Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in honor of the lives of three civil rights luminaries. I thank the gentlewoman from Houston for giving us this opportunity to honor their lives: Congressman Louis Stokes, statesman and educator Julian Bond, both of whom I knew personally, and activist Amelia Robinson. These champions of social and economic justice lived their lives just as Pope Francis challenged Members of Congress to do. Specifically, the Pope reminded us of the Golden Rule--do unto others as you would have them do unto you--and that that rule points us in the right direction. He specifically reminded Congress that, if we want opportunities, then let us provide opportunities. The lives we honor today are the personification of the Pope's call. Congressman Stokes, the beloved son of the State of Ohio, was affectionately called ``Lou'' when I served with him in the House. His motto was to aim high, which he did even before he was a Member of Congress when he argued the Supreme Court case challenging the abusive stop-and-frisk policies and practices in the Terry v. Ohio case. Lou's integrity was why he was selected to serve on the House Select Committee on Assassinations of President Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the House investigation of the illegal arm sales during the Iran-contra affair and, of course, his service on the Ethics Committee. His strive for social and economic justice was on full display when he became the first African American to serve on the House Appropriations Committee. There he directed Federal dollars to eradicate injustice and inequities by funding programs such as healthcare facilities for veterans, supporting the National Science Foundation, and creating the first office of minority health at the National Institutes of Health. Statesman and educator Julian Bond dedicated his entire life to this cause of social justice and equity. As a founding member of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, or SNCC, he led protests against segregation. In 1965, Julian Bond was elected to the Georgia House of Representatives, but was denied a seat at the State House because of his opposition to the Vietnam war. In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the Georgia House's refusal to seat Julian Bond violated the United States Constitution. He was subsequently elected for several terms, including service in the Georgia Senate, despite efforts to redraw his district. He was also the first African American nominated at a major-party convention as a candidate for Vice President of the United States. Beginning in the 1980s, Julian Bond taught at several universities, including Harvard, Drexel, University of Virginia, and American University. For more than 20 years at UVA and American University, he taught thousands of students about the role of the civil rights movement as a seminal part of America's history. He stated that the ``humanity of all Americans is diminished when any group is denied rights granted to others.'' He served as chairman of the NAACP from 1998 to 2009. At the 2009 commencement at Virginia State University, he told the graduates that, ``We all hope that you do well, but I also hope that you do good.'' Activist Amelia Robinson was among the many foot soldiers who fought for civil rights. As a girl, she championed the right to vote for women. As an adult, she opened her home to Martin Luther King and James Bevel and members of SNCC and others to help organize and strategize for civil rights and the right to vote. Despite the brutal beating she endured during the march for voting rights in Selma, Alabama, 50 years ago, she was unwavering in her fight to end segregation and achieve full voting rights for all. Reflecting on her life as an activist, she stated that, ``I have been called rabble-rouser, agitator. But because of my fighting, I was able to hand to the entire country the right for people to vote.'' These three American giants--the legislator, the educator, the activist--were all driven to push towards a more just and equal society. I am honored to recognize their lives and the gifts they gave to our Nation. Again, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Houston for organizing this Special Order so that we could pay appropriate tribute to these fine Americans.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill. The REINS Act would create new obstacles to the promulgation of regulations designed to protect American workers' health and safety and to protect the environment. It would jeopardize the economy by impeding regulations for financial services and throw sand in the gears of government efforts to address growing inequality and prevent discrimination. Congress already has the right to disapprove any rule through the Congressional Review Act or through appropriations bills or other legislation. This bill would essentially impose a procedural chokehold by requiring that any major rule receive affirmative House and Senate approval within 70 legislative days. As an example of the effect of this bill, we note that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, is in the process of updating a nearly 70-year-old standard to keep workers from contracting a progressive and frequently fatal lung disease called chronic beryllium disease. In the 1940s, workers at the Atomic Energy Commission plants were contracting acute beryllium poisoning. To deal with the problem, two of their scientists sitting in the back of a taxicab on the way to a meeting agreed to set the beryllium exposure limit at 2 micrograms per cubic meter of air. Established back in 1948, that standard is still in place today and is often called ``the taxicab standard'' because there was no data supporting that number. In 1975, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health advised OSHA to issue a new, more stringent protective standard. That effort faltered. Now, one cost of inaction is an estimated loss of 100 lives per year each year this new standard is delayed. Another is the fact that we have to pay over $300 million in Federal compensation to workers and their survivors who have contracted chronic beryllium disease and who are employed by the Energy Department's contractors and vendors. Today, over 100,000 workers are exposed to beryllium, and workers in my district are not alone in asking the government to be on their side. There is substantial stakeholder support from beryllium producers and labor representatives to cut the standard exposure limit by 90 percent. Over the last 17 years, OSHA has worked to update that standard, based on numerous scientific studies and expert recommendations, and now, the new standard is working its way slowly through the regulatory process; and under the present laws and procedures, it still might be another year or two before the final rule is promulgated. Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that this nearly 70-year-old standard fails to protect workers, there are still a few who object. By requiring a bicameral resolution of approval prior to the rule ever taking effect, this legislation will make it easier for a well-funded special interest group to block needed workplace protections. The underlying bill does nothing but prioritize special interests above the protection of lives and limbs of American workers. I, therefore, urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague that would, in essence, prohibit the EPA from spending any funds to ensure that states fulfill their obligations under the Clean Water Act to help clean up the Chesapeake Bay. If passed into law, this amendment would endanger the progress we have made in restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and would put in jeopardy not only the Chesapeake Bay itself, but also critical economic contributions that the Bay provides. When I was in the Virginia House of Delegates, I was part of a joint Virginia-Maryland legislative task force that first recommended the creation of a multi-state commission to address Bay issues. In our report filed in 1980, we recommended ``the need for improved coordination of Bay-wide management to meet the long-term needs of the people of both Maryland and Virginia'' and found that this was not an issue that Maryland and Virginia alone could solve. Cleaning up the Bay required the cooperation of all states in the watershed. In 1983, Chesapeake Bay Watershed states signed the first Chesapeake Bay agreement to coordinate their efforts on this issue, and in 2010 the EPA set pollution limits to reduce pollution, nutrients, and sediment flowing into the Bay. As a result of these efforts, the quality of the Chesapeake Bay has been significantly improved and states continue to invest millions of dollars in their Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint Plans. Just yesterday, a unanimous decision was issued by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the authority of the EPA under the Clean Water Act to set limits on pollution in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. In the decision, the Court wrote that cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay ``will require sacrifice . . . but that is a consequence of the tremendous effort it will take to restore health to the bay.'' I agree with the Court's assessment: cleaning up the Bay will take tremendous efforts and coordination between all six states in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and the District of Columbia, and participating states should have the certainty that other states can be trusted to fulfill their obligations to help clean up the Bay. I believe that instead of offering amendments to undermine these efforts, we should be investing even more resources to ensure that they are successful. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, more than 60 years ago, in Brown vs. Board of Education, the Supreme Court talked about the value of education when it said that, these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity where the State has undertaken to provide it is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms. The fact is that equal educational opportunities were not and still are not always available in low-income areas, basically, for two reasons. First, we fund education through the real estate tax, virtually guaranteeing that wealthy areas will have more resources; and just with the give and take in politics, you know that low-income areas will generally get the short end of the stick. In 1965, we enacted the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to recognize the disparities in funding. It addresses ``the special educational needs of children of low-income families and the impact that concentrations of low-income families have on the ability of local educational agencies to support adequate educational programs.'' While public education would remain fundamentally a local issue through ESEA, the government recognized that, without Federal oversight and support, districts would not address these inequities. In the last reauthorization, better known as No Child Left Behind, in addition to money, Congress required States to identify and address achievement gaps. Because of that work, the education of our children has been much improved, as high school dropout rates are at historic lows, as the long-term scores on the national tests have gone up, and as the achievement gaps for racial and ethnic minorities have actually been closing, but the gap between rich and poor has actually been going up. Mr. Speaker, with that background, the House has put forth its vision of the reauthorization of the ESEA, the Student Success Act. It violates the original purpose of ESEA, first, by reducing the funding, but also by changing the funding formula to take money from low-income areas and to give it to wealthy areas. For example, Los Angeles, with 70 percent poverty, would lose about a quarter of its funding while Beverly Hills, with virtually no poverty, would pick up about 30 percent in additional funding under that new formula. This rule enables amendments that, if adopted in the bill, will significantly reduce the ability of States to determine academic achievement gaps. Now, I recognize that everybody is mad at having to take tests, and we address that in the bill by auditing the number of tests, making sure that there are as few as possible and that they are used for purposes which are validated. The bill significantly scales back the ability of States to identify achievement gaps and then scales back their requirement to do anything about it. These are the major flaws in H.R. 5: less funding, less ability to determine the achievement gaps, and then no requirement to do anything about it. There are other problems with the bill, for example, block granting programs that will end up underfunding bilingual education, afterschool programs, STEM, arts education, and others. These vital programs will certainly do worse. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, we should both defeat the rule. And if the rule passes, we should defeat the bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. As the gentleman from Colorado has indicated, if you have a good bill, you should have as long an authorization as possible. It allows for better planning and the other things he mentioned. But this is a bad bill. The funding formula takes from the poor and gives to the rich. It eliminates the responsibility to actually do something about the achievement gaps. I just believe the quicker we can get back to it, the better. So if you want to shorten the authorization so that the pain inflicted on this bill is shorter, I am for it.