Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an institution that has been at the forefront of education in America for the last 150 years. This April, Hampton University is celebrating the 150th anniversary of its founding. To mark the occasion, I would like to take a moment and recognize the wonderful legacy of this institution of higher education that lives on today.

The seeds from which Hampton University grew were planted in 1861. During the Civil War, Fort Monroe, the Union-controlled coastal fortress, was a beacon to slaves in Hampton, Virginia and the surrounding towns. General Benjamin Butler, Commanding Officer of

the fort, had issued a declaration that any slaves that made it to Union lines would not be returned to their masters, but declared ``contraband of war.'' Overrun with slaves desiring their freedom, the Union created a camp for the refugees a few miles northwest of the fort. It was in this camp that Mary Smith Peake, a free black woman held classes for escapees under a large oak tree, in violation of Virginia law prohibiting the education of free or enslaved blacks. This tree would later be named the Emancipation Oak, as it was the first place in the South when the Emancipation Proclamation was read aloud to a crowd. The classes and meetings held under the Emancipation Oak were the beginning of education on the campus of what was to become Hampton University.

After the war, there were no existing pathways for freedmen to rise from their station in slavery. Recognizing this, Brigadier General Samuel Chapman Armstrong, head of the Freedmen's Bureau in Hampton Roads, founded the Hampton Normal and Agricultural Institute in April 1868. While nominally the school's mission was to train black teachers to fill the demand for the education of black Americans, the school's founder suggested the true purpose of the school was ``to train selected Negro youth who should go out and teach and lead their people first by example, by getting land and homes; to give them not a dollar that they could earn for themselves; to teach respect for labor, to replace stupid drudgery with skilled hands, and in this way to build up an industrial system for the sake not only of self-support and intelligent labor, but also for the sake of character.''

Hampton became a model for the creation of other schools designed to uplift Black America. Within nine years of arriving on Hampton's campus for his education, Booker T. Washington was founding Tuskegee Institute in Alabama. Hampton continued to produce black educators and skilled craft and tradesmen. Many of the campus buildings of this era were built by Hampton students. Hampton expanded its programs, increasing its course offerings to include business, nursing, and other arts and sciences classes. In 1930 the school was renamed Hampton Institute, recognizing its growth from its agricultural and teacher training roots. And in 1984, after a thorough nine-month study of Hampton's rapid growth and development and acknowledging its commitment to attracting quality students and talented faculty, offering a robust selection of academic programs, as well as its status as a premier research institution, it was recommended that Hampton Institute change its name to Hampton University.

Hampton's current legacy has been shaped over the past 40 years by President Dr. William R. Harvey. Dr. Harvey came to Hampton in 1978 as the 12th President of the school. Under his leadership, Hampton has remained an innovative institution of higher education. If Dr. Harvey's tenure were measured solely by the creation of traditional campus facilities, the construction of the Convocation Center, Student Center, Sports Facilities, Libraries, schools of journalism and physical sciences would be a fitting tribute to his tenure. But Dr. Harvey has also had the vision to ensure that Hampton was at the forefront of innovative new technologies and opportunities. Hampton University's Proton Therapy Institute is the only one of its kind in Virginia, and through its partnerships with NASA, Hampton is currently the only historically black college and university in control of a NASA satellite mission.

Over 150 years, Hampton University, ``Our Home by the Sea,'' has grown from an outdoor academy for newly freed slaves to an established research university and one of the bedrock institutions of the Hampton Roads region. Its athletic teams have won scores of championships in multiple sports. Its alumni have achieved acclaim in the arts, sciences, business, and politics. And Hampton has held a place of reverence in the story of Historically Black Colleges and Universities in America. I would like to commend Dr. Harvey, the faculty, staff, students, and alumni of Hampton University on the occasion of their sesquicentennial, and I wish them another 150 years of success, growth, and achievement as a pinnacle of higher education in our country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague from Virginia, Congressman Garrett. I want to thank him for organizing this evening's Special Order, but first I want to commend him for his work as a Virginia State senator for making April 23 Barbara Johns Day in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

This April 23, Monday, marked the first official recognition of this important day in the Commonwealth.

Almost 64 years ago, the Supreme Court struck down lawful school segregation in the case of Brown v. Board of Education. What few people know is that Virginia was one of the four cases decided that day. There were three other States, and Washington, D.C., had another case that was decided the same day.

Virginia's involvement in Brown v. Board of Education stood out because that effort was led by a student, namely Barbara Johns. She was only 16 years of age. This stalwart figure in the struggle for equal education stood up to challenge the notion that African Americans should receive separate and unequal education under the law.

Barbara Johns grew up in Farmville, Virginia, and attended Robert Russa Moton High School, an all-Black school serving more than 450 students despite the fact that the facility was designed for only 180.

She described the inadequacies of the school as having shabby equipment, no science laboratories, no separate gymnasium. Conditions were so bad at the high school that, in 1947, even in Jim Crow Virginia, the State offered money to improve the school, yet the all- White Prince Edward County School Board refused to accept the State's funding.

Barbara took her concerns about the school to a teacher, who responded by asking her to do something about it.

After months of contemplation and imagination, she began to formulate a plan. Seizing on the moment, on April 23, 1951, Barbara Johns, a 16- year-old high school student, led her classmates on a strike to protest the substandard conditions at Robert Russa Moton High School.

Her leadership and advocacy ultimately garnered the support of NAACP lawyers Spottswood Robinson and Oliver Hill to take up her cause and the cause of more equitable conditions at Moton High School.

After meeting with the students and the community, they filed suit in Federal court in Richmond, Virginia.

The Virginia case was called Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, and, in 1954, Davis became one of the four cases decided in the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education.

There is a saying that ``courage is not the absence of fear, but the assessment that something else is more important.'' Her courage led to the powerful language in the Brown decision that still rings true today.

In the case, the Court said:

``Today, education is perhaps the most important function of State and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the Armed Forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today, it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the State has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.

``We come, then, to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other `tangible' factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.''

And the Court concluded: ``We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of `separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.''

Those powerful words were provoked by the courage of Barbara Johns and others like her who led the charge to bring the cases to the Supreme Court.

The example of Barbara Johns should serve as an example for all of us. She did not sit on the sidelines, and neither should we.

