Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate members of the Inaugural Class of the Bethel High School Athletic Hall of Fame. The honorees have distinguished themselves for their commitment to sportsmanship and their contributions to the sports community. To acknowledge their many accomplishments, the Bethel High School Athletic Hall of Fame will have an Induction Ceremony on Saturday, August 31, 2024. Bethel High School, home to the Bruins, is an institution that has a rich legacy of success with its athletic programs. Throughout its fifty-five-year existence, the school has fielded numerous teams that have successfully won district and state championships in multiple sports. In addition, several former students have gone on to make significant contributions as collegiate and professional athletes. Mr. Speaker, the inaugural class of the Bethel Athletic Hall of Fame includes figures who have, simply put, helped Bethel High School establish its identity. Inductee Allen Iverson, a 2016 Basketball Hall of Fame Inductee, was a member of the Bethel basketball team. As the starting point guard, he joined Inductee Tony Rutland on the 1993 State Championship Basketball team. Mr. Iverson played on for Georgetown University en route to his Hall of Fame Professional Basketball career. Mr. Rutland went on to be a successful collegiate basketball player with Wake Forest University, where the Men's Basketball team won back- to-back Atlantic Coast Conference Championships in the 1996 and 1997 seasons. Inductee Mike Bailey coached the Boys' Varsity Basketball team from 1985-1994. He coached the team to regular season, tournament and playoff championships, including the 1993 AAA State Championship. Bethel's Football team has also been revered in the City of Hampton for its sustained excellence on the gridiron. Coached by Inductee Dennis Kozlowski, the program won three state championships during his twenty-five-year tenure. Inductee Mike Dunn was the starting quarterback and safety on the 1974 AAA State Championship team. Inductee Allen Iverson was the starting quarterback, defensive back and kick returner on the 1992 Division 5 championship team. Mr. Speaker, the Bethel Track and Field program has enjoyed tremendous success for several generations. Coached by Inductee Eddie Williams, the program amassed fourteen state championships between the boys' and girls' teams. One of his most prominent athletes was Inductee Francena McCorory, who broke national indoor track records in the 300- meter and 400-meter races. Ms McCorory later won an Olympic Gold Medal as a member of the 4x400 Relay team during the Games of the XXX Olympiad in London, England. Inductee Glenn ``Skeeter'' Heath, II, was a standout member of the boys' golf team as a student-athlete at Bethel High School. He won the Group AAA State High School Individual Championship en route to being named an All-American on the collegiate level at East Tennessee State University. He later enjoyed a professional golf career on the PGA Tour. Inductee Stephen Forbes was the first State Championship wrestler in Bethel High School history. He went on to wrestle on the collegiate level with the College of William and Mary. Mr. Speaker, lastly, Liberty Baptist Church, a prominent church in the Bethel neighborhood, is also being inducted for its various contributions to the Bethel High School Athletic program. Mr. Speaker, as the Inductees' family, friends and supporters gather for the Induction Ceremony, I join them in thanking them for all they have done for the Bethel High School family, the City of Hampton, and their legions of fans.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendments to H.R. 8997, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2025. These two amendments support essential funding for our National Labs and specifically for the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility, or CEBAF, at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, commonly known as JLab, in Newport News, Virginia. CEBAF is a world- leading facility studying the inner properties of nuclei, such as the quark and gluon structure of protons and neutrons. The research conducted at this facility has vastly improved our understanding of the fundamental make-up of matter and is actively supporting collaborative research globally in medium energy physics. The first amendment highlights the need for funding critically needed infrastructure improvements at CEBAF. The workforce at JLab is rapidly growing with the increased use of CEBAF and the installation of the Department of Energy's High Performance Data Facility. For JLab to effectively support its employees and researchers, the lab needs increased funding to build a modern workspace to match the research conducted at this facility. The final appropriations bill should include $32 million for JLab to update its CEBAF infrastructure. The second amendment highlights the importance of an optimal runtime for CEBAF. Currently, numerous PhD students and researchers are waiting to use the facility for experiments, and the backlog continues to grow as more scientists hope to use this critical technology. The funding in the underlying bill only allows CEBAF to operate 29 weeks of the year, but to meet the research needs and to optimize the use of this facility, CEBAF requires an additional $10 million to operate for an optimal runtime of 34 weeks. An appropriation of $160 million for CEBAF operations should be included in the final legislation. I would like to thank my colleague, Congressman Rob Wittman, for cosponsoring these amendments that draw attention to the need for additional funding to spur innovation, create jobs, and facilitate incredible discovery. I urge my colleagues to support these amendments.