Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment to the Regulatory Accountability Act, H.R. 5, if adopted, would exempt regulations proposed by the Mine Safety and Health Administration or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, MSHA and OSHA, which are needed to prevent or reduce the incidence of traumatic injury, cancer, or irreversible lung disease. I am deeply concerned that this legislation would impose layers of unnecessary procedures to the rulemaking process and provide incentives for frivolous litigation, while hindering workplace safety agencies trying to help keep workers safe. Current procedures that govern OSHA's rulemaking already involve an extensive review process and stakeholder engagement from small business review panels, risk assessments, economic feasibility determinations, public hearings, and multiple opportunities for public comment. According to the GAO, to meet these requirements, it takes OSHA 7 years to issue a new safety standard. In fact, it required 18 years for OSHA to update a rule that reduces exposure to beryllium, a metal that causes irreversible lung disease, even though there was broad agreement between employers and unions on the new standard. H.R. 5 imposes 60 additional procedural steps in order to issue a new rule, on top of extensive layers of review already required by the Administrative Procedure Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Data Quality Act, and numerous executive orders. The goal of adding these layers is obvious: to tie agencies such as OSHA and MSHA in red tape so they can't do their jobs protecting workers and improving workplace safety. One especially troubling part of the bill would require a super- mandate that requires agencies to use the least cost alternative instead of the most protective rule. Nobody favors excessive cost, but this requirement overrides the carefully balanced requirements in OSHA that require life and limb must be fully protected, provided that the safety requirements are technically and economically feasible. That is the present law. The question that needs to be asked is: The least cost to whom and at what cost to others? What is the least cost mandate protection of workers? Is the least cost mandate secondary to worker safety in order to limit cost to corporations? And then again, who decides? Under the bill, some regulations could be delayed until the end of any litigation, the final determination in a lawsuit which, with trials and appeals, could take years. The bill prohibits the rules from going into effect until the end of the litigation. Now, normally, you can get an injunction, but that would require the court to consider the likelihood of success of the lawsuit and the potential harm done if the injunction is issued or not issued. Under H.R. 5, rules could exceed the least cost alternative, but only if the agency demonstrates that the additional benefits outweigh the additional costs. This eliminates a well-established test under OSHA which requires ``the most productive standard which is feasible,'' and that standard obviously just invites litigation which will delay the final rule for years. The problem with the least cost framework is that it would tilt the playing field to ensure the least cost for industry but at the expense of workers and the American public. According to expert witnesses before the Judiciary Committee, this bill will add another 2 or 3 years to the regulatory process, and these delays will allow preventable injuries and occupational diseases to continue unabated. Mr. Chairman, the premise behind this legislation is based on the erroneous assumption that regulations issued over the last 8 years have obstructed job growth; however, employment statistics do not bear this out. Since the end of the recession, the U.S. economy has gained almost 16 million jobs, while establishing the longest consecutive months of job growth on record. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment to ensure that, even if the bill passes, OSHA and MSHA will be able to prevent or reduce the incidence of traumatic injury, cancer, and irreversible lung disease. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will preserve the ability of the executive branch to promulgate rules, which will save lives and avoid preventable deaths and disease. A vote for the amendment is a vote for a safe workplace. I would hope that the amendment would be adopted and save lives. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for organizing this Special Order. I will be brief. There are a lot of people who want to speak. I will just speak to the jurisdiction of the Education and the Workforce Committee, on which I have the honor of serving as the ranking member. Mr. Speaker, as we consider appointments to the Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services, we shouldn't just look at people's personalities, but at what the policy implications are of their appointments. The Senate must reject those nominees who will fail to stand up to the goals and aspirations of America's children and workers. The first nominee I will speak to is that of Secretary of Labor, Mr. Puzder, who was the CEO of CKE Restaurants. He has spoken out many times in opposition to an increase in the minimum wage. Many States have recognized that the minimum wage is so low that people who work full time fail to make a wage that exceeds the poverty level. What is his position going to be on increasing the minimum wage? With overtime, are people entitled to work overtime after 40 hours? The regulation is in place. Will he enforce that new regulation? Or will he try to overturn the regulation that recognizes and honors the 40-hour workweek, whereby those who work more than 40 hours will get time and a half? If you look at CKE's retirement plan, it leaves a lot to be desired in terms of fees. What will his position be? When you look at the fiduciary rule--which requires financial advisers, when they are looking at somebody's retirement fund, to have the worker's best interest in the forefront, not their personal profits and what they can rip off from someone but to look at the worker's views as paramount--will he change that so that we can go back to the days in which people could take advantage of unsophisticated workers