Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Republican healthcare bill.

There is concern with the would-be effects of this legislation, and rightfully so. But if anyone wants to see a real-life example of the detrimental impact of block granting Medicaid, look no further than across the water to the U.S. Virgin Islands, or any of the territories. It is a grim outlook because we experience it every day.

Caps on Medicaid have proven to be a fiscal disaster for our budget. Unlike States in the mainland, where Federal Medicaid spending is open- ended, to Virgin Islanders, we can only access Federal dollars up to an annual ceiling because we were not included in the ACA mandate.

Cuts to Medicaid affect all of you, every individual.

As a result of what has happened in the Virgin Islands, 30 percent of our population is uninsured and hospitals have been left to pick up the bill. If you or your child is ill, you go to the hospital, whether you can take care of the bill or not. This situation places a tremendous burden on our hospitals, creating uncompensated care costs in the tens of millions of dollars.

We have to make tough choices of removing people from Medicaid, which means loss to elderly and individuals. We ask that you reject this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the subject of this Special Order hour.

Mr. Speaker, for the next 60 minutes, it is with great honor that I rise to coanchor this CBC Special Order hour. For the next 60 minutes, we have a chance to speak directly to the American people on the issues of great importance to the Congressional Black Caucus, to Congress, and to constituents who represent all Americans.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, we would like to use this time to talk about the Affordable Care Act. What do you have to lose? What do you have to lose, Mr. Speaker? Such was President Trump's constant refrain to the African-American community when rallying for their support of his administration's various policies.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to say that with critical elements of the American healthcare policy on the chopping block, African-Americans have a lot to lose, possibly even their lives.

There is as much at stake if President Trump and the Republican- controlled Congress healthcare policies take shape in their current form.

By illustration, I want to address the impact on low-income families and individuals in the Virgin Islands who rely on Medicaid, and, presently, Medicaid is capped in the Virgin Islands. You can look at our territory as an example of what will happen when there is a cap on services, which could compromise a State or local government's ability to administer those most in need.

Since its inception, Medicaid has been an open-ended program that was intended to expand and contract with need, especially when States and localities face crippling economic downturns of both manmade and natural origins. Medicaid covers one in five Americans, and of those, the majority of enrollees are children and individuals with disabilities.

Under the Affordable Care Act, widely known as ObamaCare, millions of African Americans finally gained access to healthcare coverage. In 2015, approximately 11.2 million African Americans became eligible for Medicaid through the expansion, health care that they previously did not receive and which would have cost this country much more if that early-warning health care was not taken care of.

President Trump and Republicans in Congress propose converting Medicaid from a shared payment program between States and Federal Government to an arrangement much like a block grant, where the Federal Government puts a cap on its payment assistance, creating a huge cost shift to the States. If you want to know what you have to lose if caps on Medicaid are enacted nationwide, look no further than my home, the Virgin Islands. It is a grim outlook.

Federal caps on Medicaid programs in the Virgin Islands are set on a per-enrollee basis. Unlike States in the mainland where Federal Medicaid spending is open-ended depending on the needs of the people, the Virgin Islands can only access Federal dollars up to an annual ceiling. Beyond that cap, the Virgin Islands' government is responsible for the remaining costs. That means many Virgin Islanders who would qualify in other States and in other circumstances don't get the healthcare coverage that they need now.

Under the proposed fiscal arrangement, spending caps don't take into account the cost of providing services or unpredictable changes in a community--such as the closure of a major employer or a natural disasters--forcing a cost obligation for critical support services onto the already strained budgets of the territory.

As a result, States and local governments, increasingly, would have to make tough choices to either reduce services for recipients of Medicaid or restrict eligibility and enrollment of additional people who may need it. Those are the choices that Virgin Islanders must make. So the most vulnerable of our constituents--in this case, children--who need the safety net that Medicaid, by definition, is supposed to provide have that final option cut out from under them.

When it comes to Medicaid coverage, the Virgin Islands struggles to provide low-income families with Medicaid services for three major reasons:

First, while the Affordable Care Act raised the territory's Federal Medicaid assistance percentage up to 83 percent for newly eligible enrollees, this increase in Federal match funding did not apply to those previously enrolled, which the Federal Government only matched at 55 percent in the Virgin Islands, requiring that the remaining costs be covered by the Virgin Islands government, a government already strained to meet basic needs.

The Virgin Islands and the smaller territories are not included in the Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital, DSH, program, which would shoulder the unanticipated costs our hospitals must take on to provide adequate care for individuals who use hospitals for basic services since they have no insurance.

Three, With no Affordable Care Act exchange and no Federal subsidies to create our own health exchange, many Virgin Islanders were only able to obtain coverage through the Medicaid expansion if they met the already strenuous requirements. That means that 30 percent of Virgin Islanders presently have no health insurance.

This is what the rest of the States are going to have if this American Health Care Act, as it stands, is passed. A cap on Medicaid is a cap on medical services that our constituents just can't do without; and in poor communities, it is going to be even more impactful.

When ObamaCare provided increased funding to expand Medicaid, the island of Saint Croix was able to start a monthly homeless clinic at the Frederiksted Health Care Center about 15 months ago. That clinic has been able to serve many people, providing them with medical care, showers, meals, and transportation.

On St. Thomas, with the East End health clinic, they were able to expand their services and increase dental services to people who were sorely in need of that. If this funding decreases or is lost altogether, it is highly unlikely that this initiative can be continued.

Our current healthcare struggle is set to become a future hardship for mainland American States that provide Medicaid to a significant number of their population should the current proposals to cap Medicaid nationwide become law.

How do we avoid this? Do not place a cap on Medicaid. Too many in the African-American community have everything to lose if healthcare policy goes in this direction.

At this time, I yield to my colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Evans).

Thank you so much to my distinguished colleague from Philadelphia (Mr. Evans) and for the information you have shared with us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Chicago, Congresswoman Robin Kelly, who is also the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus Health Braintrust, so she can expound upon this question: What do we have to lose?

Thank you so much, Congresswoman Kelly, for that information that you are sharing and for the work of the Congressional Black Caucus Health Braintrust and for the information that you are giving in the seminars and the groups, the different experiences that you have had throughout the country.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Kelly) so that she can tell us about some of the places that the Congressional Black Caucus Braintrust has had workshops or townhalls when sharing information with Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I know the work that the gentlewoman from Illinois has done in health disparities that African Americans face. We disproportionately are struck with hypertension, high blood pressure, and diabetes, which are some of the things that we are concerned about. Lapse in coverage under the Affordable Care Act will affect African Americans in a large way because then those will become preexisting conditions, which are not covered under this healthcare plan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Kelly).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois for the information and for being with us.