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 165, the Congressional Review Act resolution aimed at repealing the Biden-Harris administration's Title IX rule. This rule is crucial for three reasons. First, it ensures protections against all forms of sex-based harassment and discrimination. It overturns problematic provisions from the previous administration's rule that allowed educational institutions to ignore harassment and discrimination that happens off- campus, even if it is at an event sponsored by a college organization. It extends this protection to LGBTQIA+ youth, aligning with recent Supreme Court precedent. Second, it enhances accountability in how schools handle discrimination complaints, including expanding the number of employees required to report problems. It mandates timely responses and fair processes, unlike the previous rule that allowed unreasonable delays, and ensures equitable treatment for all involved. Third, it empowers students and families to exercise their Title IX rights without fear of retaliation. It supports survivors and provides necessary services while maintaining due process for the accused. By the way, this rule does not address participation in sports. As has been said, that is the subject of another rule that has not been finalized. The rule does not change anything about sports participation that is already happening. Unfortunately, this resolution has been clouded by misinformation, unfounded fears, and with some just hatred of transgender individuals. We must reject these narratives and focus on real issues of safety and equity. This resolution, if passed, would prevent future administrations from enacting similar protections, undermining progress and safeguarding women, LGBTQ individuals, and survivors of sexual assault. Let us prioritize issues like reproductive healthcare, affordable childcare, and closing the gender pay gap instead of perpetuating harmful stereotypes. Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this resolution.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of the inclusion of a pilot program for a national simulation-based emergency preparedness network in the Fiscal Year 2025 Homeland Security Appropriations Act. This pilot program will support the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Health Security's (OHS) mission to strengthen the Nation's health security through leadership and partnership, a safer and healthier Department of Homeland Security (DHS) workforce, and optimal care for patients. I worked on this language with my fellow co-chairs of the Modeling and Simulation Caucus, Reps. Bergman, Sorensen, and Rutherford and am pleased to see it included. The simulation-based emergency preparedness network will deliver simulation-based training that meets existing and emerging local and regional needs to licensed healthcare professionals, first responders, and volunteers. This network supports all five phases of emergency management by ensuring our vital healthcare workforce is prepared prior to an emergency, able to respond effectively, save lives, prevent further damage, and contribute to healing during recovery. The program will also serve the training needs of the greater U.S. healthcare system. Unfortunately, the underlying appropriations bill fails to invest in other national needs. It fails to fund effective strategies to keep our communities safe, much needed programs to assist migrants, and critical programs to combat public health threats. The bill also limits the ability of the department to counter misinformation, meet cybersecurity needs, and bans abortion services for individuals in U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody. I urge my colleagues to maintain this program to further modeling and simulation-based emergency preparedness network as we work towards a mutually agreeable funding bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the brave and selfless members of our nation's Coast Guard. I also rise to urge my colleagues to join me in working to develop America's maritime and shipbuilding workforce to meet the growing demand of the offshore wind industry. I am concerned that the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act, which is a critical piece of legislation, includes language that would be detrimental to the budding domestic offshore wind industry. If enacted without changes, this bill would significantly slow our transition to clean, renewable, and domestic energy. We have seen this worrisome provision before. Numerous stakeholders, then and now, have expressed concern that crewing requirements on globally rare vessels that are already in high demand would make it all but impossible for offshore wind projects to move forward in the near term. While I certainly share the goal of expanding opportunities for American mariners in offshore wind farm construction, this jeopardizes jobs in offshore wind manufacturing as well as jobs that will last decades in offshore wind turbine operations and maintenance. While I plan to vote for this legislation due to the important work of our nation's Coast Guard, I urge my colleagues to work together and remove this shortsighted provision. Last spring, in the interest of finding a path to empower American workers without threatening progress in the near term, I introduced the Offshore Wind American Manufacturing Act. This Act requires the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a study to inform public and private investment in shipbuilding and workforce training to support the Biden Administration's goal of deploying 30 gigawatts of offshore wind energy by 2030. The study would also identify ways that current policies could be strengthened to support American workers, including new opportunities for American mariners interested in installing offshore wind on the outer continental shelf. This study is a pragmatic approach that balances our responsibility to reduce emissions and support American workers and mariners. Thanks to momentum generated by the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, offshore wind has the potential to catalyze major investments in American manufacturing and shipbuilding. By studying opportunities to maximize the role of American mariners and shipbuilders in meeting these goals, we ensure that we do not allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor New Calvary Baptist Church on its 90th Anniversary. New Calvary Baptist Church traces its origins to the Second Calvary Baptist Church, which served the community from 1879 until it was forced to close during the Great Depression. Members of the Second Calvary Baptist Church congregation reopened the church as the New Calvary