and sell them products that are not in their best interests? What are his positions going to be on enforcing Federal regulations? CKE Restaurants has been found in violation of many wage regulations. Will he vigorously enforce those? Those are the kinds of things that we need to look at when we look at the Secretary of Labor. The Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, is best known for her support of vouchers. Vouchers in Michigan have shown that they fund schools that are actually worse than the average, so they have not done any good. Will she support public education? Or will she support the privatization of education? Finally, Health and Human Services: Will we privatize Medicare? Will we repeal without replacing the Affordable Care Act? A lot has been said about repeal and then replace later. Let me tell you, until you have seen a plan, you can just count on the repeal; there will probably never be a replace. What will happen to everybody if there is no plan? Twenty million people--maybe 30 million--will lose their insurance, and the insurance market for everybody else will be in chaos. We need to make sure that we look at this and get these decisions straight before we confirm anybody. All of the nominees and others should be reviewed not on their personalities, but on the policy decisions they will be making. The next generation of Americans will base their education, their jobs, and their health care on the decisions these nominees will make. The Senate should reject any of the nominees that will take us in the wrong direction.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. ``No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.''

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would exempt from coverage under the REINS Act any rule which pertains to workplace health and safety made by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, or the Mine Safety and Health Administration, MSHA, that is necessary to prevent or reduce the incidence of traumatic injury, cancer or irreversible lung disease. I am offering the amendment because we should not be creating obstacles to the protection of life and limb. We should be concerned about repealing such workplace rules. Actually, this concern is not theoretical. There was a report from the chairman of the Freedom Caucus that actually calls for the repeal of multiple safety and health rules. One OSHA rule, for example, will reduce slip, trip, and fall hazards, which are actually a leading cause of worker deaths and lost workday injuries. We found that this rule had not been updated since 1971, and OSHA has calculated that over 10 years the rule will prevent nearly 300 worker deaths and more than 58,000 lost-time injuries. The net benefit, cash benefit, of the rule is projected to be over $3 billion over 10 years. Another rule at risk is the modernization of OSHA's beryllium exposure limit, a 70-year-old standard that was obsolete even before it was issued. Workers who inhaled beryllium can develop debilitating, incurable, and frequently fatal illnesses. One known as chronic beryllium disease also increased lung cancer. In the 1940s, workers at the Atomic Energy Commission plants were contracting acute beryllium poisoning. To deal with the problem, two scientists agreed to set the exposure limit at 2 micrograms per cubic meter of air while sitting in the back of a taxicab on their way to a meeting. This discredited standard is often called the taxicab standard because there was no data to support it, and there is now significant scientific evidence that show that it has failed to protect workers. One cost of keeping the so-called taxicab standard is estimated at the loss of nearly 100 lives a year. So we need to make sure that this rule is updated. It is in final stages after 18 years of development. The finalized rule is expected to come out soon. Other rules involve mine safety and other safety and health concerns. The REINS Act would make it harder to protect workers' health and safety. The bill would create more bureaucracy by requiring that any major rule receive bicameral resolution of support within 70 legislative days prior to the rule taking effect. This bill even provides for a reach back to consider rules issued last spring. Under this bill, a single House of Congress could block a rule. That raises significant constitutional concerns. By allowing a one-House veto, the bill violates the presentment clause of the Constitution of the United States. My amendment ensures essential workplace safety protections are not jeopardized by this flawed legislation. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 21, the so-called Midnight Rules Relief Act, which amends the Congressional Review Act. The Congressional Review Act allows Congress to overrule regulations promulgated by the executive branch. That law expects a deliberative approach to considering each and every rule. H.R. 21 would allow Congress to consider a joint resolution to simultaneously disapprove of multiple regulations all at once when such rules are issued in the last 60 legislative days of a session of Congress during the final year of a President's term. In this case, the 60 legislative days reach-back would apply to rules issued as far back as June of last year, almost 7 months before the end of the President's term. To call rules issued that long ago a midnight rule is a particular misnomer. This bill puts in place an indiscriminate process to eliminate rules, many of which have been under development for years--or even decades-- to protect consumers, working families, and students. This bill denies Congress the opportunity for a careful, individualized, case-by-case review that is appropriate for a reasoned, decisionmaking legislative body. Under the Congressional Review Act, if a rule is eliminated, such rule can never be taken up again in similar form without additional legislation overriding the restriction, even if the undesirable rule turns out, upon further reflection, to have been the best alternative. Some of the rules that could be impacted that are just under the jurisdiction of the Education and the Workforce Committee include the Department of Labor's rule requiring Federal contractors to provide up to 7 days of paid sick leave annually for their employees; the upcoming OSHA rule, which has been under development for 18 years, which would protect workers from exposure to beryllium, a metal that can cause lung disease, resulting in a victim essentially suffocating to death; the Department of Education's rule involving the borrower's defense, which helps student borrowers who are defrauded by their universities; and the Department of Education's K-12 accountability rule, which involves the implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act, making sure that all students can graduate ready for success for college and career.