I also thank Chairman Richmond for providing this opportunity for the Congressional Black Caucus to speak before all of you and let you know.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey), my distinguished co-chair, who has some great information to share with us about what do we have to lose under the new Health Care Act that is being considered by the Republicans at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I agree very much with everything that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey) has said. I thank him for the stories of individuals because it is individuals that the Affordable Care Act was meant to cover, not groups of people, but everyday Americans, children, disabled, our elderly.

Some of the reports say that TrumpCare would be the largest transfer of wealth from working families to the rich in our Nation's history; that the Republicans are handing $600 billion in tax breaks to rich and big corporations through this bill while taking money away from those Americans who have been able to have their healthcare needs taken care of in an affordable manner.

You have families that are going to be paying more for less under TrumpCare. Deductibles and out-of-pocket costs are going to skyrocket, leaving sick people unable to afford the care that they need. Premiums will soar and quality coverage is going to be priced out of reach for many families.

We also heard earlier about the middle-aged American paying an age tax that is going to come from this, that older Americans are going to be forced to pay premiums five times higher than what others pay for healthcare coverage.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings), the distinguished freshman Congresswoman from the 10th District of Florida, so she can explain to us how TrumpCare and the new Health Care Act is going to affect her constituents and all Americans and, particularly, African Americans in this country.

Congresswoman Demings, in fact, you do have a lot to lose. We see how Florida, with its elders, its senior citizens, will really take a major hit if this law is passed. And our colleagues have been giving us examples all the time.

I am always trying to let them know that the Virgin Islands stands as an example of what it will look like if the Affordable Care Act is repealed because the Virgin Islands doesn't have the expansion. We were not put in the mandate for the exchange, and that has led to 30 percent of Virgin Islanders having absolutely no health insurance, which then means that our hospitals are strained because the hospitals have to pick up costs for individuals who are without health care.

Listen, if your child is ill or sick, or you are dying, you are going to go to the hospital whether you can take care of it or not, whether you can pay the bill or not; and that has put a tremendous burden on our hospitals for them to meet the costs of those 30 percent of individuals living in the Virgin Islands who do not have health insurance, are not covered by either the government group insurance for the local government or by the Medicaid money that we utilized because we did not have the expansion.

And even that is scheduled to leave after the fiscal year 2019, and we are going to have to make choices of removing people from Medicaid, of removing care from children, removing care from elderly and from individuals with disabilities. That is not a choice that Americans should have to make in this day and age, that individuals do not receive health care.

I know, Congressman Veasey, that you are hearing from people in your own district who are giving you these same stories: What is going to happen if I don't have healthcare coverage? What is going to happen to my children if they are not able--they have asthma, they have juvenile diabetes, they have these issues, and I am not going to be able to take care of them because I am not going to have this insurance. Or the Medicaid is going to have to be pulled back in our State because we are going to have it capped; and our State is not a wealthy State and is not going to be able to make up the difference.

I know that the gentleman has examples from other Members who have come and given statements for us to bring to the Record about what is going to happen.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

From our experience in the Virgin Islands, that is what you do not want to happen.

People talk about: Who is on Medicaid? Who are these types of individuals? Why don't they get jobs?

I mean, in the Virgin Islands, when we had our largest employer, Hovensa, an oil refinery, close, of course, then our unemployment rate went up. And these are families in need, families who need the support.

With a cap on Medicaid, we were only able to have 55 percent of individuals who would qualify for Medicaid with that cap, with that ceiling that was in place from the Federal Government. It means that a tremendous amount of children, homeless individuals, people, families that are out of work for a period of time, are not covered. That, then, creates this huge burden on a hospital for those families to be taken care of, for individual care and individual need.

Particularly in the African-American community, when you have things like diabetes, hypertension, all of these diseases which need constant monitoring and primary care physicians to take care of and to ensure that they do not become life-threatening, and come to a place where then they are coming to the hospital, it is in the millions of dollars that you are going to need support and care for the servicing of individuals with these diseases.

So I know that we are pushing that there be an expansion of Medicaid, that the cap not be put on Medicaid services, not because we want to coddle people who are poor, but because we know it is necessary. And the cost of not taking care of them on the front end of health care, with Medicaid, is an astronomical cost on the back end when they have diseases that have just gone out of control because they have not been able to go to primary care physicians and get the health care that they need.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I thank the gentleman for all of the examples that he has given, real-world, real-people examples. I think it is important that all of us, as Members of Congress, really take to heart the words that we are hearing from Americans that are going to be affected by this.

Particularly in the African-American community, this is going to have a devastating affect on them to have this Affordable Care Act be repealed and this replacement. It does not take into account the lives that people are really living.

This is really a tax break bill. That is what this boils down to in many respects, because the individuals who are going to be displaced from this are those individuals who are the poor.

I just want to thank Congressman Veasey for the time that he has given us this evening and all of our colleagues who are here and spoke about the Affordable Care Act and what the African-American community and what many Americans have to lose from this bill.

At this time, I conclude this CBC Special Order hour.

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

Mr. Speaker, later today, I intend to reintroduce a resolution commemorating the transfer of the U.S. Virgin Islands from Denmark to the United States. In that resolution, it discusses the 1733 slave revolt, the first slave revolt in the Western Hemisphere; the 1848 slave rebellion and emancipation, 17 years before the United States; and, of course, the 1917 transfer of ownership of the Virgin Islands from Denmark to the U.S.

We also discussed great Virgin Islanders, such as Alton Adams, Edward Blyden, Camille Pissarro, Judah Benjamin, and Roy Innis.

What does the transfer mean, and what have been the gains and benefits to the people of the Virgin Islands because of the purchase by the United States? The Americans were able to receive a pristine, geopolitically strategic location in the Caribbean with a people who are loyal to and proud of this country.

What has been given to the Virgin Islanders, a people willing and eager to take on the responsibilities of that citizenship but who, in fact, have moved from a system of serfdom, under Danish rule, to second-class, limited

privileged citizenship by the United States?

We need to take this time in this centennial transfer year to look at what have been the gains and for the U.S. to make a more perfect Union by more perfect citizenship and more inclusion of the U.S. Virgin Islands into the United States.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very special day to many of us Caribbean Americans as we pay tribute to the life of Christopher Wallace, otherwise known as Biggie Smalls.

