timeless neighborhood planning. It was the first out of about 100 federally financed housing projects during World War I, and it remains a national model for communities that are looking to plan and build inclusive, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the residents of Hilton Village on their centennial celebration and for helping make Newport News a great place to live and raise a family.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend both Mr. Courtney and Mr. Wittman for their tireless effort on the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.

As they have already stated, our Navy is being squeezed and desperately needs more ships, especially submarines. Numerous civilian and military officials, including Secretary Mattis, have testified about the need for these submarines.

The goal of this amendment to ensure the Navy has the necessary resources in 2019 so that they can officially pursue and negotiate the multiyear contract is extremely important.

Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut and my colleague from Virginia for their hard work.

Mr. Chair, following are my remarks in their entirety:

I would like to commend both Mr. Courtney and Mr. Wittman for their tireless work on the Seapower Subcommittee on the House Armed Services Committee supporting our nation's Navy and our shipbuilding industrial base. As I have the honor of representing Newport News, Virginia, home to thousands of shipbuilders, I appreciate their work and commitment to this issue.

As Mr. Courtney and Mr. Wittman have already stated, our Navy is being squeezed and desperately needs more ships, especially Virginia- class attack submarines. Numerous civilian and military officials, including Defense Secretary Mattis, have testified before Congress that we need more submarines. And that's the goal of this amendment--to ensure that the Navy has the necessary resources in FY2019 that they would need in order to efficiently pursue and negotiate the next multiyear block contract in the early 2020.

Specifically, this amendment provides funding for a submarine reactor, industrial base support and other critical items. The amendment does not bind Congress or the Navy into any specific course of action. If the Navy opts not to pursue the option to purchase additional submarines, that reactor and other material purchases with these funds will be absorbed into submarines that the Navy has already contracted to buy.

Our shipbuilding industrial base is critical to our national security. Making these investments today will both save money for our Navy and provide more certainty for our shipbuilders. This amendment is supported by unions, the Navy League, and retired flag officers.

Mr. Chair, we have heard warnings for years that our submarine fleet is at risk of dropping to levels that would make in incredibly difficult for the Navy to achieve its mission. This amendment guards against that from becoming a reality.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so that Congress can preserve the option for the Navy to build as many submarines as possible, and as cost-effective as possible, in the next five-year block contract.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding the time, and I thank her for her leadership in opposing this bill.

I, too, oppose the bill. This bill is yet another in a long line of so-called tough-on-crime bills that Congress has enacted since President Nixon declared a war on drugs nearly 50 years ago. These laws have, without question, failed to win the so-called war. But they have succeeded in placing the United States as number one in incarceration rates in the world to the extent it is so bad that some studies have actually shown that our incarceration rate is so bad that it actually adds to crime because so many children are being raised by parents who are incarcerated.

So much of the Department of Justice budget has been on prisons that aren't doing any good when that money should be spent on things that could do some good. Too many people have felony records and can't find jobs who are actually adding to crime by this so-called war on drugs.

Mr. Chairman, there are three main reasons why I oppose this bill. First, the bill abandons evidence and expertise in exchange for expediency. By giving the Attorney General the power to permanently designate analogue substances to a new drug schedule, he will be free to ignore the experts at the Department of Health and Human

Services and the Federal Drug Administration. This is the Attorney General whose judgment has led him to rip children from their parents at the border.

The bill also codifies drug equivalency laws which are used at sentencing absent any input from the United States Sentencing Commission, which is already conducting an in-depth study of analogue drugs. In addition to research and expertise, the Sentencing Commission also possesses the flexibility to adjust sentencing guidelines as necessary if its knowledge of analogue substances changes.

Second, the bill will add to the problem of mass incarceration. By enacting higher sentences without a mens rea requirement, people could serve longer sentences even if they did not know that a drug contained an analogue substance.

Third, we simply do not need the bill. The Department of Justice already prosecutes cases involving drug analogues under existing law. The then-Acting Administrator of the DEA said as much in her testimony before the Judiciary Committee on December 12 of last year when she described the current legal process as workable but resource intensive.

Mr. Chairman, let's not enact yet another law that sends more people to prison while ignoring the root cause of the current crisis; that is, substance abuse, which is a public health problem and should be treated as such.

Other opioid bills we have been considering take this public health-- not criminal justice--approach. That is the approach we should take, and we should pursue that strategy by rejecting this bill.

Mr. Speaker, 6 months ago, Congress passed a tax cut that cost almost $2 trillion that overwhelmingly benefited corporations and the wealthy. Today, the Republicans are asking struggling children and families to foot the bill.

