Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 75th Anniversary of the Old Dominion Bar Association (ODBA), of which I am proud to be a member. Members will be gathering next week in Glen Allen, Virginia for their annual conference and to celebrate this historic milestone. The ODBA traces its history to a December 1940 incident where an African American lawyer was asked to move to another section of the law library of the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. Frederic Charles Carter, Esq. was working in the law library when he was ordered to move to another section because of an alleged new Supreme Court policy limiting African American attorneys to a specific section of the law library. Carter refused to move and the head librarian summoned a police officer to demand Carter see him in his office. Carter later inquired in a letter to the Chief Justice whether the court had indeed issued a new policy relegating African American lawyers to a special section of the law library. Several months passed with no response from the Court, so Carter began reaching out to fellow African American Attorneys in the Commonwealth of Virginia, including R. H. Cooley, Jr. of Petersburg. Cooley also contacted colleagues in Norfolk, Newport News, and Portsmouth, as well as at the Howard University School of Law, to discuss the need to organize a bar association in Virginia specifically for African American attorneys. Throughout 1941, Cooley and the following individuals met to organize the ODBA: J. Thomas Hewin, Sr., Roland D. Ealey, James T. Carter, Fredric Charles Carter, J. Byron Hopkins and Oliver W. Hill of Richmond; W. S. Duiguid of Lynchburg; Martin A. Martin of Danville; Thomas W. Young and J. Eugene Diggs of Norfolk; James Raby of Alexandria; and L. Marian Poe of Newport News. The organizational meeting for the ODBA was set for April 12, 1942 in Richmond. Twenty-five attorneys attended the organizational meeting where they elected their inaugural officers: Oliver W. Hill, President; L. Marian Poe, Secretary; Martin A. Martin, Vice-President; and James M. Morris (of Staunton), Treasurer. On May 21, 1942, the new association met again to adopt their constitution and set an annual membership fee of $4.50. Some balked at the cost which prompted Oliver Hill to include the following message on organization notices: ``If you are very, very busy--we need you. If you don't think you can afford it, you need us.'' As America became increasingly involved in World War II, many ODBA members, including its president Oliver W. Hill, entered military service to fight for our nation overseas. It was during this time that R. H. Cooley, Jr. became the organization's acting president. Throughout the war, he urged all members to ``keep abreast with service legislation in order to aid men and women in uniform and their families in matters pertaining to insurance, dependency allotments and any other phases necessary to solve their perplexing problems.'' Cooley also urged association members to help returning veterans, including volunteering their legal services when necessary. By the war's end, there were forty-four active members of the association all across the Commonwealth, with local groups of ODBA members established in Richmond, on the Virginia Peninsula, in South Hampton Roads, and in Northern Virginia. Originally organized to confront a discriminatory policy that offended the personal and professional dignity of members of the Virginia Bar, it has grown into an essential professional organization for African American attorneys practicing law in the Commonwealth of Virginia. It has not only provided positive professional relationships for its members and trained them to be effective advocates for their clients, but has also broken down barriers to membership and full participation for African American attorneys statewide and in the local bar associations and to their election as judges throughout Virginia. Moreover, its members have led the effort to desegregate America in all areas of public and private life, including education, employment, housing, and public accommodations. Today, the ODBA continues its strong legacy of pursuing justice and ensuring its member lawyers hold themselves to the highest level of professional skill and conduct. The association holds numerous professional development seminars annually. And its members are very active in other national, state and local bar associations, as well as their local communities in general through community service and active civic engagement. Mr. Speaker, as the Old Dominion Bar Association gathers in Glen Allen next week for its annual meeting, I wish to congratulate the association's current president, Helivi L. Holland, Esq., and all its members, past and present, on this 75th anniversary and thank them for all that they have done and continue to do on behalf of the legal profession and the full participation of all in the life and bounties of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the nation as a whole.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, 50 years ago today, President Lyndon B. Johnson announced from the White House Rose Garden that enrollment would begin for an early childhood education program called Project Head Start. For the last half century, Head Start has been more than just an education program. It not only includes quality preschool but also critical support services, including family engagement, health services, and good nutrition. Studies have found that children in Head Start do better academically, have better behavior, and better health status than their peers. The program also saves more money than it costs by reducing teen pregnancy, high school dropouts, and the likelihood of incarceration. Madam Speaker, we know that Head Start works. As we mark the occasion of 50 years of one of the most successful early intervention programs, let us recommit ourselves to the ideal that all of our children have access to quality preschool education, like Head Start.