We should speak out when we see injustice, we should act when we see inequity. The best way to honor her legacy is to act in the same spirit that she did.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Garrett), for providing an opportunity to remind us of our obligation to do the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 2.

We often get distracted by debating the title of a proposed constitutional amendment without getting into serious discussion about whether or not the specific provisions will actually help balance the budget.

If we are ever going to balance the budget, the fact is it is going to require Members to cast some tough votes, and many of these votes will be career-ending votes, and a constitutional amendment calling itself the balanced budget amendment cannot change that reality.

Meaningful deficit reduction is politically difficult, and it is ironic that the Republican majority seems suddenly concerned about the deficit and balancing the budget. They must have forgotten that just 4 months ago they voted for a $1.5 trillion tax scam that gave massive handouts to big corporations and the wealthiest 1 percent.

They repeatedly claimed that these tax cuts would pay for themselves, but last week the Congressional Budget Office told the truth, estimating that their tax scam will add almost $2 trillion to our national debt.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most consequential votes I cast early in my career was the 1993 Clinton budget. That budget included tax increases and spending cuts, many of which were very unpopular at the time, but it was the fiscally responsible thing to do. Not one Republican voted for the 1993 Clinton budget.

Needless to say, the 1993 budget was a tough vote, but it helped create over 20 million jobs, the stock market more than tripled, it led to the first balanced budget in a generation, and, by the end of the Clinton administration, it included projected surpluses large enough to have paid off the entire national debt held by the public by 2008.

But it also contributed to 50 House Democrats losing their seats in the next election.

As soon as the Republicans took control of the Federal Government in 2001 with the White House, House, and Senate, they passed massive tax cuts, not paying for them; fought two wars, didn't pay for it; passed a prescription drug benefit, didn't pay for it. So by 2008, instead of zero national debt held by the public, the debt was $5.8 trillion.

So now we have the balanced budget amendment, and the problem is that the balanced budget amendment will not balance the budget.

The fact is that the major provision in this legislation is the requirement that if a budget is unbalanced, it requires a three-fifths vote, and the fact is that this proposal will actually make it virtually impossible to ever pass a fiscally tough deficit reduction plan similar to the 1993 Clinton budget.

That budget wasn't balanced in the first year, and, under this proposed

amendment, instead of a simple majority, it would require a three- fifths supermajority in the House and the Senate.

The fact is, it should be obvious that any tough deficit reduction plan will be unbalanced in the first year, and so it will be harder to pass by requiring a three-fifths supermajority than a simple majority.

The question is: Will that supermajority make it more likely that we would end up with a fiscally responsible budget or a fiscally irresponsible budget?

Obviously, it is more likely that we would pass a fiscally irresponsible Christmas tree budget where every Member gets a present under the tree than it would be to get enough career-ending votes to meet the three-fifths requirement under this legislation.

And note that this amendment places no limit on how far out of balance the budget can be once you get to three-fifths.

Mr. Speaker, we shouldn't be distracted by the resolution's misleading title. Balancing the budget will require tough votes, not constitutional amendments. My colleagues must seriously consider whether the resolution's actual provisions will help or hurt.

It is obvious it would make it virtually impossible to pass any kind of balanced budget or responsible budget; therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise, on behalf of Congressman Morgan Griffith and myself, to recognize the achievements of Ron Carson who has made the plight of tens of thousands of disabled coal miners a central part of his life's work. Through his decades of work directing three black lung clinics in Southwest Virginia, and tireless advocacy efforts across the coal fields of this country, he offered help and hope to miners whose lungs were irreversibly scarred with the scourge of black lung disease.

Ron was born in Pennington Gap, Virginia during segregation. He attended a one-room primary school on land that his great-great- grandmother, Rachael Scott, had donated in 1939 for education of black children in Lee County. Ron and his wife Jill, a Member of the Town Council in Pennington Gap, founded the Appalachian African American Cultural Center in that same brick school house, which now preserves the life stories, history, heritage, culture and events of African Americans in Southwest Virginia. Although segregated in housing and schools, African Americans found a measure of inclusion in Central Appalachia, where they were able to work free from the harsh conditions in the Deep South, and many received equal pay for their work mining coal.

Ron worked for Westmoreland Coal Co. in Appalachia, Virginia as did his stepfather. His grandfather and great-grandfather both worked for many years for Blue Diamond Coal in Bonny Blue, Virginia. Ron later attended the Massachusetts School of Pharmacy, and in 1990 returned as an outreach worker in the black lung clinic operating out of the St. Charles Community Health Clinic. For the past 20 years he has served as the director of three black lung clinics which are now part of Stone Mountain Health Services. In addition to helping miners secure diagnostic tests, treatment and benefits counseling, Ron led an effort to develop what is now the largest program for non-lawyers to successfully advocate for black lung benefits before the U.S. Department of Labor.

There are very few attorneys who represent miners filing claims for black lung benefits. And, coal miners proceeding pro se are no match for the expert legal and medical resources that coal companies and insurers dedicate to each case. Ron and his team have worked to fill this void by providing training for clinics, doctors, lawyers and lay representatives in all 15 coal producing states. The lay advocates working for the Stone Mountain clinics have helped miners win over 2,000 black lung claims in the past 17 years.

In recent years, Ron documented how miners with progressive massive fibrosis (PMF), the most advanced form of black lung disease, have flooded the clinics in southwestern Virginia. Working with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), he recently co- authored an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association which verified an epidemic of this lethal form of the disease in Central Appalachia and helped to elevate national awareness. ``Mining disasters get monuments, meanwhile black lung deaths get tombstones. And I've seen many a tombstone in the last 28 years from black lung,'' he noted.

At a roundtable Ron organized in Wise, Virginia, disabled miners, physicians and lawyers explained how the current black lung adjudication process keeps justice out of reach for far too many deserving miners and survivors.

Ron Carson has been accessible to Members of Congress and provided wise counsel, as well as compassionate and enduring service to his community. He has been recognized by the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) and his peers in the black lung community. On behalf of our colleagues in the House of Representatives, Congressman Griffith and I extend our appreciation for Ron's service to those in need.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

H.R. 620, the so-called ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017, is an attack on the civil rights of Americans with disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act, or the ADA, is a civil rights law passed in 1990 to protect people with disabilities from discrimination in all aspects of society.