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. H.R. 21 is poised to allow wholesale undermining of critical protections for students, workers, taxpayers, and consumers. I, therefore, urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my concerns with H.R. 329. While the legislation seeks to provide additional flexibility and support to Indian tribes--a worthy goal--I remain concerned that it could have the effect of weakening the services provided to families and children in Indian tribes. Currently, Indian tribes have the option to consolidate certain federal funding streams related to work and job training into one grant. H.R. 329 includes a number of changes to this consolidation option and expands the number of programs that can be consolidated. The legislation could be interpreted in an overly broad fashion resulting in the inclusion of programs that may not be appropriate to include--programs or services only ``relating to'' job training, skill development, and economic development, or other related goals. The Education and the Workforce Committee, on which I serve as Ranking Member, was given a sequential jurisdictional referral on this legislation, but has not considered the legislation nor considered its impact on education and training programs within our jurisdiction. Specifically, our Committee has an interest in ensuring that program funds are used for their intended purpose. Whether the TANF program or Head Start, adequate reporting and oversight protect beneficiaries and ensure the quality of services. For example, Head Start performance standards are vital to the success of the program. While I do not intend to oppose the legislation, I encourage continued robust oversight of the programs impacted by this bill to ensure that quality and effective education and job training programs remain available to our nation's tribes.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great pride to recognize Cameron D. Clarke, a Howard University senior majoring in biology and community health, who was awarded a prestigious Rhodes Scholarship for 2017. Mr. Clarke lives in Richmond, Virginia and is the fourth student from Howard University to have received this honor. While attending Howard University, Mr. Clarke engaged in research at the University's W. Montague Cobb Research Laboratory, which maintains a national repository for African-American skeletal remains. Mr. Clarke also participated in research at Bahir Dar University in Ethiopia through a Howard University-National Science Foundation grant. As an Amgen Scholar, he conducted research at the National Institutes of Health's Center for Cancer Research. Mr. Clarke is a certified emergency medical technician (EMT) and is the lead author on five out of six publications. He is co-president of Howard University's chapter of the Peer Health Exchange and a news editor of The Hilltop, the Howard University student newspaper. Currently, Mr. Clarke is among our own here on Capitol Hill as he is an intern for the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Mr. Clarke is one of 32 men and women selected from U.S. postsecondary institutions who competed with over 800 applicants to receive this award to study at the University of Oxford in England. With his Rhodes scholarship, Mr. Clarke intends to further his studies by pursuing a Master of Science degree with an emphasis in primary health care. Ultimately, Mr. Clarke wants to attend medical school and work in public health policy and clinical research. ``We are extremely proud of Mr. Clarke's accomplishments,'' said Dr. Wayne Frederick, President of Howard University. ``Mr. Clarke's academic pursuits will lead to solutions in the broader society that are needed ever more so today. Cameron is the epitome of Howard University's gift of solutions to the world.'' His achievements demonstrate what a person committed to excellence in truth and service can obtain when provided the opportunity. He exemplifies the best of Howard University and the Commonwealth of Virginia. I ask my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in congratulating Mr. Cameron D. Clarke for his impressive academic achievements and being selected as one of America's Rhodes Scholarship winners. It is with honor that I call attention to this outstanding young man's achievements. May he continue to obtain the success for which he works hard and may he always find purpose and fulfillment in his efforts.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. I have the honor of representing the Hampton Roads area of Virginia, the heart of our Nation's shipbuilding industrial base. I want to underscore my support for the shipbuilding and ship maintenance provisions in the bill, including the language urging the Secretary of the Navy to speed up the procurement schedule for aircraft carriers to ensure that our carrier fleet is not again reduced to just 10 carriers. These provisions will not only significantly benefit my region, but will be critical to our Nation's security. I want to particularly commend my colleague from Virginia, the chair of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, Mr. Forbes, and the ranking member of that subcommittee, Mr. Courtney, for their hard work on the shipbuilding aspects of the bill. As ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I am pleased to see that the final conference report eliminated three matters of grave concern that would have adversely affected working conditions for shipyard workers and employees of government contractors. The first provision eliminated from the bill would have severely undermined the workers' compensation benefits that many shipyard workers now receive. A second problematic provision would have authorized taxpayer-funded employment discrimination. A third provision eliminated from the bill would have significantly diminished the application of the executive order on fair pay and safe workplaces. This order will now remain in effect and it will help level the playing field so that those contractors who willfully and repeatedly violate workplace safety, labor, and civil rights laws will not gain competitive advantages over those law-abiding contractors who faithfully comply with employment laws. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the exceptional effort made by the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Smith, with the cooperation of the chair of the committee, Mr. Thornberry, to produce a bill that addresses the defense needs of our Nation, but also ensures that workers are treated fairly. Before addressing matters of concern to the Education and the Workforce Committee, I want to underscore my strong support for the shipbuilding and ship maintenance provisions. I have the honor of representing Hampton Roads, Virginia, the heart of our nation's shipbuilding industrial base. I strongly support the conference report's shipbuilding and ship maintenance provisions, specifically language urging the Secretary of the Navy to speed up the procurement schedule for aircraft carriers to ensure that our carrier fleet is not again reduced to 10 carriers. These provisions in the conference report will not only significantly benefit my region, but will be critical for our nation's security. I'd like to commend Congressman Forbes and Congressman Courtney for their efforts on this area. As a conferee and Ranking Member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, I was pleased to see that the final conference report eliminated matters of grave concern. First, the Conference Report removed Section 3512 of the House bill which redefined ``recreational vessels'' across almost all statutes. The aim of this provision was to exempt workers repairing vessels over 65 feet in length from coverage under the Longshore and Harbor Workers Act (LHWCA), such as very large yachts and luxury watercraft. By stripping injured workers of the protections under LWHCA, these workers would have been shifted into coverage under state workers' compensation laws. Many state workers' compensation benefit levels are substantially inferior to LHWCA coverage, especially in states such as Florida. Earlier this year, the Florida Supreme Court found that the Florida workers' compensation law was unconstitutional because the duration of disability benefits was so truncated and the benefit levels so anemic that they did not constitute ``a system of redress'' that ``functions as a reasonable alternative to tort litigation.'' Both the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) opposed Section 3512. The DOL noted that Section 3512 would ``lead to uncertainty and foster litigation regarding Longshore Act coverage'' because the new definition of ``recreational'' vessel introduced subjective criteria. For example, would vessels with paid crews or which are leased out for commercial purposes be deemed recreational or commercial? DOL also expressed concern that this ``legislation will simply encourage employers to shift their employees out of the more protective federal longshore workers' compensation system,'' and into inferior state workers' comp coverage. The Coast Guard noted changing the definition of ``recreational vessel'' under Section 4301 of Title 46 (the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971) would have adverse impacts on Coast Guard regulatory and enforcement authorities. Second, I was pleased to see that Impact Aid has been preserved for Local Educational Agencies consistent with past precedent. Third, there were two provisions that adversely impacted employee protections in the workplace, which were deleted in the conference report. One such provision was Section 1094 of the House bill, which was misleadingly labeled ``Protections Relating to Civil Rights and Disabilities'' authorized taxpayer-funded employment discrimination in every grant, cooperative agreement, contract, subcontract, and purchase order awarded by every Federal agency doing business with a religiously affiliated organization. Section 1094 would effectively nullify the protections from workplace discrimination for LGBT workers that were provided in Executive Order 13672 (Prohibiting Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity by Contractors and Subcontractors) that was signed on July 21, 2014. Further, the provision would incorporate an exemption from the Americans with Disabilities Act that could permit taxpayer-funded discrimination not only against employees and applicants who are not members of the same religion, but also against those who fail to adhere to the organization's religious tenets. Accordingly, religious organizations in receipt of federal dollars could use their religious viewpoint to: discharge working women who use birth control or who is pregnant and unmarried; fire employees who engage in premarital sex; deny employment or health benefits to married same-sex couples that they already provide to married opposite-sex couples; or refuse to consider for employment anyone, however qualified, whose religion is inconsistent with the employer's religious tenets. Ninety-one religious, education, civil rights, labor, and women's organizations wrote to express their opposition in a letter dated August 25, 2016. The groups noted that: ``effective government collaboration with faith-based groups does not require the sanctioning of federally funded religious discrimination.'' I am pleased that the conference report did not authorize religious employers to discriminate in hiring using federal funds. I want to applaud Senator Blumenthal for his leadership in helping to remove this provision. In addition, Sections 1095 of the House bill and Section 829-I of the Senate bill would have eliminated or diminished the application of the ``Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces'' Executive Order. This executive order requires companies to disclose whether they have engaged in serious, repeated, willful or pervasive violations of any of 14 long-standing labor laws, including