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I insert for the Record two letters, one from Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the other from over 20 organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League, Catholics for Choice, People for the American Way, United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society, over 20 organizations. Both letters are in opposition to the resolution. Americans United, April 30, 2015. Re: Oppose Attempts to Curtail Civil Rights in the District of Columbia Dear Representative: On behalf of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, we write to urge you to oppose efforts to curtail civil rights in the District of Columbia, including H.J. Res. 43, the resolution to disapprove of D.C.'s Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014 (RHNDAA). This bill, which the D.C. Council recently passed unanimously, expands civil rights and effectuates the will of the people of D.C. It should not be nullified by Congress. Founded in 1947, Americans United is a nonpartisan educational organization dedicated to preserving the, constitutional principle of church-state separation as the only way to ensure true religious freedom for all Americans. We fight to protect the right of individuals and religious communities to worship--or not--as they see fit without government interference, compulsion, support, or disparagement. Americans United has more than 120,000 members and supporters across the country. the reproductive health non-discrimination amendment act The RHNDAA protects D.C. employees and their dependents from discrimination based on their personal reproductive health care decisions. This bill strengthens existing protections against employment discrimination and ensures that employees and their families can make their own private health decisions, including whether, when, and how to start a family and what the size of their family should be, without fear of losing their jobs or facing retribution from their employers. Our nation's laws have long protected the freedom of religion and belief, ensuring every person has the right to follow the dictates of his or her own conscience. Contrary to opponents' claims, the RHNDAA does not violate religious freedom protections. In accordance with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, religious beliefs do not excuse compliance with valid and neutral laws of general applicability. Courts deem laws neutral unless they ``target religious beliefs'' or ``if the object of [the] law is to infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious motivation.'' The RHNDAA does not single out religious beliefs or practices. Instead, the bill treats all employers the same. The RHNDAA would also survive a challenge under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which applies to D.C. RFRA prohibits the government from ``substantially burden[ing] a person's exercise of religion'' unless the government can demonstrate that the burden is justified by a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. RFRA is not triggered when there is just ``the slightest obstacle to religious exercise.'' And, burdens are permissible when the government's interest is important, including combatting discrimination. The bill does not compel any employer to endorse any actions that may be in conflict with their religious tenets. This act merely ensures that employees and their families face no employment consequences for their private health care decisions. Eradicating employment discrimination against women is a compelling government interest and there is no less restrictive means of preventing discrimination. Furthermore, this bill protects women who choose to exercise their constitutionally protected rights to make ``personal choice[s] in matters of marriage and family life.'' Business owners are absolutely entitled to their religious beliefs--but they cannot use their beliefs to justify discrimination against their employees. The RHNDAA would make sure that employees and their families can make their own private health decisions, based on their own consciences and in consultation with their own physicians, without fear of losing their job. Finally, it's important to remember that the RHNDAA does not override existing protections for religious employers in hiring. The D.C. Human Rights Act already contains an exemption for employers ``operated, supervised, or controlled by or in connection with a religious . . . organization'' to give preference or limit employment to those of the same faith. Moreover, as the Supreme Court held in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. E.E.O.C., the First Amendment protects religious institutions' right to make decisions about employees in ministerial positions--those who preach and teach the faith. The RHNDAA does not alter these already-existing protections. The Human Rights Amendment Act Although the House will be voting on H.J. Res. 43, which would prevent the RHNDAA from taking effect, H.J. Res. 44, a resolution of disapproval of D.C.'s Human Rights Amendment Act of 2014 (HRAA), has also been introduced. This is another attempt to curtail civil rights in the District of Columbia and should likewise be rejected. The HRAA would ensure that LGBT students in the District are not subject to discrimination by educational institutions. Under the HRAA, religiously affiliated educational institutions would have to provide LGBT student groups with the same equal access to school facilities and services as all other student groups, but they would not be required to provide LGBT student groups with funds or official recognition. The HRAA, like the RHNDAA, has also been attacked by opponents claiming it violates religious freedom protections under the First Amendment and RFRA. But religiously affiliated educational institutions have neither a constitutional nor statutory right to discriminate against LGBT student groups in the name of religion. The HRAA is a neutral law of general applicability that has the effect of ensuring all schools and universities provide equal access and services to LGBT students. It would not compel the schools to fund or recognize LGBT student groups and serves a government interest that the D.C. Court of Appeals long ago held was compelling. As explained by the Court, eradicating discrimination