I recognize that the ADA falls within the committee jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, and I am here as the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce because, if H.R. 620 were to become law, it would have a profound effect on students and workers with disabilities who are trying to learn, work, or just generally access their community.

Mr. Chair, prior to the ADA, people with disabilities had no recourse if they faced discrimination in employment, housing, transportation, health services, or when accessing public schools. The ADA is nearly 28 years old, and yet we still have continued gross noncompliance with the law.

H.R. 620 specifically targets title III of the ADA regarding access to public accommodations. Title III prohibits discrimination in public accommodations such as restaurants, shopping malls, and hotels. By adding a notice and cure requirement, H.R. 620 shifts the compliance burden to the victims of discrimination.

H.R. 620 effectively provides that discrimination against people with disabilities can continue until somebody hires a lawyer to file a legal complaint of discrimination. Then the bill allows 6 more months to achieve some undefined substantial progress. So even when people know they are out of compliance with the ADA, they don't have to do anything under the bill until somebody files a formal legal complaint.

Mr. Chair, this bill does not help people with disabilities. This is an attack

on civil rights. That is why the disability community and civil rights communities are unanimously opposed to H.R. 620.

There are 236 organizations that joined a letter, led by the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, opposing the bill. More than 500 national and State organizations signed a letter, led by the National Council on Independent Living, urging Congress to reject the bill. More than 200 organizations signed a letter, led by The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, urging Congress to reject the bill.

The ADA was enacted to eliminate barriers of discrimination against people with disabilities. And so I strongly urge each of my colleagues to stand with people with disabilities: protect civil rights by voting ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, unions empower workers with the freedom to negotiate for a fair return on their work and they provide a collective voice to advocate for policies that benefit working people.

Union workers, including those in the public sector, have more access to paid leave, medical and retirement benefits, and higher pay than workers who are not unionized. Children of union members experience more upward mobility than children of workers who are not covered with union contracts, and States with higher union density have stronger workplace protections.

There is a long history of unions helping the least powerful secure dignity on the job. This is the 50th anniversary of the Memphis sanitation workers' strike in 1968. After two workers were crushed in garbage compactors, the Memphis sanitation workers peacefully protested for better pay and safer working conditions. They sought representation from the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME. They marched with placards that simply stated: ``I am a man.''

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., long recognized that the fight for civil rights was fundamentally linked to economic justice and he gave his last public address before his assassination on behalf of these workers.

Despite police brutality and the deployment of 4,000 National Guardsmen, the strike was ultimately successful and AFSCME negotiated higher wages and safer conditions.

The unions representing the workers in the public sector continue to empower our workers and communities today. Just this month, when temperatures plunged to dangerous lows, the Baltimore Teachers Union fought for children who were forced to bundle up in coats and hats in their own classrooms because there was no heat in their schools.

Around the country, the SEIU represented hundreds of thousands of healthcare workers who provide in-home healthcare for our Nation's elderly and disabled. In many States, these workers are State employees, and the unions play a crucial role in bargaining for better wages, better training, and in advocating for increased Medicaid funding so they can deliver services to the disabled and the elderly.

Despite the great work these unions have done on behalf of working people, they are constantly under attack by corporate interests determined to cripple the labor movement, and we know why.

Big corporations and the top 1 percent have rigged our economy against working people. They have gamed the system, including our tax laws, to redistribute wealth to a select few. They have starved our economy of investments in education, infrastructure, and housing.

The campaign to weaken unions has contributed to extreme income inequality and wage stagnation, as smaller and smaller shares of corporate earnings are paid in wages.

The latest of these attacks is happening in the Supreme Court. On February 26, the Court will hear oral arguments in Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, on the question of whether or not to overturn 40 years of precedence affirming the principle that public employees who choose not to join a union may be required to pay a fair share fee to cover the costs of collective bargaining and contract enforcement.

In 1977, the Supreme Court ruled in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that fair share States may authorize the payment of fair share fees to support unions' collective bargaining on behalf of employees. The Court found that the fair share fees are constitutional under the First Amendment because they support collective bargaining, not political activities.

This practice fosters States' interests in preventing labor disputes, cures the free rider problem of employees benefiting from union representation while shifting the costs to their coworkers, and improves the delivery of services by State and local governments.

In Janus, the plaintiffs want to overturn laws in 23 States and the District of Columbia that now require public sector workers who decide not to be members of the union to pay a fair share fee. These workers enjoy all of the benefits of the union: higher wages, safer workplaces, effective grievance procedures.

In these fair share States today, public and private employees who do not want to join a union may be required to pay their fair share for expenses for services required by law, not political, but the services required by law to benefit all workers.

Janus seeks to overturn that law and allow people to benefit from all of those services without paying their fair share.

The challenge to the long-serving precedence is the latest move by corporate interests to weaponize the First Amendment against working people. We have seen it before in Citizens United, which used freedom of speech in the First Amendment to justify virtually unlimited corporate contributions to political campaigns.

Here in the House of Representatives, we frequently see similar antiunion attacks dedicated to weakening the labor movement's ability to function as an advocate for working people and as a counterweight to corporate power.

Whether in the Supreme Court or here in Congress, the campaign to weaken unions is a campaign to strip workers of their most basic protections. This is why it is crucial for Congress to defend against any attacks to undermine workers' freedom to negotiate for better wages and better working conditions.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for organizing this Special Order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 140.

As has been pointed out, buried in section 3 of this otherwise noncontroversial water and lands bill is the text of H.R. 986, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act. This nongermane provision would strip thousands of employees of their rights and protections under the National Labor Relations Act at Tribal enterprises located on Tribal lands.

At issue in the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act are two solemn and deeply rooted principles:

First, the right that Indian Tribes possess in matters of local self- governance;

Second, the rights of workers to organize unions, bargain collectively, and engage in concerted activities for mutual aid and protection.

Rather than attempting to balance these two important principles, the bill chooses sovereignty for some over the human rights of others. I would note that the approximately 75 percent of workers employed at Tribal casinos are not members of the Tribes running the casino, but this bill would strip labor rights of hundreds of thousands of these workers as well as those who are actually members of the Tribes.

In doing so, this legislation would abandon the carefully drawn balance between Tribal sovereignty and workers' rights that was adopted in the San

Manuel decision by a Republican-led National Labor Relations Board in 2004. Perhaps prompted by litigation, the board ruled that the National Labor Relations Act will only apply if it does not impact the exclusive rights of self-governance in purely intramural matters or abrogate rights guaranteed by treaties.