Livin' life without fear,

Putting five karats in my baby girl's ear,

Lunches, brunches, interviews by the pool,

Considered a fool 'cause I dropped out of high school,

Stereotypes of a black male,

Misunderstood,

And it's still all good,

And if you don't know, now you know.

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

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this bill. My colleagues on the other side have portrayed this bill as simply a codification of an executive order President Clinton issued. That simply is not the case. This bill makes significant changes to the regulatory process. The bill would require independent agencies to submit rules to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OIRA, for review. Independent agencies do not currently have to get the approval of the White House for regulations they issue. Congress designed independent agencies to be just that, independent. This bill would change that.

In February of 2015, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz sent four letters to the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission alleging that the White House had ``an improper influence'' on the FCC's net neutrality plan and that the FCC ``failed to establish the appearance that this rulemaking is independent, fair, and transparent.''

The bill we are considering would enshrine in law that very allegation my esteemed colleague Chairman

Chaffetz had concerns about, political interference by the White House with the FCC and other independent agencies. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill would increase direct spending by $3 million and reduce revenues by $2 million. These direct spending and revenue effects are caused by the fact that the bill covers independent agencies. CBO has also estimated that the bill would cost Federal agencies an additional $20 million in administrative costs. Imagine. I am fighting to keep the budget down in this matter.

The bill does not include offsets for any additional spending. The bill also omits critical phrases from Executive Order 12866 that ensures that OIRA reviews do not contradict existing law. For example, the executive order requires agencies to provide the cost and benefits of alternatives to a proposed rule ``unless prohibited by law.'' The bill does not include this exception, and my colleagues on the other side have still not explained why it does not include this language.

It is unclear how the bill would impact laws that prohibit agencies from considering costs when setting public health standards.

The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards--an alliance over 150 labor, scientific, good government, health, and environmental groups--sent a letter to the House Members yesterday opposing this bill. That letter said in part:

``Particularly concerning, H.R. 1009 would in effect rewrite dozens of public interest laws containing congressional mandates that require agencies to prioritize public health and safety and the preservation of the environment, clean air, and clean water over concerns for industry profits. This consequence flows from another key difference between H.R. 1009 and the Executive Orders it purports codify: Whereas the Orders impose their requirements only to the extent consistent with applicable laws, H.R. 1009 recognizes no such limitations.''

Mr. Chairman, this bill would also give OIRA the ability to hold up rulemaking indefinitely.

Under Executive Order 12866, the administrator over OIRA has 90 days to review a rule, and that period can be extended one time for 30 days. This bill would allow OIRA to extend its review ``for any number of additional 30-day periods upon written request by the administrator or the head of the agency.''

The bill also gives the rulemaking agencies the ability to object to an extension of OIRA review period, but it is not realistic to think that an agency would refuse a request for an extension from the White House.

The Union of Concerned Scientists also sent a letter to House Members opposing this bill. That letter said:

Of particular concern is the fact that H.R. 1009 aims to

codify some of the most burdensome requirements of previous

executive orders while gutting the much-needed flexibility

that the orders provide to Federal agencies in charge of

ensuring science-based protections for the public. Congress

should increase protections for our constituents rather than

preventing agencies from issuing science-based protections.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

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

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

We are opposed to the bill because we have received letters and concerns from a cross section of Americans, a cross section of organizations, who recognize that this is not really a codification of an executive order, but this is overreach on the part of the majority of Congress at this time. They feel that they are able to do it, and so they are going to ram this through.

H.R. 1009 would add another layer of bureaucracy to an already slow rulemaking process. The Consumer Federation of America says:

The bill creates a regulatory working group to provide

input to agencies about how to improve their regulatory

process, including an evaluation of risk assessment

techniques.

It appears like this is what we are going to be doing throughout Oversight and Government Reform, is creating new task forces and new groups to review rulemaking and review regulations at the cost of the taxpayer.

H.R. 1009 would jeopardize the independence of agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, as well as other independent agencies because it will give the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OIRA, the ability to

review significant rules which are outside of their scope now. That is why these agencies are called independent, because Congress wanted them to be independent. We are now giving OIRA overreach into independent agencies.

The Consumer Federation of America goes on to say:

Authorizing OIRA to conduct its own analysis would not only

add pressure from the executive branch and add time and

expense to the already slow regulatory process, but would

also give the special interests seeking to quash a safety

measure yet another avenue to prevent a rule from being

promulgated.

Significantly, independent agencies were created by Congress to prioritize public health and safety, ensure a fair financial marketplace, and consumer privacy. This bill would undermine the authorizing statutes and the missions of these independent agencies by allowing those agencies to be in some way touched by the White House.

Again, we have the Natural Resources Defense Council. Their letter to all of the Members said:

The bill would also revive legislative language that

Congress repealed elsewhere because it made it impossible to

protect the public.

Specifically, in H.R. 1009, OIRA was charged with ensuring that the regulation imposes the least burden on society. Congress removed such language when it updated TSCA because the phrase had made it impossible for chemical safety regulations to pass judicial muster, even when the chemical was asbestos, well known to be a potential carcinogen.

No one wants to impose unnecessary burdens on society, but the phrase ``least burdensome'' has been interpreted to put an agency in an impossible position of providing that there is no other conceivable way to accomplish its goal of having to cost out every theoretical option.

The reason we are opposed to this bill is because it makes it more difficult for independent agencies to remain independent and not be moved by the White House by political machinations that this Congress is now trying to impose on them.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Chair, we would say that this bill is not necessarily about transparency so much as it is about the executive branch, and specifically the White House, being able to reach into these independent agencies. There are already mechanisms in place for the transparency that my colleague is speaking about. What we are doing now is creating another level of oversight over the committees, over these independent agencies, so that this Congress can then have reach into them as well.

At this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

There are many organizations that oppose this bill, including consumer protection groups such as The Center for Popular Democracy's Fed Up Coalition. The Fed Up Coalition sent a letter to House Members today that said:

The Fed Up Coalition exists to ensure that policymaking at

the Federal Reserve reflects the concerns of working families

and communities of color. By encroaching on the Fed's ability

to pursue sound regulation and extending the hand of the

executive branch in the Federal Reserve decisionmaking, H.R.

1009 undermines the Feds's ability to keep our financial

system safe and protect working families and taxpayers that

our coalition represents.

I strongly urge Members to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1009, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, this manager's amendment does not fix the flaws in the bill we are considering.

One of the major flaws in the bill is the authority it gives to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to hold up rules indefinitely. This amendment attempts to address that concern by requiring that any extension be agreed to by both the White House and the agency issuing the rule.