against LGBT students serves to ``foster[] individual dignity, . . . creat[e] a climate and environment in which each individual can utilize his or her potential to contribute to and benefit from society, and [promote the] equal protection of the life, liberty and property that the Founding Fathers guaranteed to us all:'' Conclusion The D.C. Council, supported by the people it represents, passed the RHNDAA and the HRAA to protect members of the D.C. community from discrimination. Contrary to the rhetoric surrounding this bill, it does not violate religious liberty protections. Rather, the RHNDAA stands to protect all employees in the District from discrimination. Accordingly, we urge you to reject any attempts to curtail civil rights in the District of Columbia, including H.J. Res. 43. Religion should never be used an excuse to justify discrimination. Yet that is what opponents of these measures would like to do. We know there will be other attempts to misuse religious liberty in Congress. We urge you to reject this one and those to come. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, Maggie Garrett, Legislative Director, Americans United for Separation of Church and State Elise Helgesen Aguilar, Federal Legislative Counsel, Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 43. This resolution would express Congress' disapproval of the District of Columbia's legislation that would protect employees from discrimination based on their reproductive health decisions. Just last month, the States of Indiana and Arkansas attempted to pass so-called ``religious freedom'' bills that are really an attempt to permit discrimination. Tonight, we are debating a resolution that would allow employers to fire or refuse to hire workers because of their private reproductive medical decisions, notwithstanding the protection provided to the employees by the District of Columbia. Madam Speaker, in 1993, when Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, better known as RFRA, it did so with the intent to expand protections for religious exercise; but since then, we have seen attempts by Congress and some States to use so-called ``religious liberty'' or ``religious freedom'' measures to undermine otherwise valid protections against discrimination provided in the Civil Rights Act. This resolution would allow claims of a ``sincerely held religious belief'' to justify otherwise illegal discrimination. The reasoning in this resolution would also undermine all civil rights laws because anyone could claim a sincerely held religious belief to justify discrimination based on anything--race, religion, or any other protected class. The District of Columbia got it right. This law protects Washington, D.C., citizens from invidious discrimination based on reproductive health decisions. We should not overrule this legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 43.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 150th anniversary of First Baptist Church, Berkley in Norfolk, Virginia. In 1865, thirty members of Bank Street Baptist Church began praying in a tent abandoned by Union soldiers after the culmination of the Civil War. These meetings were later moved to the homes of the various members. On April 15, 1868, these individuals received letters of dismissal from Bank Street Baptist and left to begin a new church led by Reverend Samuel S. Jones. The new church was initially called Cedar Grove Baptist, receiving its name from the cedar trees that lined the road to the church. An empty plantation building served as the first church building and services were held in a large upper room. The congregation soon outgrew the plantation building and moved to a new worship hall on the corner of Pine and Walnut Streets. Reverend Richard Wright was elected the new pastor of Cedar Grove Baptist. Reverend Wright began fund-raising for a new hall of worship, but passed away prior to completion. Reverend Madison Lewis served as pastor for nearly 10 years and was leading the church at the completion of First Baptist Church Montaland. Unfortunately, the Montaland church building was devastated by a fire in 1908 and a new church could not be constructed until 1910. After the fire, the congregation met at the local Masonic Hall. In 1910, the new church building, named First Baptist Church, Berkley, opened its doors to the Norfolk community. Throughout the church's entire history, First Baptist Church, Berkley has had a rich legacy of outreach. During the Great Depression, under the leadership of Reverend John Carter Diamond, the church helped feed the community by opening soup kitchens and bread lines. The church created a nursery and hired unemployed mothers to supplement their family income. With a focus on education, the nursery was converted into a church kindergarten. In 1963, Reverend William Tyree, Jr. began his pastorship with a philosophy of educating the congregation. Under his leadership, several classes were created to benefit all members of the church. Through his strong belief in education, Reverend Tyree formed the Tri-Committee, which focused on the church's outreach into the community through social and civic engagement. Reverend Tyree recognized the need for a new church facility and led the congregation in an effort to build the current location of First Baptist Church, Berkley at Berkley Avenue and Culpepper Street, which opened on June 22, 1986. Reverend Tyree served the church for more than 32 years before his passing on December 23, 1994. His son, William D. Tyree, III, began his pastorship in May of 1996 and continues to serve the church today. Over the last 150 years, 13 pastors have served the church's congregation--Rev. Samuel S. Jones, Rev. Richard Wright, Rev. Madison Lewis, Rev. H.L. Barco, Rev. Sutton Griggs, Rev. J.H. Randolph, Rev. W.R. Slade, Rev. Lafayette Sharpe, Rev. A.O. Bello, Rev. John Carter Diamond, Rev. Noel C. Taylor, Rev. William D. Tyree, Jr., and Rev. William D. Tyree, III. Mr. Speaker, as First Baptist Church, Berkley of Norfolk, Virginia celebrates this historic milestone, the congregation can rejoice in 150 years of successful discipleship and public service in the Hampton Roads community. I would like to congratulate the 13th pastor of First Baptist Church, Berkley, Reverend William D. Tyree, III, and all of the members of the church's congregation on the occasion of its 150th Anniversary. I wish them many more years of fellowship and dedicated service to the community.