the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act, and nondiscrimination laws. Each year, thousands of federal contractor workers are deprived of overtime wages, denied basic workplace protections, forced to endure illegal discrimination, and made to tolerate unwarranted health and safety risks. Companies supported by and entrusted with federal government contracts should be expected to represent the gold standard in the American workplace. The executive order aims to level the playing field so that those who repeatedly violate those laws do not gain competitive advantage over those law abiding contractors who expend the funds and make the effort to ensure full compliance. Finally, I want to recognize the exceptional effort made by Ranking Member Smith and his staff to work with the Education and Workforce Committee to produce a final bill that meets the defense needs of this nation and also ensures workers are treated fairly.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mourn the loss of one of our nation's finest public servants, Dr. Debra Saunders-White. She was a good friend and a tireless advocate for increasing access to higher education for all students. This past Saturday, Debra Saunders- White passed away, and I would like to take a brief moment to celebrate her life and legacy. For many years, Debra Saunders-White was a leading voice in education as she fought to strengthen historical black colleges and universities and other minority serving institutions. As a first generation college graduate, Debra understood both the opportunities afforded by higher education and the many challenges that accompany students as they attempt to access and afford a higher education. A native of Hampton, Virginia, she attended the University of Virginia before receiving her Masters of Business Administration from the College of William and Mary and her Doctorate in Higher Education Administration from George Washington University. After completing her education, Mrs. Saunders-White spent 15 years in the private sector, working for IBM as a systems engineer before transitioning to marketing. From 1999 until 2006, Dr. Saunders-White served as the Assistant Provost of Technology at Hampton University. While at Hampton, she designed and implemented the university's first information technology organization. Her efforts made Hampton University the first HBCU in the nation to join the Internet2 community, where they earned the ``most wired university'' title by Forbes Magazine and the Princeton Review. Ultimately, Dr. Saunders-White left Hampton University and spent some time at the University of North Carolina Wilmington (UNCW) as the Vice Chancellor and later served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary at the Department of Education in President Obama's administration. In 2011, Mrs. Saunders-White became the 11th chancellor of North Carolina Central University. During her tenure, Dr. Saunders-White was held in high regard by all of her colleagues and students. Known for her strong vision and leadership, Debra was extremely dedicated to ensuring the success of the students at NCCU while she carried out her vision for growth at the university. Mr. Speaker, the education and NCCU communities have lost a tremendous advocate for our nation's students. I want to extend my deepest sympathies to her two children, Elizabeth Paige and Cecil III; her mother, Irene Saunders; her brothers, Roger, Ralph and Kyle Saunders, and the rest of her family, friends, and countless students she positively impacted during her life.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1555, the Filipino Veterans of World War II Congressional Gold Medal Act of 2015. Filipino Americans have contributed to American life and culture in countless ways, and one of the most noble is through military service. Over 200,000 Filipino soldiers and guerrilla fighters served with the United States Armed Forces during World War II. Their invaluable service helped provide the necessary support to defeat the Japanese in the Pacific. For over 60 years, Filipino veterans and community advocates have fought to obtain benefits and recognition that they were promised. In 2009, Congress created the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund, where eligible veterans who are U.S. citizens could receive a one-time payment of $15,000; eligible veterans who are not U.S. citizens could receive a one-time payment of $9,000. While this fund has allowed many of them to receive some compensation, in Congress we are still working to make sure these families get all of the benefits they earned, they deserved and were promised. Another way that we can recognize these heroes is by awarding them the Congressional Gold Medal. The Senate unanimously passed the Filipino World War II Congressional Gold Medal Act in July. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of the House version of the bill and co-chair of the U.S.-Philippines Friendship Caucus, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation so that approximately 18,000 surviving Filipino veterans of World War II may be recognized for their service to our Nation. We are forever indebted to these brave soldiers, and it is important that we appropriately express our gratitude for that service. Mr. Speaker, I therefore urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding and for organizing tonight's Special Order. Tonight, we honor three retiring members from the Virginia delegation to Congress: Congressmen Randy Forbes, Robert Hurt, and Scott Rigell. Despite our differences from time to time on national policy, the Virginia delegation has a long history of being able to constructively work together on issues of importance to the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Former-Senator John Warner, the longtime dean of our delegation, embodied this bipartisan work ethic, and we have already heard it referred to as the Virginia way of doing things. During their service in Congress, Randy, Robert, and Scott have each put their mark on this institution and on national policy. Robert Hurt has been a leader on the Financial Services Committee and focused on policies to expand economic opportunity in south side Virginia and communities around the Nation. A strong