It is just not realistic to believe that an agency whose top official is appointed by the President would tell the White House it cannot have an extension if the White House asks. This amendment also does nothing to address the concern that the bill could interfere with other laws.

The Natural Resources Defense Council sent a letter to House Members opposing H.R. 1009. That letter states:

``The bill would also revive legislative language that Congress repealed elsewhere because it made it impossible to protect the public. Specifically, in H.R. 1009, OIRA is charged with ensuring that a regulation imposes the least burden on society. Congress removed such language when it updated the Toxic Substances Control Act because the phase had made it impossible for chemical safety regulations to pass judicial muster, even when the chemical was asbestos, well known to be a potent carcinogen.''

This amendment also includes language that says that no funds shall be authorized to carry out the bill. This does not change the fact that the CBO estimates that the bill will result in $3 million in direct spending. That is money that Congress has not appropriated that independent agencies like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would have to spend.

CBO also estimates that the bill would change the operations of the Federal Reserve, which would result in $2 million in reduced revenues.

CBO also estimates that agencies would have to spend $4 million in appropriated funds each year to comply with the requirements of this bill. Making agencies comply with additional requirements without giving them more money means that agencies will have to choose between which requirements they comply with and which they ignore.

I oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am just so grateful that my colleague is interested in making investments, monetary investments, with taxpayers' dollars. I will be looking to him and his other cosponsors and supporters when we are looking for investing in working class Americans and working people and protecting health care and other benefits when we have the budget discussions.

I have no further statements at this time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I do not oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, this amendment would require agencies to report on their efforts to coordinate with State, local, and tribal governments throughout the regulatory process. I agree that it is important that State, local, and tribal governments are properly included in the regulatory process. The amendment, however, simply adds new requirements without addressing the flaws in the underlying bill.

The amendment fails to address the fact that this bill does not exclude independent agencies from its coverage. Congress designed independent agencies to be just that, independent.

The amendment fails to include an offset for the additional $20 million in administrative costs that this bill will likely cost Federal agencies.

The amendment also fails to insert a provision into the bill to ensure that OIRA reviews do not contradict existing laws. The amendment also fails to mandate a specific timeframe within which OIRA must complete its review.

The amendment simply does nothing to improve the numerous deficiencies in this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot support this amendment because it is duplicative of requirements already in place and will waste limited agency resources through additional burdensome requirements.

On January 18, 2011, President Obama issued Executive Order 13563 requiring each agency to implement plans for reviewing existing rules. Section 6 of that executive order requires each agency to ``periodically review its existing significant regulations to determine whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so as to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.''

There can be no real doubt that this executive order covers the review and elimination of duplicative and conflicting regulatory actions. Frankly, the elimination of regulations that are duplicative or conflicting is one of the most efficient actions an agency can take to make its regulatory program more effective and less burdensome.

Forcing agencies to spend time and resources to describe what they are already doing is wasteful and unduly burdensome. Agencies already keep the public apprised of their regulatory activities through the easily-accessible websites reginfo.gov and regulations.gov, both of which are managed by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Through these websites, the public can search for rules, comments, adjudications, and supporting documents. The public can also access each agency's unified agenda, which contains the regulatory agenda for each agency.

The public can also access a list of pending agency rules. Each of these rules has easily accessible links that can allow the public to obtain further information about the rule, including its status and Executive Order 12866 meetings about the rule.

This amendment does nothing to improve the deficiencies in H.R. 1009, and will force agencies to waste their time and limited resources on work that is already being done. I urge Members to oppose this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and it is unfortunate because we believe that this amendment, on its own, is something that would draw bipartisan support. Unfortunately, this amendment is attached to H.R. 1009, because the amendment would make the role of OIRA in the rulemaking process more transparent.

The Government Accountability Office has consistently found that OIRA is not transparent about its involvement in shaping rules. The GAO testified to the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, in March of 2016, that it has made 25 recommendations to OMB to improve its process, but OMB has only implemented six of those recommendations.

This amendment would be a step in the right direction. And as usual, my colleague, the esteemed gentleman from North Carolina, always comes up with rational, well-reasoned amendments and ideas that can be supported across the aisle; and for that, you know, we believe and we are hopeful that Mr. Meadows will work with the committee on a bipartisan basis to pursue these types of productive transparency reforms.

It, unfortunately, does not fix the problems with the underlying bill and is rather packaged with a partisan bill the House is considering today. For this reason, I am in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the fact that the esteemed gentleman of North Carolina is willing to work with me means that it has been a wonderful day for me, and I am just so glad because I understand, although I don't always agree with everything that he says, and I know that the gentleman from North Carolina's heart is in the right place; that he is working towards resolutions of issues; that he is principled in his beliefs.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the esteemed gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose this amendment. However, like the manager's amendment, it does nothing to improve the bill. This amendment, in fact, really does not move the needle at all.

Agencies, including the Office of Management and Budget, are required to preserve records according to the records schedules under the Federal Records Act and regulations issued by the National Archives and Records Administration.

This amendment says that OIRA must do what it is already required to do. This amendment provides a platform to express frustration with OIRA's response to a subpoena issued by the chairman during the Obama administration, as demonstrated by his statements just a few moments ago.

I look forward to him expressing the same outrage if the current administration does not provide documents that the Members on this side of the aisle, the Democratic members of the committee, request.

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

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

My amendment is simple. It rescinds the authority to spend up to $30 million on a commission to do what Congress and the agencies already do.

If you want duplication, look no further than this bill. It seeks to reduce the size of bureaucracy by establishing a new commission to serve a function already performed without the contribution of an additional $30 million in taxpayer funding.

Now, $30 million may not be too much to the true benefactors of this bill on K Street, but to seniors, veterans, students, and workers all across this country, it can go a long way. For example, Social Security's meager 0.3 percent cost-of-living adjustment for 2017 amounts to $4 more in benefits per month for the average beneficiary. That means that $30 million would be enough to double that cost-of- living adjustment for 7.5 million seniors.

We all know that the cost of additional sequestration cuts on education, health, and the environmental protection loom at the end of this fiscal year.

The double talk and schizophrenia of my esteemed colleagues on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee who pushed this bill through the committee has me truly concerned for the mental state of this Congress. They want to defund Planned Parenthood, but want to fund a nine-member task force at a cost of $30 million.

They drag their feet and hem and haw to assist Flint, Michigan, in funding to promote clean water and save the lives of a community, but we can sure fund a task force to duplicate already-carried-out activities by the Federal Government so we can say we did it to the tune of $30 million.