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The amendment would literally let States just take the money and run with no assurance that the billions of Federal dollars actually benefit the populations of students that ESEA was intended to serve: low- income, minority students who do not speak English, students with disabilities. The original purpose of ESEA was to address the special educational needs of children of low-income families and the impact that concentrations of low-income families have on the ability of local educational agencies to support adequate educational programs. Subsequently, we added a requirement that you identify and address achievement gaps. That is the purpose of the law. If you just opt out and take it as a block grant, you don't have to address the problems that the money is designed to cure. The underlying bill violates the original purpose of the original ESEA, and this amendment just makes it worse. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the ESEA passed in 1965 because States and localities were not equitably funding the schools. The ESEA required the money to be spent primarily in the areas with a concentration of low-income families. If this amendment passes, we can reasonably assume that they will go back to the way they were doing it. This makes a bad bill even worse. So I would hope that we would defeat the amendment and keep the requirement that the States, in using the money, address the fiscal inequalities and achievement gaps. With this amendment, there are no requirements that they do anything, and we can reasonably assume that they would go back to doing the things they were doing to begin with before the ESEA passed. I would hope we would defeat this amendment. 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. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, it is one thing to keep a light on problems like achievement gaps, as the underlying bill does, but it kind of sweeps everything under the rug. Before the participation threshold of 95 percent, only one State actually assessed 95 percent of students with disabilities, and it was not unusual for low-achieving students to suddenly have field trips on testing day. If you are not measuring the achievement gap, you can't deal with the achievement gap. We need to make sure that enough students test, which is 95 percent, so that we can actually identify the achievement gaps and do something about it. Parents do have the right to opt out, but when the dust settles, at least 95 percent will have had to have taken the test. We have situations now in which, if you eliminate that requirement, school systems can encourage people not to show up on testing day. They can have field trips on testing day and can manipulate the data so that, if only half of the students are taking the test and if you make sure that it is the good students who are taking the test, your scores all of a sudden will go up. The requirement that 95 percent get tested means you have meaningful data so that you can find out what the problem is, and then you can deal with it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. If this amendment passes, school systems will have an incentive to address achievement gaps not by the hard work that it takes to close the achievement gaps, but by just manipulating the data. That is wrong, and this amendment ought to be defeated. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the present law only requires that States identify achievement gaps and prescribes exactly what has to be done to address the achievement gaps. Unfortunately, the one-size-fits-all prescription has often failed to effectively address the achievement gaps. The underlying bill goes overboard by eliminating any requirement that something gets done. The gentleman's amendment reinstates the requirement that something be done, but directs the States to develop their own locally tailored response to achievement gaps. This approach is much more likely to be effective and will be part of the Democratic substitute that will be voted on shortly. Mr. Chairman, before we leave the bill, I would like to thank many members of our staff that have worked on this bill since January. They have spent days and nights and weekends working on the bill, and I would like to acknowledge them and their work today. Denise Forte, Jacque Chevalier, Christian Haines, Ashlyn Holeyfield, Arika Trim, Tina Hone, Tylease Alli, Kiara Pesante, and Brian Kennedy all worked very hard on this bill and deserve significant recognition.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 388, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes. Madam Chair, this amendment that I am offering today would repurpose just 1 percent of the funding for the Federal prison system and restore funding for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Madam Chair, the underlying bill zeros out both title II formula grants and title V discretionary grants for prevention and early intervention programs, which were funded last year at approximately $70 million. To ensure that our State juvenile justice systems are not irreparably damaged, this amendment would take just 1 percent away from our Federal prison systems, approximately $70 million, to maintain our commitment to prevention and early intervention. The prison system can take steps to deal with this reduction by limiting duplicate prosecutions or pursuing evidence-based alternatives to incarceration, particularly for first-time offenders. These practices not only will save money, but will also improve public safety. We have a choice, Madam Chair. We can invest in prisons after the fact, or we can invest in prevention and early intervention before the fact and eliminate what the Children's Defense Fund calls the Cradle to Prison Pipeline. Madam Chair, at this point, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I thank the gentleman for allowing us to debate because I understand the point of order will be sustained. There will be other opportunities during the legislative process, as the ranking member of the subcommittee has indicated, to deal with this issue. The way the bill has been drafted, it was impossible to get an amendment in order, but there will be other possibilities later on in the process, and I would hope the chair and the ranking member will work effectively to make sure that we deal with the choice that we have, whether we are going to just put money away for young people to get in trouble and then deal with it or we can deal with it in advance with prevention and early intervention. This is what this amendment would do. Madam Chair, if the gentleman is going to assert his point of order, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment and deal with the issue later on in the process.