Nearly half of the $15 billion in cuts in the Trump-GOP recessions package targets the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP. While $7 billion may be a rounding error in the corporate tax cut, eliminating this funding from CHIP will jeopardize its ability to ensure access to healthcare for the children and families who depend on the program every year.

The bill contains an 80 percent cut to the CHIP contingency fund. That is particularly shortsighted and dangerous. The need for healthcare assistance is greatest when our Nation experiences unexpected challenges, including recessions, public health emergencies, and national disasters. Hopefully, that money will not be needed, but we should not be stealing from the fund that provides vital care for children and families when their communities are confronted by these unforeseen but inevitable challenges.

In addition, the bill also includes cuts to the Corporation for National and Community Service, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, health infrastructure, rural water programs, and many other small but important programs that protect our citizens, create jobs, and grow the economy.

In an attempt to give taxpayers the illusion of fiscal responsibility, my colleagues have once again revealed their misguided priorities. We should not be paying for the irresponsible tax cuts by making even more reckless cuts to the investments in our future.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As the Representative of Hampton Roads, Virginia, I support the significant increase in Navy shipbuilding in the NDAA. But while we consider national defense, we must also consider school construction.

Yesterday, U.S. banks reported $56 billion in first quarter profits. At the same time, our teachers are being forced to go on strike for a living wage and adequate funding for our public schools. But when the majority pushed its tax bill through Congress, it was the banks, not teachers and not the schools, that received the biggest benefit.

H.R. 2475, the Rebuild America's Schools Act, would be a step forward in correcting our priorities by investing desperately needed funding into our public school infrastructure. This $100 billion proposal, which is barely 5 percent of what was spent on the tax cut for corporations and the wealthiest Americans, would go towards repairing crumbling public school buildings to ensure that every student has access to safe, healthy, and high-quality learning facilities.

Not only would this proposal improve school conditions and student academic outcomes, it would create jobs. Research from the Economic Policy Institute shows that for every $1 billion invested in school construction, 18,000 jobs are created. Therefore, a $100 billion Federal investment translates into about 1.8 million new jobs over the next decade. That is many times more than are projected from the $1.5 trillion tax cut.

Last week, we honored the 64th anniversary of the Supreme Court landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education that found separate is inherently unequal and ordered public education to integrate to provide equitable learning opportunities for all.

Now, how can we now say that we followed the order in Brown when, just this winter, public schools in Baltimore were forced to close because they didn't have heat? And how could we justify handing a massive tax cut to the wealthy and corporations while abandoning students and educators in public schools across the country? The answer is we can't.

The Rebuild America's Schools Act would put us on a path to give students the safe and high-quality education they deserve, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to acknowledge the gentleman from Georgia, Representative Doug Collins, and the gentleman from New York, Representative Hakeem Jeffries, for their hard work and dedication in improving this bill over the last several weeks.

Historically, the United States of America has been plagued with serious, fundamental problems within our criminal justice system. For far too long, policymakers have chosen to play politics and disapprove of common-sense policy that is specifically geared towards reducing crime by instead enacting so-called ``tough on crime'' slogans and soundbites, such as ``three strikes and you're out,'' ``mandatory minimum sentencing,'' and even rhymes such as, ``you do the adult crime, you do the adult time.'' These policies may sound appealing, but their impact ranges from a negligible reduction in crime to an actual increase in crime.

Turning to the bill we are debating today, I recognize that the FIRST STEP Act includes a fix to the calculation of good time credit, which I have sought for many years. Calculating good time credit as Congress had originally intended is a serious improvement made by this bill. This bill also improves the auditing process for enforcing the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) to protect prisoners from sexual assault. It places prohibitions on shackling pregnant and post-partum women. The bill expands the use and transparency of compassionate release for terminally ill prisoners. It also requires the federal Bureau of Prisons to house prisoners closer to their primary residence, so they can maintain ties to their family and community. And there is a significant investment in programs designed to reduce recidivism.

But process is essential to crafting an effective bill. There were no hearings on this bill. Nor has a CBO score been done. Nor has a prison impact analysis been prepared. And it is obvious that experts had little to do with drafting the bill. As a result of this process, there are several problems with the bill. First, the version of the bill we are voting on today is unnecessarily complicated by the use of a risk assessment tool. I have reached out to experts in the field of prison reform, and I have not found anyone who will say that risk assessment tools should be used to determine which prisoners can use time credits to gain early release from prison. Instead, they suggest that simply increasing programming for everyone will reduce recidivism and the complicated risk assessments are unnecessary and will stand in the way of reducing recidivism for many prisoners. The risk assessment process may also exacerbate existing racial disparities in the federal prison system.

Second, experts have raised serious concerns about excluding groups of prisoners from this program who we know will be released from prison and therefore should be involved in the program.