The chair of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee wouldn't allow the people of the Virgin Islands, for 100 years as part of the United States, to receive $100,000 already earmarked for our interior. But, we have money for this bill. And let's not discuss all the block- granting discussions going on around here in this Congress.

Today, the House majority is now asking to authorize $30 million on a bill that would handcuff enforcement agencies in their ability to respond to even more pressing new public health and safety problems.

Let me be clear. Reducing the burden of unnecessary red tape on small businesses is a goal that we all share. I recognize that some regulation is burdensome, and there should be a review of the code to determine what can be consolidated or repealed to reduce compliance costs.

One of the things that we seem to agree on is that retrospective review is helpful in the regulatory process. But, retrospective review is already going on with money that has already been authorized. All of the agencies have been required to do this under standing executive orders issued by President Obama.

As has been discussed before, the results have been successful in reducing regulations. Agencies have yielded billions of dollars in cost savings and reduced reporting requirements through the modification of existing regulations.

People in my district get it that there is a cost to protecting the environment, but they know that keeping our workers safe and our waters clean is worth it. There can be and is red tape that is unnecessary, and there is ongoing work and focus to eliminate and reduce that.

Could there be ways to improve upon existing review regulations? There very well may be, and I am willing to work with anyone on a good idea.

Even if $30 million were to come from elsewhere in the budget instead of additional spending, it would be that much less that agencies would have to conduct the already ongoing retrospective review process now going on.

Furthermore, we in Congress also have existing responsibility to actively conduct oversight of government operations and make legislative changes as we see fit.

There is simply no reason to spend $30 million on this messaging effort to ignore the successful work that is already going on by qualified people, and to hobble the ability of regulators to safeguard public health and safety in the process.

This Congress has money to throw at solutions in search of a problem, but requires cost offsets to provide aid for victims of Flint or toward Zika funding.

Please approve my amendment to save this money.

Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include any extraneous material in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, the CBC chair, Mr. Cedric Richmond, and myself have a great honor that I rise today as one of the anchors of the CBC, the Congressional Black Caucus' Special Order hour.

For the next 60 minutes I have a chance to speak directly to the American people on issues of great importance to the Congressional Black Caucus, Congress, the constituents we represent, and all Americans.

During this hour, as Black History Month ends in the next day, we believe it is important for this Congress and

for the people of America to hear about the great importance of grassroots movements, which have been the fortifying effect of the civil rights movements and other movements here in this country, and have made this country very great.

At this time I would yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond), the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, who will speak on this subject matter here on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I really was moved by the portion that Mr. Richmond talked about concerning outsiders coming to organizations and coming to protests, and saying possibly that they are outsiders.

No. We are all American, and we will join with other individuals in other areas that need our support and feel oppressed, and feel that justice has not been on our side. That has been the Black American experience. That is the American experience of civil protests and working for a more perfect union.

Mr. Speaker, I yield time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey), who also wants to speak about, as we close Black History Month, some of the accomplishments of Black Americans, of the Black movement here in the United States as we move to becoming a more perfect union, and how grassroots organizations have played a part in that role.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey) knows that people like he and I would never be here, never have been able to be educated without people who worked in laundry rooms, who were blue-collar workers, policemen, others. Those gains from Dr. King have afforded education and support and home ownership to the first group of Black Americans who moved into the middle class and are here in Congress now.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Evans) to speak on the issue of grassroots organizations.

I thank the gentleman for his leadership, all the work that he has done for the people of Philadelphia in his tenure. We welcome him here to the CBC hour and the information that he is going to share with us, as well as all Americans, on this topic.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty), who is also a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, who formerly led this Special Order hour and has been really a great mentor and support for us here in this time. She will also speak about some of the grassroots work that has been going on in the present time as well as in the past during this Special Order hour.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the assistant leader of the Democratic Caucus, for him to speak on the matter that is before the House at this time, that being, grassroots movements in Black history and

its importance and relevance for us here today.

I thank you so much, Mr. James Clyburn. There can never be enough time for you to tell these stories and to educate and highlight to all of us the experiences that you have had personally, as well as the importance of Black History Month, and particularly Historically Black Colleges and Universities to the fabric of the United States. Thank you so much, sir.

Mr. Speaker, as we have been discussing, often grassroots organizations are actually born out of necessity, not only because the system has not worked for them oftentimes, but sometimes because the system has been created, has been reorganized, or is actively fighting against them. Virgin Islanders understand the importance and the value of grassroots organizations. It is our nature and our lifeblood. We are a small people on a small island who have a history that was born out of oppression. So the very need for grassroots organizations and people who are resilient and willing to resist and fight in a passionate manner has been our very nature.

Our first experience with grassroots organizations was in 1733, on the island of St. John in the Virgin Islands, which is probably the first slave uprising in the Western Hemisphere where a group of 150 slaves decided that they had had enough, and those Akwamu slaves of Ghana decided that they were going to throw off the shackles and rebel and organize themselves. They were so effective at it, Mr. Speaker, that they were able to hold the island of St. John for 6 months against the Danish Government. The Danes had to organize in such a manner that they brought the French and the Swiss Government to provide assistance to them. The slaves of St. John were quelled after that rebellion, but it took a grassroots group of organized individuals to be able to do that.

Again, on July 3 of 1848, many people don't know that the Virgin Islands became the second place in the Western Hemisphere to receive emancipation after Haiti. We did that on July 3, 1848, through the work of General Buddhoe. But what people do not know is that John Buddhoe had an enormous organizational group that plotted and planned for months before the actual staging of that uprising, which was so effective and so organized that when they went to storm the fort against an armed militia, the militia didn't realize that all of the gun powder had been taken out of the cannons and had been replaced with molasses. The slaves were so organized and so quiet and kept to themselves so much that they didn't even realize that it had been done.

The Governor of Denmark who was assigned to the Virgin Islands had to sign the emancipation on that date because he knew that this group of people were so organized that that rebellion could take the entire island out. So we received our emancipation earlier than the African Americans received theirs through that organization of grassroots.

Again, in October of 1878, the slaves had been moved not from slavery to slavery but to an organized serfdom where there were labor contracts that had to be signed. People were oppressed and living in what many here would understand as the sharecropping system but was really a serf system. Four women organized the labor rebellion at that time which we in the Virgin Islands call the Fireburn. They were willing to burn the islands down for just wages for themselves and laborers throughout the islands. They forced the signed contracts to have much better wage laws in them, much better terms in them for individuals. Those women were imprisoned and sent to Denmark--many of them burned at the stake for that rebellion. But it was grassroots organizations that were able to do that.