The San Manuel decision is based on legal principles governing Federal laws of general applicability with respect to Indian Tribes that have been upheld by appeals courts for over 30 years. That is why courts have ruled that Tribes must comply with labor and employment laws such as the Fair Labor Standards Act; the Occupational Safety and Health Act; the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA; and the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act.

Yet this bill singles out the National Labor Relations Act on the grounds that Tribes must be given parity with State and local governments which statutorily are exempt from the NLRA. Maybe States and localities should have been considered, but the statutes are clear that they are exempt.

This is not a reason why Tribes should be exempt from an otherwise generally applicable law. Furthermore, State and local governments are covered under title VII of the Civil Rights Act; whereas, Tribes are expressly exempt.

For employees of Tribal enterprises, therefore, unions are the sole protection under Federal law against discrimination, including sexual harassment, because they can negotiate a collective bargaining agreement that enforces employees' rights to be free from such conduct.

Democrats and Republicans together have insisted that our trading partners abide by and enforce basic labor rights anytime we do a trade deal. And Congress has repeatedly required these obligations in trade agreements, but today the House will vote on a bill that takes away the assurance that employees have for the freedom of association if they are employed in many Tribal casinos.

This creates a fair question: Would this legislation place the United States Government in breach of any of the trade agreements that are now in effect? According to the International Labor Organization, in an opinion on a similar bill a few years ago, it would, in fact, put us in breach of trade agreements.

We should be able to fashion compromises that, frankly, protect both workers' rights and Tribal sovereignty, but what is before us today fails that test. There is no principled basis for stripping hundreds of thousands of workers from the right to join a union and negotiate better wages simply because they happen to work in a commercial enterprise on Tribal lands.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands (Mr. Sablan), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).

Mr. Speaker, will you advise as to how much time is left on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies.

I yield the gentlewoman from Ohio an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

I yield the gentleman from Maryland an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter in opposition to the bill from the AFL-CIO.

AFL-CIO Legislative Alert

American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial

Organizations,

Washington, DC, January 9, 2018.

Dear Representative: The AFL-CIO urges you to oppose the

Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act, H.R. 986, which would deny

protection under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to a

large number of workers employed by tribal-owned and -

operated enterprises located on Indian land. Among these

workers are over 600,000 tribal casino workers, the vast

majority of whom are not Native Americans. In recent years,

the number and type of enterprises affected has grown well

beyond the gaming industry, and would now include mining

operations, power plants, smoke shops, saw mills,

construction companies, ski resorts, high-tech firms, hotels,

and spas. Many of these are commercial businesses that

compete with non-Indian enterprises. As proposed, the Tribal

Labor Sovereignty Act would strip all workers in these

enterprises of their rights and protections under the NLRA.

The House bill, introduced by Representative Rokita, would

overturn a decision by the National Labor Relations Board

(NLRB) in San Manuel Indian Bingo & Casino, 341 NLRB No. 138

(2004), which applied the NLRA to a tribal casino enterprise.

In San Manuel, the NLRB looked to Supreme Court and circuit

court precedent to articulate a test for whether the NLRB

should assert jurisdiction over tribal enterprises, whether

located on tribal lands or outside them. (Before San Manuel,

NLRB jurisdiction was determined based solely on location: On

tribal land, the NLRB would forego jurisdiction; off tribal

land, the NLRB would assert jurisdiction. Under the San

Manuel test, the NLRA will not apply if its application would

``touch exclusive rights of self-governance in purely

intramural matters.'' Nor will the NLRA apply if it would

``abrogate Indian treaty rights.'' The Board in San Manuel

also considered other factors, including whether the casino

in question was a typical commercial enterprise, employed

non-Native Americans, and catered to non-Native American

customers.

In San Manuel, the Board concluded that applying the NLRA

would not interfere with the tribe's autonomy, and the

effects of the NLRA would not ``extend beyond the tribe's

business enterprise and regulate intramural matters.''

However, the test articulated in San Manuel provides a

careful balancing of tribal sovereignty interests with the

NLRA's federal labor law protections. In a companion case,

Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corp., 341 NLRB No. 139 (2004), the

Board tipped the balance the other way and didn't assert

jurisdiction.

The AFL-CIO supports the principle of sovereignty for

tribal governments, but does not believe that employers

should use this principle to deny workers their collective

bargaining rights and freedom of association. While the AFL-

CIO continues to support the concept of tribal sovereignty in

truly internal, self-governance matters, it is in no position

to repudiate fundamental human rights that belong to every

worker in every nation. Workers cannot be left without any

legally enforceable right to form unions and bargain

collectively in instances where they are

working for a tribal enterprise which is simply a commercial

operation competing with non-tribal businesses.

The International Labour Organization (ILO), an agency of

the United Nations, has confirmed this view in response to a

question about whether excluding (from the NLRA) workers

employed on tribal lands would conform with principles of

freedom of association. These values are at the core of the

ILO Constitution and the ILO's Declaration on Fundamental

Principles and Rights at Work. The Director for the

International Labour Standards Division wrote that in the

absence of tribal ordinances offering full protection of

internationally recognized rights, ``it is critical that the

State (the national authority) takes ultimate responsibility

for ensuring respect for freedom of association and

collective bargaining rights throughout its territory.'' In

other words, if the tribes themselves don't guarantee these

basic rights--and many do not, the U.S. government must not

abdicate its responsibility to protect them.

Notwithstanding the importance of the principle of tribal

sovereignty, the fundamental human rights of employees are

not the exclusive concern of tribal enterprises or tribal

governments. In fact, the vast majority of employees of these

commercial enterprises, such as casinos, are not Native

Americans. They therefore have no voice in setting tribal

policy and no recourse to tribal governments for the

protection of their rights.

The AFL-CIO opposes any effort to exempt on an across-the-

board basis all tribal enterprises from the NLRA, without

undertaking a specific review of all the circumstances--as

current NLRB standards provide. Where the enterprise employs

mainly Native American employees with mainly Native American

customers, and involves self-governance or intramural

affairs, leaving the matter to tribal governments may be

appropriate. However, where the business employs primarily

non-Native American employees and caters to primarily non-

Native American customers, there is no basis for depriving

employees of their rights and protections under the National

Labor Relations Act.

