Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Is the chairman prepared to close?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The rule that is subject to this resolution creates no substantive change in the law. It just requires that an election be timely. We have heard this 11-day myth. Let me just go through a little about that myth and how you get to the 11 days. First of all, the regional office would have to issue a notice of a hearing on the same day that the union would have filed the election petition. The hearing would have to be held as soon as possible and last only one day, and the regional director would have to issue an opinion on the same day. Right now, it currently takes a median of 20 days for the regional director to issue a decision on the hearing, and there is no reason to believe that it would be any shorter under this rule. The union would have to waive all of its rights to get information in terms of contact lists and things like that, and the region would have to schedule the election on the very first day possible. The chance that all of that is going to happen to get you down to 11 days is just very improbable. The administration has already indicated that its senior advisers would recommend a veto of this legislation, so it is not going anywhere. I look forward to working with the chair of the committee to do what we can to create jobs and to increase wages and to create safe workplaces. I would hope that the chair and I will get together on that rather than waste time on this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the Statement of Administration Policy. Statement of Administration Policy S.J. Res. 8--Congressional Disapproval of National Labor Relations Board Representation Case Procedures Rule (Sen. Alexander, R-TN and 51 cosponsors, Mar. 3, 2015) The Administration strongly opposes Senate passage of S.J. Res. 8, which would overturn the National Labor Relations Board's recently issued ``representation case procedures'' rule. 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. The rule allows for electronic filing and transmission of documents, ensures that all parties receive timely information necessary to participate in the election process, reduces delays caused by frivolous litigation, unifies procedures across the country, requires additional contact information be included in voter lists, and consolidates appeals to the Board into a single process. Instead of seeking to undermine a streamlined democratic process for American workers to vote on whether or not they want to be represented, the Congress should join the President in strengthening protections for American workers and giving them more of a voice in the workplace and the economy. Growing and sustaining the middle class requires strong and vital labor unions, which helped to build this Nation's middle class and have been critical to raising workers' wages and putting in place worker protections that we enjoy today. 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. If the President were presented with S.J. Res. 8, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the Resolution.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 75th anniversary of the Dochiki Civic and Social Club in Newport News, Virginia. Originally known as ``Los Amigas,'' the club was founded on March 15, 1940 by eleven businessmen gathered at the Odessa Barber Shop located at 29th Street and Chestnut Avenue in Newport News. Two years later, the name of the club was changed to ``Dochiki,'' a word of Chinese origin meaning love and friendship. The founders of the club were Homer Hines, Ward Bridgeforth, Virgil Evans, B. C. Anthony, Oliver Hawkins, James Hawkins, Harold Heath, James Jones, Irving Thomas, Robert Whitney, and Howard Ovelest. The club initially met in members' homes, and in 1948 they relocated to a room above a club member's garage which they nicknamed ``Alley Inn.'' As membership increased, the club leased larger space to accommodate its growing membership, and, on August 7, 1952, the club purchased property at 2705 Chestnut Avenue in Newport News, where it still meets today. In addition to this property, the club has acquired additional property along Chestnut Avenue through donations of club members, including Cornelius Glover, which allowed the club to significantly expand its facilities. Today, the club occupies much of the 2700 block of Chestnut Avenue and includes numerous amenities, such as a 300-seat ballroom, a commercial kitchen, restroom suites, office space, recreational and storage areas, lounges, a 24-seat bar with adjacent kitchen, a locker room, and ample parking, all of which are accessible for individuals with disabilities. The club offers its facilities for use free of charge to many community groups and has also served as the Chestnut Avenue voting precinct for many years. While Dochiki remains a place for men to socialize, debate politics, and enjoy sports, women have also played an active role in the club for much of its history. In 1960, the Dochiki Wives Auxiliary, Inc. was established to compliment the men's club and support its educational, social, health and civic projects targeted at aiding charities, youth programs, and senior citizens. Since its founding 75 years ago, the Dochiki Civic and Social Club has been actively involved in the Newport News community providing outstanding civic, social and philanthropic leadership to their fellow citizens. The club has raised tens of thousands of dollars for local charities, youth programs, and senior citizen projects. It has also strongly encouraged all of its members and fellow citizens in the community to be actively engaged in the electoral process. Today, the club's membership includes businessmen, educators, elected officials, members of the military and other professionals throughout the community, all of whom are devoted to supporting and improving the Newport News community through active civic engagement. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Dochiki Civic and Social Club on their 75th anniversary and I thank them for all that they have done to make Newport News a better place to live, work, and raise a family.