More recently, in the 1950s, there was the creation of the Virgin Islands Labor Union, the organizing of cane workers and field workers. I am proud to say that my own uncle, Raymond Plaskett, was one of the organizers of that. They were able to force the sugar plantation owners, the sugar industry, to sit down and create unionized, collective bargaining labels. But we would be remiss as a people if we kept those organizational skills to ourselves, and we brought that to the United States as well.

Many people know about Denmark Vesey who organized slave rebellions in

South Carolina. He did that as a freeman, coming from the Virgin Islands and understanding that oppression anywhere of anyone was an oppression of himself, and gladly laid down his life and gave up his freedom to help organize the people of Charleston, South Carolina, that my great colleague, James Clyburn, represents to bring freedom to those individuals.

Hubert Harrison from the island of St. Croix was a civil rights activist. He was the mind of Pan-Africanism, along with Edward Blyden of St. Thomas, who gave form and shape to Marcus Garvey and his organizing of his Back-to-Africa movement.

More recently, Roy Innis, another relative of mine, was one of the leaders of CORE, the Congress of Racial Equality. Stokely Carmichael and Malcolm X are people of the Caribbean who have come to the United States and recognized that grassroots organizations must be formed to push for equal rights.

The accomplishments of the civil rights movement have given us much. It created the momentum of the Civil Rights Act, Brown v. Board of Education, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, ended housing discrimination, the desegregation of schools. We saw Democratic political gains and the March on Washington.

But we have organized groups still growing today, because equality has not come to its full fruition in America. There is still income equality, achievement gaps, poverty, unemployment, and an increase in the use of for-profit prisons that have incarcerated Black men disproportionately. Because of that, we have seen other movements now today: Black Lives Matter, founded in 2012 after the death of Trayvon Martin; Moral Mondays, which began in April 2013 by the Reverend William Barber II of Greenleaf Christian Church in Goldsboro, North Carolina, after the Governor's mansion and the State legislature was taken over related to voting rights.

These are injustices that are continuing today, which African Americans and others are standing up for, whether it be Standing Rock or the Muslim ban. We had the March on Washington and the grassroots group Indivisible, which has grown with African Americans and others who stood with their constituents at recent townhalls to make sure that their Congressmen and -women hear their voices on all issues of importance.

Mr. Speaker, we understand that the people of the United States need to understand the importance of grassroots organizations as we end Black History Month. This has been an outstanding time for Congress, as well as the people of America, to hear about the grassroots organizations and how they may close.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Marc Veasey for assisting me and for being a leader in this Special Order hour for the Congressional Black Caucus. Of course, I thank the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, our friend and colleague, the Honorable Cedric Richmond, for his continued leadership of both our caucus and on issues impacting Black America and minority communities across this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, Black History Month is a time to reflect on notable African-American icons, their achievements as a people, and our continued struggle for a more perfect Union. Not only does it serve as a source of great pride and an anchor to the African descendants in the African-American community, but it is also a vehicle to educate the masses on the totality of the Black experience throughout the history of this Nation.

As we gather this evening to celebrate the life, legacy, and achievement of African descendants, it is important to remember the journey told and employ the same resilient spirit in our continued push for fair and equal access to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Black Caucus is a body of 49 members in both houses of Congress representing millions of African Americans and other minorities and majority people across this country. We are alarmed by the recent actions of this administration and the threat those actions pose to the hard-fought progress of African descendants and minorities in this country.

The nomination of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General for many minorities across this country was a direct affront to the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Stokely Carmichael, our colleague John Lewis, and the many others who sacrificed and dedicated their lives to the civil rights movement and the right to vote. The concerns expressed by the great Coretta Scott King 30 years ago about the dubious past of Mr. Sessions with respect to enforcing civil rights laws remain the same for many Americans today. Mr. Speaker, the American Dream was, in fact, made possible by the plight of African descendants, and we must remain vigilant and steadfast in the fight against racial, social, and economic injustice.

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise another area of concern that African Americans have, and that is for health care. My district of the U.S. Virgin Islands, home to the first African-American female physician in Congress, my esteemed predecessor, Donna Christensen, like many underserved communities across the country, is adversely impacted by disparate health outcomes. Diabetes, hypertension, along with funding for disease such as sickle cell, may be adversely affected in this administration. Programs for nutrition and preventative health, like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs, or SNAP, provide critical food to the neediest in all of our communities, especially mine, the Virgin Islands, and especially to our children.

Repeal of the Affordable Care Act would create unhealthy African- American communities. Since the Affordable Care Act was passed, nearly half of the African-American adults who didn't have health insurance now have health insurance. Under the Affordable Care Act, the number of working-age African-American adults who are uninsured has been cut from 27 percent to 14 percent, the lowest rate ever. The number of African- American children without insurance also decreased to the lowest rate ever, negative 5 percent. Repealing the Affordable Care Act would take away coverage for more than 3.3 million African Americans. In my district, we are looking for ways to expand coverage, not to remove or repeal it.

Members of this caucus and members before us have offered policy solutions and continue to push policies and initiatives that would help African-American communities because we know the work that our communities have done, the work of our forefathers to ensure that we have a place at the table; individuals like Shirley Chisholm, as was

spoken about by my colleague Sheila Jackson Lee. People who have come to America to be part of the experience of the African diaspora are people from many parts of the Caribbean. Right now we have Congresswoman Yvette Clarke, representing the Ninth District of New York, of Jamaican descent. Other notable Jamaicans who have served this country: General Colin Powell, the first Black U.S. Secretary of State; Constance Baker Motley, the first Black woman appointed to the Federal bench; our previous Attorney General, Eric Holder, whose family hails from Barbados; Cicely Tyson, the Academy Award-nominated actress whose family is from Nevis; Edward Blyden, from my own St. Thomas, who has been known as the father of pan-Africanism; Hubert Harrison, a prominent political activist, writer, and orator; and my own special hero, Ruby Rouss of the island of St. Croix, who was the first Black woman assigned as a permanent staff of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe. It is the work of these great African Americans and those who are not heralded and those that we don't know.

Ms. Jackson Lee talked about her own family members. My own father, LeRoy Plaskett, and my mother, who came from the Virgin Islands and went to New York as older siblings to give back and to ensure that their younger siblings could have the things needed back home in the Virgin Islands. They have given a legacy for all of us, and we are so grateful for the work they have all done. I spoke of Congresswoman Yvette Clarke of New York.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Veasey.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence), who is my classmate and one of my very good dear friends.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mrs. Lawrence so much for that discussion and inspiration she has given us. We are not going to go back.