advocate for community banks and credit unions over his three terms in Congress, Robert has also worked to ensure that consumers are financially literate with the necessary information to make the best financial choices for their families. Robert has always fought for what he believed to be the best interest of his constituents, and so I wish him and his family well as he returns to his home in Chatham. I have come to know Scott and Randy very well as our congressional districts are adjacent to one another in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia. Along with our colleague, Rob Wittman, we have participated in countless joint appearances and events across Hampton Roads. In both the private and public sector, Scott Rigell has dedicated his life to serving the Hampton Roads community. In his three terms in Congress, he has developed a well-deserved reputation as a pragmatic, bipartisan leader as he addresses the Nation's fiscal issues and reforming how Congress operates. We have been working together on many issues, but I especially appreciate his strong support and advocacy of the SAFE Justice Act, a comprehensive criminal justice reform bill that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and I introduced last year. I wish Scott, his wife Terry, and his children and grandchildren all the best as he transitions back to private life. Randy and I have become good friends during his time in Congress as we served together for many years on the House Judiciary Committee. Hampton Roads is the home to many military facilities, both private- sector defense contractors and military facilities, particularly those associated with the Navy. There is no Member of Congress who knows more about our Navy than Randy Forbes. As chairman of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, he has been an important voice on defense and shipbuilding policy. Hampton Roads has been fortunate to have Randy fighting for our region's military and shipbuilding interests over the last 50 years. I will also miss working with him on modeling and simulation. He was the founder of the Modeling and Simulation Caucus. He promoted the modeling and simulation technology as a way to increase efficiency and to save the taxpayers money. I wouldn't count Randy out just yet. I know he will find ways to continue to serve our men and women in uniform in the months and years ahead, and so I wish him, his wife Shirley, and children and grandchildren well as they start the next chapter of their lives. Mr. Speaker, I, again, want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for organizing tonight's Special Order. The departure of Congressmen Robert Hurt, Scott Rigell, and Randy Forbes is a loss for the House of Representatives and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Each of these men deserve our sincere gratitude for their service to our Nation and the civility that they have exemplified during their service.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5982, the so-called Midnight Rules Relief Act, which amends the Congressional Review Act. This bill would allow Congress to consider a joint resolution to simultaneously disapprove multiple regulations en bloc, all at once, when such rules are issued within the last 60 legislative days of a session of Congress in the final year of a President's term. Now, that is legislative days. In this case, 60 legislative days would reach back until May of this year, almost 8 months before the end of the President's term. To call the rules issued last spring a midnight rule is a curious use of the word. This bill puts in place an indiscriminate process to eliminate rules, many of which have been under consideration for years, even decades, to protect consumers, working people, and students. This bill denies Congress the opportunity for a careful case-by-case review that the congressional review process now provides, and that process would be appropriate for reasoned decisionmaking by a legislative body. This bill would jettison rules without even considering the costs and benefits of whether the rule followed the least burdensome approach to achieve a goal under the law. Once a rule is rejected, the rule can never be taken up again in substantially similar form. So after a thoughtful review, we might decide that the unpleasant regulation was actually the better way to address a problem than any alternative, but by then it is too late. Mr. Chairman, under the Congressional Review Act, the Senate could pass its en bloc resolution of disapproval without even holding a hearing, and send it to the House for a vote on the floor without any form of consideration by the committee of jurisdiction. So we would end up just voting on a slogan or a sound bite without any opportunity for deliberative consideration. That is not a responsible way to legislate. There has always been criticism of a tendency of a significant number of rules and regulations to be issued following a Presidential election before the President leaves office, regardless of the party in control. However, the nonpartisan congressionally mandated Administrative Conference of the United States found that ``a dispassionate look at midnight rules issued by past administrations of both political parties reveals that most were under active consideration long before the November election.'' They go on to say that many of the rules involved routine matters or were required by law. For example, a final OSHA rule to prevent injuries caused by inadequate fall protection has been under development for over 26 years. The Administrative Conference called for Congress to put in place a 60-day waiting period for rules that are issued after a Presidential election so that the new incoming administration can review the rules. Now, that legislation is what we really ought to be considering, not the bill before us today. I think it is important to look at some of the rules that could be impacted under this bill: The Department of Labor issued a rule requiring Federal contractors to provide up to 7 days of paid sick leave annually for people working on Federal contracts. A forthcoming OSHA regulation, which has been under development for over 18 years, would protect workers from overexposure of beryllium. That is a substance that causes