Sincerely,

William Samuel, Director,

Government Affairs Department.

Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said about State and local being exempt and Tribes not being exempt. Well, that was a decision made way back when. The law specifically exempts State and local. Maybe it should; maybe it didn't; but it did. Tribes were not specifically exempted.

So in conclusion, this bill will strip hundreds of thousands of employees of the right to join a union. Where some Tribes have Tribal labor ordinances that are fair and workable, others do not. And at least one expressly prohibits the formation of unions.

There is no principal basis for excluding these workers from coverage under labor law just because they happen to work in a commercial enterprise on Tribal lands. If this bill will come into law, it will be the first rollback of workers' rights under Federal law in over 70 years, and it may well place the United States in violation of several international trade agreements.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 50th anniversary of New Hope Baptist Church in Hampton, Virginia.

New Hope Baptist Church began as New Hope Mission in 1967. Former members of New Emmanuel Baptist Church in Newport News, Virginia felt compelled to establish their own place of worship, and they began to meet and cultivate their fellowship. The group originally began meeting in a store on North Avenue and later at Carver High School, both in Newport News. Reverend C.B. Potts served as the mission's spiritual leader during this time. The mission officially became New Hope Baptist Church in October of 1967.

Reverend C.B. Potts oversaw the church's move into their first building on April 10, 1969. With more space, proper furnishings, and a growing community presence, the church soon experienced an increase in membership and the creation of their first choir. Pastor G.I. Melton, installed as pastor in 1970, provided guidance and direction throughout this period. Under his leadership, the church saw over 100 new members and the creation of the Children's Church Ministry and Transportation Ministry. This growth continued over the years, and under the leadership of Pastor Melton the congregation broke ground on a new sanctuary in 1980. The construction of New Hope Baptist Church's new sanctuary was completed in August of 1981, two months after the death of Pastor Melton. Today, New Hope Baptist Church has grown beyond any of its founders' expectations. Members of New Hope Baptist Church have seen the expansion of the church through membership and the creation of many ministries such as the Women's Fellowship, Men's Fellowship, Evangelism Team, Seniors' Ministry, Tutorial Ministry, and many more. In January 1995, Rev. Dr. Christopher C. Carter, Sr. was installed as Pastor. In 2004, Pastor Carter led the congregation as they broke ground on a 12,000 square foot facility located in Hampton, Virginia, where they worship today.

Over the years, the congregation of New Hope Baptist Church has been dutifully led in prayer and service by the following men of faith--Rev. C.B. Potts, Rev. W.W. Butler, Rev. G.I. Melton, Rev. Dr. Ivan Harris, Rev. Virgil Newkirk, and Rev Dr. Christopher C. Carter, Sr.

Mr. Speaker, as New Hope Baptist Church celebrates its 50th anniversary, the church's congregation can look back on its history with pride. I would like to congratulate Pastor Carter and the entire New Hope Baptist Church community on this special occasion. I wish the church another 50 years of growth and fellowship.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I also want to thank her for her leadership in organizing this Special Order and for her leadership of the Historically Black Colleges and Universities Caucus.

HBCUs provide a great value to America, and I am honored to represent a congressional district that is home to two HBCUs: Hampton University, which celebrates its 150th anniversary next year, and Norfolk State University.

Since their inception, HBCUs have been the cornerstone of postsecondary

education for the African-American community. This was true 150 years ago and remains true today. HBCUs account for no more than 3 percent of all colleges and universities, yet they enroll almost 10 percent of all African-American undergraduate students and produce about 15 percent of all bachelor's degrees earned by African Americans.

They also produce 25 percent of African-American STEM graduates and 33 percent of African-American science and engineering Ph.D.'s. Approximately half of all African-American teachers graduated from HBCUs. Many of them choose to teach in high-minority, low-income school districts where they serve as role models for their communities.

As ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I know the prominent role that HBCUs play in our higher education landscape. I believe that strengthening and supporting them must be a key priority as Congress looks ahead to taking action on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. However, it does not appear that the majority shares that belief.

The Committee on Education and the Workforce meets tomorrow morning at 10 to mark up H.R. 4508, a partisan rewrite of the Higher Education Act that was drafted in secret, introduced less than 2 weeks ago, and is now being considered in committee without a single hearing on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, HBCUs, those who lead them, those who support them, and those who hope their children might one day attend them, should be gravely concerned with H.R. 4508. This is a bad deal for students, a bad deal for schools, and a bad deal for working families.

This bill would decimate the Federal student aid for low-income students. It would significantly reduce available aid for grants--that is money that students don't have to pay back, forcing them to borrow more money. It leaves the Pell Grant program as the only remaining grant aid, yet it fails to increase Pell dollars, fails to increase the Pell maximum award to account for inflation, and it expands eligibility to low-quality programs without any Federal oversight.

This bill changes the available terms for Federal student loans, making them far less generous than current law, and eliminates the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, a program that attracts the best and the brightest to forgo higher salaries in exchange for public service.

H.R. 4508 caps loan amounts for graduate students and families, pushing them into higher interest, private markets, and even bars graduate students from participating in Federal work study.

The Republican bill fails to reauthorize the Perkins Loan Program, a campus-based aid program that allows low-income students to access low- cost loans, and eliminates other forms of campus-based aid.

Mr. Speaker, there is no way around it. This is a bad bill. H.R. 4508 will force students to borrow more money, pay more to borrow more, and pay more when they pay that money back. It makes college more expensive at every step of the process, putting college and graduate degrees further out of reach for low-income and minority students. Those are groups that are already underrepresented in our higher education system and served at higher rates by HBCUs and other minority-serving institutions.

Further, the bill makes no additional investment in minority-serving institutions and other underresourced institutions, institutions that tend to serve communities of color, and eliminates grant programs that support minority students who want to pursue postgraduate degrees. The bill would even incentivize institutions to forgo enrollment of high- risk students.

Lastly, the bill prioritizes low- or no-quality workforce training over more advanced credentialing, potentially exacerbating what is on track to become a two-tiered system of higher education: college and graduate school for the wealthy, and direct-to-workforce training for the poor.