We have heard from so many of our colleagues about the achievements of African Americans. But not just the achievements--the struggles, and the issues that we are facing today.

Mr. Speaker, we heard from Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, who outlined not just the past struggles of African Americans and their achievements, but also about the rising concerns throughout the African diaspora when she talked about what is happening in Somalia and other places, and the fact that African Americans have a duty to support other diasporas and the work that they are doing and the struggles they have.

We heard about the Affordable Care Act from our assistant leader, Mr. Clyburn, the civil rights movement, the work that was done, and the assault that is occurring now on some of those issues.

So we, as the Congressional Black Caucus, have a duty to present those issues here before you all, our colleagues, here in Congress, Mr. Speaker, to put those issues on the Record so that we can expound on them.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to Mr. Veasey if there is anything else that he wanted to discuss or that he reflected on in hearing some of the words that our colleagues spoke about today.

So we don't forget.

Sure.

We did. There are some additional conversations that we need to have, but I know that our time has drawn nigh.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 31 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, February 14, 2017, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

I thank Mr. Veasey.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, my friend and colleague, the Honorable Cedric Richmond, for his continued leadership of this caucus and of his leadership on the issues impacting Black America and other minority communities across this great Nation.

Indeed, this evening, we are discussing not only minorities in this country, but those who are downtrodden and other individuals around the world who look to America for refuge, strength, and democracy.

I also thank my colleague, the Honorable Marc Veasey of Fort Worth, Texas, for joining me in chairing this evening's Special Order hour, and also my Congressional Black Caucus colleagues who are joining us this evening to speak on these important issues.

Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight to speak to those two very important issues that go to the fabric of our founding: our ability to grow, diversify as a Nation, by bringing in the tired and the poor, the innovators, the ones who bring new changes to this country, and continue its dynamic growth, as well as voting rights.

Last week, President Trump--among a number of other things--expressed unsubstantiated claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2016 Presidential election. The remarks that we heard would appear to be inaccurate, reckless, and dangerous to our democracy in some of our opinions.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I are here this evening to highlight the real voter fraud in this country, and that is the continued attempts to suppress minority voting rights across many States as well as the outright denial of the right to vote for millions of Americans living in the territories.

I want to underscore that the fight for equal voting rights for minorities in this country did not end with the passage of the Voting Rights Act.

In fact, today, more than 50 years after our esteemed colleague John Lewis and others courageously marched on Selma, we have seen the United States Supreme Court strike down one of its most important protections.

Within hours of that decision, States were already moving forward with restrictive voter ID laws, which had already been rejected as discriminatory under the Voting Rights Act.

Six of the 16 States that passed voter ID laws since 2010 have a documented history of discriminating against minority voters.

The State of Alabama, in 2014, began enforcing a controversial voter ID law that required voters to show a State-issued ID in order to vote, and then announced plans to close 31 driver's license offices--most of them, ironically, in rural, impoverished, majority Black counties-- making it even harder for residents to get the most common form of ID used to vote.

In addition to the Supreme Court's action, a Federal Court in a 2015 ruling used a racist, century-old opinion of the Supreme Court to uphold the denial of voting rights to American citizens in my home district of the United States Virgin Islands, and the citizens and residents of America's island territories.

They are called the insular cases, and the opinion was authored, ironically, by the same justice who wrote Plessy v. Ferguson.

March marks 100 years that my district has been a part of this country, but our service dates back to its very founding through the Virgin Islander and Founding Father Alexander Hamilton. He would be, I think, very upset to find out that people from the island in which he came could not vote for their President and Commander in Chief, even though the Virgin Islands and the territories have the highest rates of military service in the United States and have exponentially higher rates of casualties per capita in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We believe we have earned the right to take part in this democracy.

In another example, last year, a Federal appeals court decisively struck down a North Carolina voter identification law and noted its provisions deliberately ``target African Americans with almost surgical precision.'' That is a quote of the court in an effort to depress Black turnout at the polls. That, to me, sounds like voter fraud and voter suppression.

Mr. Speaker, these are just a few examples of the real voter fraud happening across this country.

The members of this caucus continue to work to ensure that all American citizens, regardless of their race, income or location, can participate in this great democracy; and we implore the President to direct his efforts to investigate voter fraud at these and other issues.

We want to, as the Congressional Black Caucus, address another issue, because we don't just represent African Americans or minorities here in this country. We want to address an issue that is of great concern to me and members of this caucus--and as demonstrated by massive protests this weekend and right across the street here this evening at the Supreme Court--the concern of a large majority of America, and that is the President's executive order to ban refugees entering into this country.

Banning entry to people fleeing persecution is perhaps as diametrically opposed to the foundational fabric of this country as you can get.

Mr. Speaker, not only is the President's refugee ban mean-spirited and misguided, it undermines our democracy, undermines our efforts to thwart terrorism, and is an affront to all who have sacrificed to defend it.

Viewing all refugees fleeing as suspects shows an extremely myopic understanding of the real threats and plays to extremist propaganda.

The refugee ban will not make us safe. It would have done nothing to prevent the 9/11 terrorist attacks, nor the others that followed. The terrorists of those attacks were American citizens, some of whom were even on the terrorist watch list and still allowed to legally purchase deadly weapons used to carry out their terrorist plot.

If this President and Congress want to protect the American people from terrorism, they should pass the no fly, no buy legislation that House Democrats stood to support.

Mr. Speaker, there are many of my colleagues here this evening who would love to speak on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my Special Order hour.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the great State of Louisiana (Mr. Richmond), who is the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, my friend and colleague, the Honorable Cedric Richmond, for his leadership in our caucus as well as his continued fight on the issues impacting Black Americans and other minority communities in underserved American communities in this great Nation.

I would also like to thank my colleague, the Honorable Marc Veasey of Texas, for joining me and sharing this evening's Special Order hour and my many colleagues of the Congressional Black Caucus who are here to speak on this most important issue. Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight as Representatives of America's minority communities to respond directly to President Trump's inaugural address, and specifically to his new deal for African Americans.

During President Trump's campaign, he promised to address issues confronting African Americans, and he gave a 10-point plan outlining that. We have studiously reviewed the issues outlined in the plan and have concrete suggestions for him in accomplishing those goals.