incurable lung disease often resulting in death by suffocation. That rule has been under consideration for 18 years and we are finally getting to the actual rule. The rule to implement the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order, which ensures that taxpayer dollars support those Federal contractors who comply with labor, civil rights, and workplace safety laws, not those who routinely and seriously violate such laws. The EEOC's pay data rule, which helps eliminate pay disparities due to race, ethnicity, and gender. The Department of Education's borrower's defense rule, which helps protect student borrowers who were defrauded by their universities. The Department of Education's forthcoming K-12 accountability rule, which provides clarity and ensures faithful implementation of the bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act in order to graduate all students ready for success in college and career. The Department of Education's forthcoming supplement not supplant rule, which ensures that Federal dollars actually supplement State and local education funds that target at-risk youth. And, finally, another Health and Human Services' Head Start rule, which improves quality and access for our Nation's most vulnerable early learners. Each of these rules involves complex issues that cannot be discussed or properly addressed through the en bloc process where you have a bunch of regulations all in one bill. Now, if a rule needs to be challenged, the present law provides for a deliberative process to challenge the rule. Regrettably, H.R. 5982 is poised to allow the wholesale undermining of critical protections for students, workers, taxpayers, and consumers. I, therefore, urge a ``no'' vote on the bill. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a Statement of Administration Policy in opposition to the rule. Statement of Administration Policy HR. 5982 Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2016--Rep. Issa, R-CA, and eight cosponsors The Administration is committed to ensuring that regulations are smart and effective, that they are tailored to advance statutory goals in the most cost-effective and efficient manner, and that they minimize uncertainty. When a Federal agency promulgates a regulation, the agency must adhere to the robust and well-understood procedural requirements of Federal law, including the Administrative Procedure Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Congressional Review Act, in a manner that ensures that the rulemaking process is transparent and considers the input of stakeholders. In addition, for decades, agency rulemaking has been governed by Executive Orders issued and followed by administrations of both political parties. These require regulatory agencies to promulgate regulations, consistent with their statutes, upon a reasoned determination that the benefits justify the costs, to consider regulatory alternatives, and to promote regulatory flexibility. The Administration continues to be guided by the same rigorous practices and principles used to develop and review regulations that have been upheld throughout the entirety of this Administration and previous Administrations. On December 17, 2015, the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs reiterated that the Administration would maintain its normal review standards, and instructed agencies to plan and prioritize its regulations in order to ensure an orderly review process during the final year of the Administration. For these reasons, H.R. 5982 is intended to solve a problem that does not exist. Lastly, the Congressional Review Act (CRA) already allows for the Congress to disapprove of rules on a case-by-case basis. Thus, providing for an arbitrary packaging of rules for an up-or-down vote, as this bill does, is unnecessary. In addition, the bill would expand the scope of rules subject to the CRA such that by the time a vote on a resolution occurs, some of the rules may have been in effect for over a year. By doing so, H.R. 5982 would create tremendous regulatory uncertainty, potentially impose additional costs on businesses, and represent a step backwards for applying sound regulatory principles to protect public health, safety, the environment, and other critical aspects of society. If the President were presented with H.R. 5982 his senior advisors would recommend he veto the bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to H.R. 6094, the inappropriately named Regulatory Relief for Small Businesses, Schools, and Nonprofits Act. First of all, it is not limited to those. It is for all employers. It would delay the implementation of the overtime rule for 6 months. The rule is currently slated to go into effect on December 1, and working families can't wait another 6 months for a long-overdue adjustment in the overtime rule. We ought to talk a little bit about what we are talking about. If today you are earning $10 an hour, if you work more than 40 hours a week, you get time-and-a-half for every hour worked over 40. And if they change that to the same amount, instead of $10 an hour, $20,000 a year, you still get time-and-a-half for overtime after 40 hours because your salary is under the approximately $23,000 threshold. If you make $15 an hour, you get time-and-a-half for over 40 hours; but if they change that and call it $30,000 a year, the hours you work over 40 you not only don't get time-and-a-half, you don't get paid at all. You just worked extra hours because you are over the threshold. Now, when the threshold was established many years ago, 60 percent of salaried workers were covered by the overtime rule. They were under the threshold and got overtime. But because it wasn't adjusted for inflation, it is now only about 7 percent of salaried workers who get overtime protection. The Department of Labor overtime rule will increase that threshold up to about $47,000, and this would cover about only 35 percent of salaried workers, but this would still enable millions of Americans to be compensated for work over 40 hours. Mr. Speaker, the 40-hour workweek used to be the standard workweek, but with this new rule, more workers will benefit from the overtime rule and be able to get time-and-a-half for hours worked over 40 hours. We have heard this is too quick. When the last