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I include for the Record a list of civil rights, education, child advocacy, and health-related organizations in support of this amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield myself 5 minutes. In the unanimous decision of Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court said: In 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 are not now available in low-income communities: first, because education is generally funded by the local real estate taxes, guaranteeing that wealthier areas will have more resources for education; and, second, because, in the normal give and take of politics, low-income areas never do as well as wealthier areas. All of these studies conclude that areas of concentrated poverty need more, not less, in order to provide adequate educational opportunities. With the 1965 enactment of the first Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Congress provided Federal money 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.'' Unfortunately, today, only a small handful of States has taken steps to completely equalize their education funding. ESEA was not and should never become a general education fund for all. The purpose of the law is to provide States limited, supplemental funding that is targeted to schools and students left behind in what remains an unequal system. Over the last 50 years, we have recognized that students with disabilities, neglected and delinquent students, homeless students, and nonnative English speaking students also faced local educational systems unprepared and sometimes unwilling to provide the resources they needed. We have made a difference. The improvement is real. Graduation rates are at all-time highs, and achievement gaps have narrowed. We have made real progress, but there is still a lot more that needs to be done. The amendment before us is a substitute for the underlying bill because H.R. 5, in its current form, retreats from the most important principles of ESEA. During this debate, no one has refuted our assertion that this bill takes money from the poorest school districts in America and gives it to the most affluent ones. That is because the assertion is true. Baltimore City, with a higher concentration of low-income students, will lose an estimated $5.7 million under H.R. 5, an 11 percent decrease, while the Baltimore suburb of Howard County, with lower poverty levels, will gain $1.1 million, which is a 25 percent increase. Chicago City schools have a student population with 85 percent receiving free and reduced lunches. The suburb of Naperville has 13 percent of students receiving free and reduced lunches. Under H.R. 5, Chicago loses $64 million, while Naperville gains a half a million. Republicans call this ``portability.'' We call it reverse Robin Hood, taking from the poor to give to the wealthy. In addition to the funding formula change, the bill reduces funding levels and eliminates maintenance of effort. Maintenance of effort prevents States from reducing educational spending and replacing it with Federal money. We should guarantee the Federal money will be in addition to ongoing State spending so that children will actually benefit from the Federal resources. H.R. 5 further eliminates dedicated funding for English learners and disabled students. The Democratic substitute seeks to address the fundamental flaws within the Republican bill. It restores funding priority to areas of concentrated poverty, English learners, and the disabled. It requires States to set high and meaningful standards for all students so that those who graduate from high school will be college and career ready and will be able to pursue college or work without need for remediation. It supports our teachers by ensuring that they will have the resources and training they need to do their jobs. It addresses the concerns of too much testing by providing States support to improve State assessment systems and by providing funding to eliminate all unnecessary tests. We are faced with a tremendous opportunity to bring our education system into the 21st century in order to ensure that all students are prepared for success in the global economy. Democrats and Republicans agree about the need for flexibility and innovation, but where we disagree is on the role of the Federal Government. We believe that there is a Federal role in fulfilling the promise of the Brown decision: that all students must have access to equal educational opportunities. The choice is clear. We should reinstate the original purpose of ESEA by supporting the substitute amendment. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Democratic leader.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, could you state again how much time is left?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield 30 seconds to my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Beyer), former Lieutenant Governor.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, can you remind us how much time we have left?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, is the gentleman prepared to close?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I would like to take a moment to thank my staff and would like to introduce a list of the staff members who have worked hard on this bill: Denise Forte, Jacque Chevalier, Christian Haines, Kelly Broughan, Scott Groginsky, Ashlyn Holeyfield, Brett Roude, and Theresa Thompson. They worked hard on this bill. We were given 2 legislative days to put a substitute together. We did the best we could. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I think the case has been made for the growth model as opposed to the static model. It is much fairer. It gives credit where credit is due, as the gentleman from New York has said. Some teachers produce 2 and sometimes 3 years' growth in 1 year, but because the student was so far behind, they are still not up to par on the static test; and on the AYP standard, that school is a failing school although they did tremendous work. The reason that this needs to be required is these assessments are a little more expensive, and if you don't require it, they won't get done. These are the better assessments and should be a part of the legislation. I thank the gentleman for introducing his amendment.