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize a significant milestone that occurred 50 years ago this week. On April 11, 1965, President Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The enactment of the ESEA followed the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, guaranteeing all children equal educational opportunities. Unfortunately, communities with high concentrations of poverty have never enjoyed equal rights. So, for the last 50 years, the ESEA has remained the single-largest Federal resource for schools that teach our most vulnerable students. If we are to keep our promise of equal educational opportunity for all, then we must redouble our efforts to level the public education playing field by ensuring that all students have both the resources to achieve academic excellence and the promise of action to intervene when their academic needs aren't being met. This year, we need to renew ESEA in order to bring our education system into the 21st century, and we must not waver in our commitment to basic civil rights and education that we made 50 years ago this week.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Congressional Black Caucus budget, which is a more credible and responsible alternative than the underlying Republican budget. A nation's budget reflects its priorities, but the Republican budget continues to highlight the wrong priorities. The underlying Republican budget is not a serious plan. It contains trillions of dollars in tax cuts, but claims to be revenue neutral, without showing a dime's worth of tax increases that will be necessary to make it revenue neutral. It includes trillions of dollars in unspecified cuts, and many of the specified cuts will not be made. For example, are we really going to repeal Medicare as we know it? If you actually believe that the Republican majority will carry out their plan, it would actually devastate our economy by balancing the budget on the backs of students, workers, seniors, the disabled, and vulnerable communities across the Nation. The Republican budget assumes that sequestration cuts will be enacted and then adds an additional $759 billion in nondefense discretionary spending cuts. That is the part of the budget that invests in education, workforce training, scientific research, transportation, and infrastructure. In stark contrast to the Republican budget, the Congressional Black Caucus budget actually puts real numbers on the page. We show our arithmetic. The CBC budget proposes $2.7 trillion in additional revenue over the next decade, but our budget lays out $5.6 trillion in specific revenue options and loophole closings that Congress could adopt to achieve that goal. With this additional revenue, we eliminate sequestration; we propose a $500 billion jobs package that will put millions of people back to work, and we include more than $300 billion above the President's budget for significant and sustained investments in programs that have been instrumental in lifting millions of Americans out of poverty. Our budget also calls for a raise in the minimum wage, adds a public option to the health insurance marketplace, and calls for the passage of comprehensive immigration reform. Factoring in the paid-for elimination of sequestration, our revenue enhancements, CBO's analysis of the deficit reduction impacts of both enacting a public option and comprehensive immigration reform, our budget credibly reduces the 10- year deficit by $1.9 trillion when compared to CBO's March baseline. Mr. Chairman, our budget is a credible alternative to the vague and unrealistic plan offered by our Republican colleagues, and I urge my colleagues to support the CBC budget. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 30 seconds before yielding to another speaker. The case has been made that this budget raises taxes. Sure, it does. But the Republican budget also raises taxes. They have cut the AMT. They have reduced the marginal rate. There are other tax extenders. And they say it is revenue-neutral. The only way you can make it revenue-neutral, Mr. Chair, is to raise taxes-- trillions of dollars to make it revenue-neutral. They don't show a dime of taxes. The difference between that budget and ours is, we list specific options that could be used. They also would repeal the Affordable Care Act, but they keep all the taxes that paid for it.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, could you advise us of the time remaining on both sides.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her courtesy in extending additional time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, there is a percentage of the economy, the Republican underlying budget is 40 percent lower than the previous low in half a century. It is only balanced because it is missing a couple of trillion dollars where you cut taxes and say it is revenue neutral. There is no indication that the taxes will be restored. It is unrealistic because the level of cuts won't be made. You are not going to repeal Medicare as you know it. We have tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act over 50 times and haven't been able to do it. It is interesting that they want to repeal the services but not the taxes. There are substantial cuts in Pell grants and increases in student loans. Transportation initiatives are just about zeroed out. On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, the CBC budget has specific tax increases. It shows that we make money by comprehensive immigration reform and the public option. We pay to eliminate sequestration. We create jobs, eliminate poverty, and have a realistic budget. I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that we would adopt the Congressional Black Caucus budget as a realistic priority, with the right priorities we would adopt the Congressional Black Caucus budget. 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. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the underlying Republican budget for fiscal year 2016, and I also rise to commend the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) for his strong opposition. Mr. Chairman, this budget is not a serious plan. It contains trillions of dollars in tax cuts, but it doesn't show a dime's worth of tax increases when they say it is going to be revenue neutral. It includes trillions of dollars in unspecified cuts that will not be made. For example, are we really going to repeal Medicare as we know it? If you actually believe that the Republican majority will carry out this plan, it would actually devastate our economy by balancing the budget on the backs of students, workers, seniors, the disabled, and vulnerable communities across the Nation. The Republican budget assumes that sequestration cuts will be enacted and then adds an additional $759 billion in nondefense discretionary spending cuts. That is the part of the budget that invests in education, workforce training, scientific research, transportation, and infrastructure. With those cuts, the budget would be funded at 40 percent below the lowest level in the last 50 years as a percentage of GDP. Those cuts will not be made, but if they are, that would be devastating. As the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I am particularly concerned about the cuts in education. Education funding would be cut by $103 billion over 10 years. That is a 22 percent cut in Federal aid to teachers, principals, school districts, colleges, and universities. That will include significant cuts in title I funding, resources that go to areas of high poverty school districts. It would cut the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which supports educational services and resources for students with disabilities, and there would be significant cuts to Head Start. College students are having trouble paying for tuition, room, and board. Well, this budget cuts Pell grants. In the area of job training and employment services, the budget would result in 2 million fewer workers receiving critical support and does nothing to help the long-term unemployed get back into the workforce. Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget sends students, families, and workers down the wrong path at this important crossroad. We need a strong budget that reflects the values of all Americans and makes the necessary investments in programs that we know will expand the economy for all. The Republican budget fails to do this and, therefore, should be rejected.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wilson), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S.J. Res. 8. The Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval that we are considering today would undo the NLRB's election rule. The National Labor Relations Board election rule was promulgated to make the election process more efficient and fair. The current process to hold an election on whether to form a union is badly broken. After workers have filed a petition to hold an election, bad actors can use frivolous litigation to stall an election for months, even years. Election delays can provide opportunities for unscrupulous employers to engage in threats, coercion, and intimidation of workers. These delays can be exploited to violate workers' rights, including firing pro-union workers or threatening to close the plant if the workers choose to vote a certain way. We all know that the sanctions against violations are insufficient to deter the unscrupulous activities, including firing pro-union employees. Researchers from the Center for Labor Research and Education at Berkeley found that the longer the delay before the union election, the more likely the employer was to engage in illegal conduct that violates its employees' rights. The NLRB election rule would help prevent the illegal intimidation and coercion of workers. Mr. Speaker, this regulation provides targeted solutions to discrete, specifically identifiable problems. The rule brings into the 21st century the updating of rules involving the transmission of documents and communications, allowing you to use email and electronic communication rather than paper. It will enable the Board to better fulfill its responsibility to protect employees' rights by fairly, accurately, and quickly resolving issues of representation. In many cases, the rule just simplifies and standardizes practices that have been common in regions all over the country already, or reflects existing practices used in civil actions. The rule does not change substantive law involving elections. It just makes sure that you can have a timely election. These modest updates provide workers and employees with reasonable time to consider unionization while preventing unreasonable delay by bad actors. Now, Mr. Speaker, this resolution isn't going to go very far. The administration has already issued a Statement of Administration Policy that I would like to quote from. It says that: ``The Board's modest reforms will help simplify and streamline private sector union elections, thereby reducing delays before workers can have a free and fair vote on whether or not to form or join a union.'' It goes on to say that: ``Giving workers greater voice can help ensure that the link is restored between hard work and opportunity and that the benefits of the current economic recovery are more broadly shared. ``The National Labor Relations Board's representation case procedures rule helps to level the playing field for workers so they can more freely choose to make their voice heard. In doing so, it will help us build an economy that gives greater economic opportunities and security for middle-class families and those working to join the middle class.'' It concludes, Mr. Speaker, that: ``If the President were presented with S.J. Res. 8, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the Resolution.'' Mr. Speaker, instead of wasting time on this resolution, we should be addressing job creation, stagnating wages, economic inequality, and working to improve opportunities for Americans, rather than considering this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.