Third, there are questions of cost and funding. The Bureau of Prisons has cut contracts with halfway houses and terminated 6,000 correctional officers. This bill cannot achieve its goals without an adequately staffed prison system, as well as sufficient space at halfway houses.

Even in the absence of hearings and experts, we can see that some of the opposition to this bill is almost comical, because it is lodged by advocates who support other legislation that carries the same provisions that are either similar to or worse than what they complain about in the FIRST STEP Act. Others oppose the bill because it does not include sentencing reform and therefore does not address mass incarceration. Unfortunately, the bill those advocates hold up as ``sentencing reform'' fails to make any meaningful reduction in mass incarceration, and may in fact add to mass incarceration.

It is in the context of this absurd process that we have to vote on this legislation. Unfortunately, without the appropriate analysis, we can only guess about its impact. Based on that guess, it is my determination that no prisoner will be worse off, but many may be significantly better off, under the FIRST STEP Act. I expect that public safety will be enhanced by this bill, because more people will receive programming to reduce their likelihood to commit future crimes. Although this is a shameful process, I will therefore support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, as the process moves forward, I hope that the sponsors of this legislation will continue to improve it, based on evidence and research.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for allowing me to speak on this ver important issue, and I thank her for leading this Special Order on this important topic, which is gun safety, especially as it relates to school safety.

Keeping all students and educators safe is a top priority. On Friday, we had another tragedy. A small town that few could point out on a map is now infamous. Santa Fe High School, near Galveston, Texas, experienced a mass shooting, leaving 10 dead: Eight students, two teachers. Several students said to the media, they knew this would eventually happen to them.

Our thoughts and prayers are with those students and with the families suffering from acts of gun violence, but enough is enough.

This shooting marks at least 16 shootings in schools just this year. Using the same metrics, there have been hundreds of school shootings since the April 1999 shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado: Marjory Stoneman Douglas; Sandy Hook; Columbine; Virginia Tech; and now Santa Fe.

We watch, year after year, as students and educators lose their lives to gun violence, both in and out of school. Yet, in the decades since Columbine, Congress has taken virtually no action.

Instead of ignoring these tragedies, Congress must have some hard conversations about guns, about mental health, about bullying, and about policies that contribute to the school-to-prison pipeline. And more than just conversation, Congress must act with policies built on evidence-based research, not slogans and sound bites. We all agree that we must do all that we can do to protect our students and prevent violence of all forms, including gun violence.

In the wake of Columbine, the knee-jerk reaction was to put more police in schools, invest in security infrastructure such as metal detectors, and turn our schools into fortresses. The research, based on such policies, is clear that more guns and schools built like Fort Knox will not make our students and teachers safer, and likely will negatively impact vulnerable students.

There is evidence that with more police in schools, they will be more likely to arrest the children than to protect the children. After Columbine, we passed legislation providing services for those caught up in the juvenile justice system, but, unfortunately, over the years, that funding has evaporated.

After Sandy Hook, no action was taken either. The Democratic Gun Safety Task Force made a list of recommendations of actions we could take, like an assault weapons ban, limiting the size of magazines, closing loopholes in background checks, more investments in mental health, and funding evidence-based policies that reduce crime. Unfortunately, no action has been taken on this list of initiatives.

Yet, we have seen virtually no action, even after the situation in Parkland, Florida. Instead, we have seen calls to arm teachers, allow racial discrimination in the name of safety, and equip every school with more armed police officers. These measures have created a culture of fear and anxiety that actually makes the school-to-prison pipeline worse, and it does nothing to increase school safety.

We know what needs to be done to address school shootings. We need to equip our school leaders, teachers, and parents with the resources necessary to ensure access to school-based mental health services; we need to prevent bullying and harassment; and we need to achieve safe and welcoming learning environments for all students.

Comprehensive and collaborative interventions will help address school violence, improve school climate, and keep students safe. Students desperately need the staff and resources to better meet the mental health needs of students. We must invest in hiring more school counselors, psychologists, and social workers. Trauma-informed care is a framework that helps all stakeholders recognize the signs of trauma and provides training on how to support children coping with trauma.

And we need proactive, not reactive, approaches to handling school discipline. Unfortunately, far too many schools today do not utilize the prevention interventions and, instead, rely heavily on suspensions and expulsions. The evidence is clear: the overuse of exclusionary discipline and the disparate treatment of students of color and students with disabilities robs our most vulnerable students of the opportunity to learn and to achieve.

In 2014, the Obama administration released a guidance package that focused on clarifying schools' obligation under Federal civil rights law to identify and address racial bias in discipline policies and practices. Those guidelines showed localities how to reduce those disparities without jeopardizing school safety. The guidance has recently been under attack from the administration and congressional Republicans, who are actually trying to claim the guidance has contributed to the school shooting in Parkland. Not only is this claim exploiting a tragedy to advance previous priorities, it is also factually false.