While not every student seeks to pursue a 4-year degree or even a graduate degree, every student must have that option and opportunity to make that choice. According to the United Negro College Fund: ``We remain deeply concerned that H.R. 4508 falls short of enabling college success for minority and low-income students who can help our country compete and win the global economy. On balance, the PROSPER Act would cause minority and low-income students to pay more to earn their college degrees at a time when they should be paying less. In addition, we are concerned that one theme of the bill is to highlight short-term training options, when a 4-year college degree has a substantially greater payoff, in general, with higher lifetime earnings and lower unemployment--and this payoff may be the greatest for minority and low- income students. Further, a significant shortcoming of the bill is it fails to make any new investment in HBCUs which pull above their weight in producing African-American college graduates and, worse, it cuts the current Federal investment in these institutions.''

Mr. Speaker, we want to ask what problem H.R. 4508 is trying to solve. Does the majority think there is too much money to send poor and minority students to college? Does the majority think that there are too many poor students and minority students accessing and completing their college education? Does the majority think that inequality in higher education is solved?

Mr. Speaker, as we rise to commemorate 150 years of HBCU excellence, let us remember that we still have a fight to fight. Let us reject H.R. 4508 and fight for a Higher Education Act that not only honors HBCU excellence, but also builds on it through investing in students and working families.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for organizing this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor An Achievable Dream, which will be commemorating its 25th anniversary this weekend.

An Achievable Dream was founded by the late Walter Segaloff, a local community leader, businessman, and humanitarian. His ambitious public- private educational partnership in Newport News, Virginia started small but has grown exponentially in the last 25 years.

When An Achievable Dream first opened its doors in 1992, it was a small summer and after-school tennis and tutoring program for 95 fourth graders. A year later, the program more than doubled the number of students it served to 200 rising fourth and fifth graders. In 1994, An Achievable Dream expanded even further by becoming a full-time, extended day school for 400 children in grades three through five, and in 1994 they started serving grades six through eight at Dunbar Erwin Middle School. Five years later, in 2000, An Achievable Dream Academy was founded as a year-round, full time elementary school and by 2007 they opened a separate, full-time middle and high school. Since those early years, An Achievable Dream has grown beyond Newport News and now has partnerships with Virginia Beach City Public Schools and Heinrico County Public Schools.

The motto of An Achievable Dream is ``Teaching Kids Winning Ways.'' The Achievable Dream program is structured to give young people the skills needed to succeed in life. Those skills are taught at An Achievable Dream on the tennis court, in the classroom, on field trips, and in sharing experiences with successful and caring adults in the community.

One of the things that makes An Achievable Dream so impactful on the lives of the young people it serves is An Achievable Dream's ability to show the boundless opportunities available if you just make the right choices. The staff, supporters and sponsors at An Achievable Dream have worked over the last 25 years to ensure that their students graduate on time and have an opportunity to go to college.

An Achievable Dream has not achieved all of this on its own. Walter Segaloff understood that it took every facet of the community-- including school leaders, public officials, law enforcement, the military, and businesses--to work together toward the common goal of making better the lives and educational outcomes of as many young persons as possible. I would like to thank each of the community organizations and businesses for stepping up and helping make An Achievable Dream the success that it is today. I would also like to thank our military for volunteering regularly with these students for An Achievable Dream's character development program. And of course, I want to thank Kathy Edwards, President and CEO of An Achievable Dream, and all the faculty and staff who have dedicated their careers to these young people.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to have been involved with An Achievable Dream as a supporter since its beginning. As our community gathers to celebrate the 25th Anniversary of the An Achievable Dream at the annual Tennis Ball gala this weekend, I look forward to the continued success of An Achievable Dream. I would like to congratulate the staff, supporters and sponsors at An Achievable Dream on a quarter century of success and I look forward to witnessing their many continued successes in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3441, the so-called Save Local Business Act. Mr. Speaker, in recent years, employers have increasingly moved away from direct hiring of employees to the use of permatemps and subcontracting to reduce labor costs

and liability. For many workers, the name on the door of the building where they work may not be the name of the company that technically signs their paycheck.

In situations like these, where more than one entity controls or has the contractual right to control the terms and conditions of employment, the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act hold both entities responsible for violations as joint employers. The joint employment standard under the NLRA ensures that workers can negotiate with all parties that control the terms and conditions of employment. Similarly, the joint employment standard under the FLSA ensures the appropriate companies can be held accountable for wage theft, equal pay, overtime pay, and child labor violations.

H.R. 3441 rewrites both the NLRA and the FLSA by establishing a narrow definition of joint employer that effectively eliminates accountability for some of the entities that are actually calling the shots. Under this bill, an entity may be a joint employer only if it ``directly, actually, and immediately'' exercises control over nine essential terms and conditions of employment, such as hiring, firing, determining rates of pay, and scheduling.

However, an entity could have control over all nine of the essential terms, and if it indirectly exercises control through an intermediary, such as a subcontractor, then the entity would not be an employer because its control is not direct. This loophole would allow joint employers to evade liability for child labor or wage theft and undermine workers' ability to bring all of the entities to the bargaining table that actually control the terms and conditions of employment.

Alternatively, if an entity controls only eight of these nine essential terms and outsources the ninth, then it may also not be deemed a joint employer under this legislation. That is just a loophole.

Under this legislation, an employee could have no employer liable for a violation. This would arise when each of the joint employers raises a defense that they are not liable because they are not an employer, because they don't control all nine of the essential terms and conditions of employment.

This bill provides no guidance over how many of the essential terms the joint employer must control. Do they have to control two? a majority? all nine?

The consequence is that a court could find an employee is owed overtime, but nobody owes the money because nobody qualifies as an employer under the definition of the bill. This bill opens the door for potential chaos. And one thing for sure, H.R. 3441 does not provide the clarity that its proponents advertise.

Today, we are debating legislation that is based on a misplaced criticism of the National Labor Relations Board's 2015 decision in Browning-Ferris Industries, where the NLRB held that the client employer, BFI, and its staffing agency, Leadpoint, were joint employers at a recycling facility and, therefore, jointly had the duty to bargain with the union.

BFI capped wages that Leadpoint could pay and set scheduling, reserved the right to overrule Leadpoint's hiring decisions, and, if the NLRB had certified the union with only the staffing agency, Leadpoint, as the employer, then collective bargaining would have been a waste of time because Leadpoint was contractually limited in its ability to bargain without BFI's permission.