adjustment was made, under a Republican President, only 4 months were provided to adjust. This rule allowed 6 months. Furthermore, the administration has been working on this for 2 years, so employers have known it was coming. Now, we will hear exaggerated reports about the impact on universities. Studies have shown that only a few people will be actually affected by the rule, and of those, only a few people will actually routinely work overtime. So the total of those affected and routinely work overtime is about 1 percent of the university employees. Their salary may go up a little bit or they may be only worked 40 hours, in which case there is no adjustment needed. Either way, you are only talking about a small portion of the salary of 1 percent. That is not going to bankrupt universities. The nonprofits, the same thing, about 1 percent of the employees both routinely work overtime and are affected. Their salary may or may not go up, depending on how you respond because a lot of times you will just make sure that people don't work more than 40 hours a week. They can go home to their families rather than be worked hour after hour after hour. We have also heard an exaggeration about how it will affect jobs, people will have to lay people off. Actually, one study showed that you will actually create jobs, about 100,000 jobs over the economy, because if an employer has 120 hours that need to be worked, and he is working two people 60 hours a week without paying for the extra hours, with this rule, he may be paying them time-and-a-half, and it may make more sense to hire a third person; so three people work 40 hours a week. That would create, as I said, about 100,000 jobs. Mr. Speaker, this bill would unnecessarily delay fair pay to millions of workers. The President, thankfully, has said that if this bill ever sees his desk, he will veto it. We can remove that uncertainty just by defeating the bill here and now. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to acknowledge the retirement of the Chair. I have only been ranking member for this Congress, but we have been able to work together constructively for elementary and secondary education, juvenile justice, career and technical education, Older Americans Act, several higher education bills, all working constructively together. I want to thank the gentleman for his cooperative spirit. We agree on a lot and we are able to work forward. We disagree, as we are on this bill, but we are able to do that in a dignified way and still be able to accomplish a great deal during this Congress. I want to congratulate him on a great career. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wilson), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.

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

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the terrorist attacks perpetrated against our Nation 15 years ago killed nearly 3,000 people. No one can fully fathom the grief still felt by families to lose their loved ones in such a horrific way. We understand the need to continue to seek justice against those who may have aided and abetted the individuals that orchestrated these attacks. However, this legislation is not the right way to go about achieving that justice. JASTA abrogates a core principle in international law--foreign sovereign immunity. There are already several exceptions to this immunity recognized by our Nation and others, but JASTA goes much further than any present exception or recognized practice of any national law. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Texas just suggested, one fundamental indication of fairness of legislation is not how it would work to our benefit, but what we would think if it were used against us. If the United States decides to allow our citizens to haul foreign nations into American courts, what would we think of other nations enacting legislation allowing their citizens to do the same thing to us? Obviously, we would not want to put our diplomats, military, and private companies at that risk. Consider our Nation's actions in Iraq. While there may be questions about Saudi Arabia's indirect involvement in 9/11, there is no question about who the state-sponsored actor was in 2003 when we bombed Baghdad and killed and injured hundreds of thousands of people with little or no evidence that Iraq was any immediate threat to the United States or our allies. What would we think if Iraq enacted legislation similar to JASTA, allowing their citizens to sue the United States for acts perpetrated during the Iraqi war? American soldiers and contractors living and working in Iraq today could be hauled in to Iraqi court, tried by an Iraqi judge, held responsible by an Iraqi jury that would assess the amount of money owed to each and every Iraqi citizen killed or maimed. Furthermore, if they adopted similar legislation to this, other nations could sue the United States and our citizens for sponsoring organizations they deem as terrorist organizations. Unfortunately, these discussions are already taking place in capitals around the world because of this legislation. JASTA does not make clear how the evidence would be gathered to help build a credible case against a foreign nation. Would the plaintiffs be able to subpoena foreign officials? Or would the U.S. Department of State officials have to testify? Would we be required to expose sensitive materials in order to help American citizens prove their case? Again, how would we feel about foreign judges and juries deciding whether or not the United States sponsored terrorism? There are also questions about how the judgment under JASTA would be enforced. The legislation does not address how a court would enforce the judgment. Could foreign assets be attached? How would this process work if other countries enacted similar legislation? Would U.S. assets all over the world be subject to attachment to satisfy the foreign jury verdicts? Mr. Speaker, there are many other more responsible mechanisms that this body could enact to hold foreign actors accountable for their involvement in international terrorism without exposing the United States or our citizens to lawsuits all over the world. We should do the responsible thing, Mr. Speaker, and sustain the President's veto of this legislation.