The guidance package, in no way, required schools to change discipline policies if disparities did not exist; and if the disparities did exist, they were not required to take any action that reduced school safety. Further, the guidance rightly pointed out that research shows suspensions and expulsions are ineffective and, actually, a harmful means of handling school discipline.

Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to take action because what we have done so far is not enough. We must enact commonsense gun violence prevention measures, and we must provide resources to educators and students to increase access to mental health services. I hope that as we move forward from yet another tragedy, that we can

stand together, ready to support our teachers, students, and families with real, evidence-based solutions.

Mr. Chairman, there is a lot wrong with this bill, but as ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I am particularly concerned about its impact on students.

SNAP eligibility is tied to eligibility for other vital Federal programs, so the proposed cuts in SNAP eligibility will also cut access to free school meals for 265,000 children.

Research has consistently shown that students struggling with hunger have

lower grades, are less able to focus, and more likely to miss school. This bill would undermine the ability of hundreds of thousands of students to reach their full potential by cutting SNAP benefits for the family and reducing school benefits for children.

In the wake of a $1.5 trillion tax cut for corporations in the top 1 percent, it is a shameful statement of priorities when you try to pay for these tax cuts by reducing food assistance programs for low-income students.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5242. This legislation under consideration today will improve our understanding about the role of school resource officers. But we must acknowledge that this bill barely scratches the surface of what is actually required to keep our schools safe, and I urge this body to do more.

In the wake of February's tragic shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, many have called for a so-called Federal focus on hardening of our schools, which includes increasing Federal dollars to hire more police officers and embracing the most harsh punishments for school discipline, and even allowing school teachers to carry firearms, despite the overwhelming evidence that many of these initiatives do more harm than good.

In fact, anyone hoping for a discussion of evidence-based methods for preventing school violence must be profoundly disappointed at our reaction since February.

Anyone hoping that the call for harsher school discipline would be sensitive to how it would be applied to students of color and those with disabilities must be disappointed.

Anyone hoping this Chamber would find the political will to take a stand with parents, students, and the overwhelming majority of Americans to take action on sensible gun legislation must be disappointed.

We have failed to act as one after another of these unthinkable tragedies have become commonplace.

In the decades since the 1999 shooting at Columbine High School, States and districts have rushed to increase school-based law enforcement presence. The Parkland tragedy serves as a painful reminder that this effort has not, despite its best efforts, eliminated mass school shootings.

Nearly two decades later, mass shootings in schools still persist, while student behavior has been criminalized, leading to millions of students entering the school-to-prison pipeline.

H.R. 5242 would direct the Departments of Justice and Education to conduct voluntary data collection on school districts' hiring of law enforcement officers. And I would remind my colleagues that we have a tool that collects a lot of data, not only on the presence of school officers, but also on how they impact school equity.

I urge my colleagues to stand in defense of the Civil Rights Data Collection. That is the Civil Rights Data Collection which collects data on equity in education, data such as access to advanced placement courses, data on suspensions, data on access to pre-K and other questions of access and equity, and would call on the Trump administration to affirm its intent to maintain the integrity of that collection.

Mr. Speaker, I also urge my colleagues to stand with students and parents in defense of civil rights under the guise of school safety. The Trump administration has signaled its intent to revoke the Education-Justice discipline guidance that provides districts with the tools to address racial disparities in discipline in a way that would not jeopardize school safety and ensure that school law enforcement officers are trained to serve in a school setting.

Without a shred of evidence, Secretary DeVos has blamed mass school shootings on civil rights protections and the guidance that clarifies district-level obligations under Federal civil rights law.

I urge my colleagues to join me in calling on President Trump and Secretary DeVos to discontinue their misinformation campaign and maintain the entire so-called rethink discipline package. As districts rush to hire resource officers, this body must commit to maintaining resources that empower districts to do so without negatively impacting equity in education.

Mr. Speaker, I also urge this body to increase investments in education. Teachers and students need access to mental health services, counseling, and evidence-based violence prevention programming. Teachers need comprehensive support, including increased salaries. The conversation on school safety that speaks only to hardening of the schools and hiring law enforcement officers will harm far more people than it will protect.

Lastly, I urge this body to consider and pass commonsense gun safety legislation. Gun violence in and outside of the school is a public health epidemic that merits bold and bipartisan congressional support. Meanwhile, this bill does provide for the collection of data and the hiring of police officers in our schools. This information can be helpful as we decide how to best allocate resources to address school safety.

Mr. Speaker, I therefore support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for introducing this bill. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.