While I acknowledge President Trump's willingness to confront these issues, I find the points in his new deal do not go far enough in substance to adequately address the needs of African American communities and rely heavily on assumptions that African American communities are primarily in the inner cities. Just as the chairman spoke of earlier this evening, let's not continue with this fallacy and stereotyping of the dynamic diversity of African Americans in this country. African Americans live in the Rust Belt. They live in rural areas across this country, in suburbs, and they live in territories.

My home district of the U.S. Virgin Islands has a population of 100,000 American citizens and permanent residents. It is a majority minority, and it, too, has experienced the same slow recovery as many of the economically dispossessed communities across America. The issues of African Americans cannot be solved in just 10 bullet points directed to a small portion of the African American community.

Mr. Speaker, we are here this evening, in large part, to send a message, suggestions, thoughts, ideas, and support to President Trump that, if he is serious about addressing the issues in disadvantaged communities, it would be wise to tap into the decades of experience held by the members of this caucus. The answers to those 10 points are very nuanced, and we have been working on them for decades, and we are happy to support positive improvements in our underserved communities.

For almost a half century, this caucus has advocated to improve the lives of millions of Americans in both rural and urban communities-- African Americans and all Americans. The 49 members of this caucus who sit in both Houses of Congress and the members before us tonight have offered policy solutions for decades that would help not only those African American communities, but underserved areas nationwide.

We will continue to lead by offering solutions to improve the lives of all Americans in search of a better opportunity. We are hopeful to give you an idea of some of those this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey), my able colleague, for his remarks on this matter.

I appreciate the remarks that the gentleman has given, particularly about the grim view that was given of African Americans during the inauguration that didn't really expound on the great diversity that is here.

We have someone from another part of our country who is now going to speak. I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), one of our senior great leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus, former chairwoman of the Caucus from California, who is going to give us her remarks and her thoughts on this topic this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I was really very interested in the discussion the gentlewoman had and about the work that you have done to alleviate poverty both in the Democratic Caucus as well as the Congressional Black Caucus, particularly her words about not allowing immigration to be divisive and used as a means to separate Americans and not being able to realize the American Dream. America is big enough to have immigrants under a comprehensive immigration plan that will allow all of us to be able to lift it up.

I want to thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on that and particularly the fight that she has been fighting for so many years when it comes to alleviating poverty in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence), but more specifically from the great city of Detroit, where she has been a strong voice for the people of Detroit, a strong voice for surrounding areas, and her work on Flint, Michigan, and its water crisis, and other areas of people who are in the inner city that need support in so many areas, to speak on the issues that are the topic for today.

I thank the gentlewoman for those words and thoughts on these issues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), who has been a stalwart for social justice, a stalwart on the Judiciary Committee, and is going to speak on the issue that is here before us this evening, the CBC Special Order hour, ``A Response to President Trump's Inaugural Address and New Deal for African Americans.''

I thank the Congresswoman from Texas. I want to thank her for all the work she has been doing not just in terms of incarceration reform, but pointing out to us that the safety of children also includes gun violence in their communities. That is so very important. And, of course, the real tireless work that she has done in terms of juvenile justice.

Mr. Speaker, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee has been at the forefront of changing the dynamic in how we see juveniles and the things that lead them into incarceration or lead them into problems with the law, and the solutions that are on the table. This is what we are speaking about this evening, giving real solutions and concrete legislation that has already been drafted and worked on by members of the Congressional Black Caucus that President Trump can use in carrying out the 10-point plan that he has.

I yield to the Congresswoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), who also would like to speak on this topic and who has been doing tireless work in her district of Wisconsin and throughout the United States for communities, for children, for working mothers, for women who are attempting to move ahead, to receive a part of the economic justice, who has really been concerned about so many of the things that we are talking about this evening.

I yield to her to speak to us this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Evans) and ask if he has additional thoughts on this after having that colloquy with Ms. Moore.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania, Dwight Evans. I know that he is new to this Congress, but he has worked for so many years on the issues that we are talking about today. I look forward to our continued collaboration in supporting so many communities throughout our country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty), who has been a stalwart voice on so many of the issues that the Congressional Black Caucus has brought here this evening and is here, Mr. Speaker, to share some of her thoughts on the things that have been spoken about earlier today.

I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey).

And education and workforce development.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 22 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, January 24, 2017, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in opposition to H.R. 238 and express my concerns with the process and the need for this legislation at this time.

As we all know, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is an independent Federal regulatory agency that, after the 2008 financial crisis, took on more responsibility to bring

greater transparency and oversight to the multihundred-trillion-dollar derivatives market.

This new bill, H.R. 238, has new mandates and steps in it which will force the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to redirect funding from its core mission to satisfy some of the new mandates within this rule.

H.R. 238 sets a flat reauthorization level of $250 million per year for the next 5 years, despite the annual average budget requests of the agency of well over $300 million since passage of Dodd-Frank. Freezing the funding level makes the new rules almost impossible to enforce. While we understand the need for the end users, the work of this group must go forward.

This punitive level effectively caps the CFTC budget and is a substantial departure from past reauthorization language providing for such funding as may be necessary for CFTC to carry out its expanded authorities under Dodd-Frank.

H.R. 238 will make it more difficult for CFTC to function and stifles its ability to respond quickly to the rapidly changing markets it regulates.

I thank Chairman Conaway for having allowed us in the last Congress to have many hearings and discussions about this bill; but we have not even, as a matter, organized the Agriculture Committee in the 115th Congress to bring this matter to the floor at this time. Therefore, the substance of the bill, as well as the process by which it is coming to this floor, are to be questioned at this time.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the bill.

Mr. Speaker, this month, as we pay homage to the many achievements and contributions to our great Nation by African American men and women, and earlier this week my colleagues spoke on this floor commemorating the 50th anniversary of the march on Selma and the subsequent passage of the Voting Rights Act, I want to call to the attention of my colleagues here in Congress that there are still American citizens today that do not have equal voting rights--some 4 million citizens, to be exact. These are citizens and residents of America's island territories: the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Guam, and Northern Mariana Islands.

These overseas U.S. territories have been part of the United States for over 115 years. That is more than half as long as there has been a U.S. Constitution.

Our service has gone above and beyond, giving this great Nation even its very banking system, through fellow Virgin Islander Alexander Hamilton. Our service has gone even to having the highest rate of military service in the United States, with some 7 percent higher than other areas, the national average, in casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I implore this Congress and urge them to pass the Voting Rights Act, and also to extend those rights to its U.S. citizens abroad.

Section 2:

``This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.''