The BFI decision reinstated the common law definition of an employer, a precedent that had been in place at the NLRB for decades prior to 1984. Critics contend that the BFI case threatens the independence of franchisees.

Well, first, the BFI decision states that it does not cover franchising. Second, there are no decisions where a franchisor has ever been held to be a joint employer with its franchisees under either law.

Despite claims that H.R. 3441 would protect the independence of franchisees, legal experts point out that, under this bill, the bill actually insulates franchisors from liability, which leaves the franchisors free to exercise greater control over their franchisees' employee relations without liability.

Under this bill, if a franchisor directs actions that could violate wage or labor laws, then the franchisee is forced to accept this shared control, without shared responsibility. For example, suppose the franchisor directs the franchisee to designate all of the employees as managers and refuse to pay them overtime and the court comes in and says overtime was owed, then the franchisee is stuck with the bill because the franchisor is not an employer under this bill. That is not fair to small businesses and it is not fair to franchisees.

This legislation also creates perverse incentives by rewarding low- road construction contractors who compete by outsourcing entities that drive down costs by stealing wages, not paying overtime, and other violations. A national coalition of construction contractors is warned that H.R. 3441 would ``further tilt the field of competition against honest, ethical businesses.''

For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to state that I agree with the gentleman when he says that no rights are reduced. The only problem is you can't have anybody that is liable to fulfill your benefits under whatever those rights are. If you are owed overtime, you are owed overtime. That is not reduced. It is just that nobody is there to pay it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Fudge).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.

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

Mr. Speaker, could you advise us as to how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record page 50 of the committee report, which outlines the exchange with Mr. Braddy, which suggests that the franchisors do not become joint employers under the present law.

In an exchange between Representative Guthrie and Ed

Braddy, a Burger King franchisee testifying on behalf of the

International Franchise Association, Mr. Braddy was asked:

Representative Guthrie: Do you or do [sic] the franchisor

hire and fire and determine the work of your employees?

Mr. Braddy: I schedule interviews every other Wednesday. I

sit down with eight people every other Wednesday. Even though

I am not hiring, I do the interviews because I always like to

have a waiting list of people who want to work. So I do all

the hiring. I don't allow my managers or my assistants to

terminate anyone because I want to make sure that once I let

someone go it is for a good reason.

Mr. Guthrie: But it is you as the business owner, not the--

what role does the franchisor play in any of your--those

issues?

Mr. Braddy: None at all.

Based on this testimony, nothing in the Browning Ferris

decision could establish that these franchisors are

exercising sufficient control to be deemed a joint employer

with their respective fanchisees.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Labor-Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee.

I yield the gentlewoman from Connecticut an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining for both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, so I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, this bill will undermine employees' ability to secure recourse for unfair labor practices and wage theft when there should be a joint employer. It undermines the workers' freedom to negotiate for better wages in return for their work. It inflicts damage to prime contractors who play by the rules and are forced to compete against unscrupulous other employers who save money by failing to pay wages. And it exposes franchisees to liabilities they should

not have to shoulder alone because it allows franchisors to exercise more control over franchisees without incurring any liability.

Mr. Speaker, therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank and pay tribute to Denise Forte, who is my staff director on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. After a remarkable 20 plus year career in federal service, today is Denise's last day with us.

Denise first came to Capitol Hill as a Women's Research and Education Institute fellow in my personal office in 1994. While she received her degree in computer science from Duke University, Denise's fellowship on Capitol Hill made her realize her true professional calling--helping ensure America's children have equality access to a quality education. I recognized her talent and; at the conclusion of her fellowship, hired her as a full-time employee where she excelled at several positions, including as my legislative director.

Her passion and talent eventually caught the attention of Congressman George Miller, the former Ranking Member and Chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee. Denise seized an opportunity to join the Committee in 2001, where she served in successively senior roles, eventually becoming Congressman Miller's director of education policy. During her initial service with the Committee, Denise played integral roles in major reforms, including the No Child Left Behind Act, the College Cost Reduction Act, Child Nutrition Reauthorization, reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention Act, and the Student Aid and Responsibility Act, amongst others.

Denise left the Committee in early 2011 to join the Obama Administration at the Department of Education's Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development as a deputy assistant secretary. In that capacity, she provided strategic advice and counsel to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. Denise also directed and managed several policy portfolios, including overseeing budget, higher education, and early education policy development.

In late 2014, my colleagues in the House Democratic Caucus elected me to succeed George Miller as Ranking Member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. I immediately knew who I wanted to help me assemble a staff and lead my team--Denise Forte. As my colleagues know, Denise is well-regarded and respected by Members and staff on both sides of the aisle. She is known to care deeply and fight vigorously for what she believes in, but Denise always remains focused on achieving what's possible. She understands the importance of building bridges and working to identify policy areas on which Committee Democrats and Republicans can agree.

The best example of that is the most recent reauthorization of our nation's landmark education law, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Despite an increasingly polarized environment, Denise believed in the possible and led my team to realize a full rewrite of the law in the Every Student Succeeds Act, which was enacted last Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support. Denise led our

team's effort and helped us accomplish something that hadn't been done in nearly 15 years.

Denise Forte built her career in public service on getting results, making meaningful progress for America's students and working families, and helping this institution function effectively. She cares deeply about Congress and our Committee's mission, and she will be greatly missed. I wish her well as she gets to spend a little extra time with her husband, Kyo, and her beloved sons, Gabe and Johnny, before she starts her next adventure at the Century Foundation.

Mr. Speaker, I speak for my staff, Chairwoman Virginia Foxx, and all the members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce in thanking Denise Forte for her more than two decades of honorable service to this institution and the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 120th anniversary of St. Augustine's Episcopal Church in Newport News, Virginia.

St. Augustine's Episcopal Church had humble beginnings. Originally known as Warwick Parish, and then as St. Paul's Church, its mission was started in 1897 with the intention of providing a religious community for African-American Episcopalians. The church was started with neither a full-time pastor nor an official building, so the congregation ran their early services out of the upper floor of the Columba Opera House in Newport News. Reverend Joseph F. Mitchell became the first vicar for St. Paul's Mission in the fall of 1897 and spent the next six years of his ministry trying to grow the parish and raise enough funds to afford to build a chapel for the congregation.

Under the leadership of Reverend Adolphus A. Birch, the church's sixth rector, the name of the mission was officially changed to St. Augustine's Episcopal Church in 1924. Reverend Birch's successor, Reverend J.J. Posey, oversaw the church's move into their official building on Marshall Avenue at Twenty-Sixth Street in Newport News. The congregation still meets at this location in a new church building that was constructed in 1962 under the leadership of Reverend Lloyd M. Alexander.

Today, St. Augustine's Episcopal Church is home to a thriving parish life with a variety of ministries and programs aimed at bettering the congregation as well as the Newport News community. The Feeding Program was established in 1988 and offers hot meals to hungry adults and children every month. The Twelve Steps Program meets five days every week to extend counseling, support, and mentorship for men and women in the area who are struggling with substance abuse. The church also sponsors a yearly ``Back to School Drive'' which ensures that local children can begin the school year with a backpack and school supplies that they might struggle to otherwise

afford. These programs provide an invaluable service to the church and its neighbors.

St. Augustine's growth in these past 120 years has been facilitated through the hard work and tireless efforts of seventeen devoted rectors--Rev. Joseph F. Mitchell, Rev. Henry J. Geiger, Rev. E.H. Hamilton, Rev. Byron E. Floyd, Rev. J.T. McDuffie, Rev. Adolphus A. Birch, Rev. J.J. Posey, Rev. Julian F. Dozier, Rev. Charles S. Sedgwick, Rev. Charles H. Dukes, Rev. Theodore R. Gibson, Rev. George E. Harper, Rev. Lloyd M. Alexander, Rev. Robert C.S. Powell, Rev. R. Scott Copeland, Rev. Ralph E. Haines, III, and Rev. Terry D. Edwards.

Mr. Speaker, today the congregation of St. Augustine's Episcopal Church can feel affirmed and celebratory in light of this historic milestone. As a longtime member of St. Augustine's, I wish to extend my warmest congratulations to Reverend Terry Davis Edwards and the entire St. Augustine's community. With the church's distinguished history in mind, the congregation may truly take this occasion to feel proud about their past, joyful about their present, and hopeful for their future. I wish St. Augustine's Episcopal Church 120 more years of growth, fellowship, and service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 80th anniversary of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority's Newport News Alumnae Chapter.

Delta Sigma Theta Sorority was founded in 1913 by 22 students attending Howard University. These women all saw education and community service as the key to pushing forward the cause of civil rights and progress for the African American community, and that mission remains strong to this day. Today, Delta Sigma Theta has grown to an organization with over 250,000 members and over 940 local chapters operating all over the United States and the world.

The Newport News Alumnae Chapter was originally charted in 1937 as the Beta Kappa Chapter. It was then changed to the Gamma Iota Sigma Chapter in 1947 before officially becoming the Newport News Alumnae Chapter of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority in 1960. The Chapter was dutifully led in these early years by Charter members Marian Palmer Capps, Clara Pannell, Ethel Pannell, Sallie Watkins Roberts, Dorothy Roles Watkins, Olivia Williamson, and Christine Jefferson Haynes.

The women of the Newport News Alumnae Chapter are committed to the same honored tradition of community service that has driven all of Delta Sigma Theta's members since its inception. Delta Sigma Theta's sisterhood has always been guided by the sorority's Five-Point Programmatic Thrust of Economic Development, Education Development, International Awareness and Involvement, Physical and Mental Health, and Political Awareness and Involvement. It is with these principles in mind that the Newport News Alumnae Chapter established the programs that continue to serve their local community to this day.

Delta Sigma Theta's unwavering commitment to serving the needs of African Americans has been truly reflected through the good work pursued by the Newport News Alumnae Chapter over the years. The Dr. Betty Shabazz Delta Academy provides young girls between 11 and 14 years old with the opportunity to pursue their interests in math, science, and technology. The Delta GEMS program offers college and career planning to at-risk teenage girls who may otherwise not understand the opportunities available to them. The EMBODI program addresses the challenges facing African-American boys by providing middle and high schoolers with counseling and support in subject areas such as fostering healthy relationships, fiscal management, physical and mental health, self-efficacy, and more. These programs provide an invaluable service to the youth of Newport News.

Mr. Speaker, as the Newport News Alumnae Chapter of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority celebrates this exciting milestone, its members can feel affirmed that these past 80 years of fellowship and outreach have left the Newport News community stronger and more united than it otherwise would have been. I would like to congratulate Chapter President Joyce Melvin-Jones and all of the members of the Newport News sisterhood on this special occasion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great champion of religious freedom and my friend, the Reverend Barry W. Lynn, who will soon retire after 25 years as executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

An ordained minister in the United Church of Christ and an attorney, Rev. Lynn has paired his two callings and been a leader in the fight to protect our civil rights and civil liberties, especially the First Amendment. His work has helped protect our right to believe (or not) as we see fit and guarantee that the government does not promote religion. Rev. Lynn has been on the frontlines of the fight to ensure that religion is not used as an excuse to discriminate against others, dictate people's private lives, tell others whom they can love, or limit people's access to healthcare.

Under Rev. Lynn's leadership, Americans United has grown into one of the most prominent organizations in the country working to protect religious freedom. During his tenure, the organization has led the charge to defend the wall of separation between church and state.

Rev. Lynn's tenure is marked by efforts to ensure that all people feel welcomed in their community regardless of their faith. He led Americans United's fight to ensure that students at public schools were taught science rather than creationism in their classrooms and for the removal the 2\1/2\ ton monument to the Ten Commandments erected at the Alabama Supreme Court. During his leadership, Americans United successfully stopped a proposed constitutional amendment to allow public school-sponsored prayers and fought for women's health and equality when it stood up for students when their university cited religion to block their access to birth control.

Rev. Lynn is an author and educator who has shared his expertise with audiences across the country, giving speeches, appearing on television, hosting his long-running radio show, and testifying in Congress, about why the constitutional principle of church-state separation is the only way to ensure freedom of religion for all Americans.

Although he will now have more time to spend with his twin grandchildren, just born this summer, Rev. Lynn's lifelong passion for social justice remains. I feel confident he will continue to engage in social justice issues and stand up for important causes for years to come.

It has been my pleasure to work with Rev. Lynn over the last two decades. I commend him for his transformational service to Americans United, our Constitution, and our country, and I wish him well in his retirement.