Baptist Church on May 16, 1934. Since its establishment, New Calvary Baptist Church has prioritized serving the City of Norfolk's disadvantaged through mission and donation. New Calvary's outreach ministry has provided food, groceries, clothing, and more to people in need. New Calvary also operates a community development corporation that connects people with affordable housing, support services, and job opportunities. The members of this congregation uplift the Norfolk community, for which I thank them. I also want to acknowledge the leadership of then five pastors over the course of their history. They are Reverend Dr. D.Y. Campbell, Reverend Dr. Samuel A. Wilson, Reverend Dr. Milton Reid, Reverend Dr. Gilbert G. Campbell, Jr., and their current pastor Reverend Dr. William Marcus Small, who has served since 2010. Under Dr. Small's leadership, the membership of the church has grown tremendously. Dr. Small has found new innovative ways to preach and teach, and he has enhanced numerous church ministries to address the needs of the Hampton Roads community. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate New Calvary Baptist Church on its 90th anniversary and thank its members and leaders for all they have done for the Norfolk community. I wish them many more years of success.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my friend, Congressman Donald M. Payne, Jr. Don tragically passed away on April 24th. His passing is a loss for New Jersey and this entire chamber. Don will be missed, not only by family and friends, but also by his constituents. He came from a family of committed public servants. I also had the pleasure of serving with his father, Congressman Donald Payne, Sr., for many years on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. Like his father, Don was steadfast in his service to his constituents and the entire state of New Jersey. During his public service career, he was a passionate advocate for fair housing, for unfettered access to healthcare, and for those who were often forgotten by people in powerful positions. The Tenth District of New Jersey has lost a dedicated and effective public servant. He will be sorely missed. I send my condolences to his wife Beatrice, their children, and his staff during this difficult time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Virginia for yielding time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise once again in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 98, the Congressional Review Act resolution to repeal the National Labor Relations Board's joint employer rule, which the board finalized last October. Workers should be able to negotiate for higher pay, better benefits, and safer workplaces through their unions. Regrettably, this is not the case for millions of Americans, including janitors, housekeepers, cooks, and many others who are employed through subcontractors or temp agencies. The rise of what is called the fissured workplace, where firms increasingly use overlapping arrangements of contracting, subcontracting, and temping, has weakened workers' bargaining power and allowed large corporations to evade bargaining obligations and liabilities. For example, if an employee of a subcontractor unionized, the subcontractor would be unable to actually bargain over pay, hours, workplace safety, or other issues. That is because the actual contract is with the prime contractor who essentially sets the terms and conditions of employment for the employee, and the subcontractor is just administering the terms of that contract. Bargaining with the subcontractor becomes essentially useless because the subcontractor is paid based on assumed wages, and they don't have the ability to change those wages. The prime contractor needs to be at the table if someone is thinking of negotiating wages at all. Additionally, by evading bargaining obligations, the prime contractor, who is actually setting some or all of the terms of conditions of the work, can actually shift liability for an unfair labor practice onto the subcontractor or the temp agency. Mr. Speaker, the NLRB's new rule fixed the problem by ensuring workers can negotiate with all entities who actually control their working conditions. This also protects small businesses from being held liable for labor violations that are a result of the larger firms' actions. This isn't about franchising. No franchiser has ever been found to be a joint employer under any of the various joint employer rules, including this one. H.J. Res. 98 would undermine workers' ability to exercise their rights and reinstate the deficient Trump-era rule that narrowed the joint employer standard. Under the Trump-era standard, employers who control the working conditions could easily evade their obligations to collectively bargain with employees. That would have the effect of reducing the earnings of workers. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the Trump-era rule would reduce workers' hard-earned paychecks by about $1.3 billion. Conversely, the Biden joint employer rule is estimated to raise workers' earnings. So we should not go backwards. The Biden-Harris administration's joint employer rule empowers workers and protects small businesses, so I applaud President Biden for his veto of H.J. Res. 98. So let's be clear. This is not about the joint employer rule. We have already had that debate back in January. This is a debate about the Republican majority's inability to do basic arithmetic. Overriding the President's veto requires two-thirds, or 290 Members, of the House. That is not going to happen. This measure only passed with 206 votes, nearly all of them from Republicans, so anybody who can count knows the Republican majority does not have the votes to override the veto. So why are we taking this up? It is because we are just a metaphor for the Republicans' failed agenda. Instead of taking time to do something constructive, we are taking precious floor time on this doomed override vote when we could be doing something better like raising the minimum wage, or making workplaces safer and healthier, or ensuring women receive equal pay for equal work, or combating child labor, or establishing paid sick leave, or strengthening workers' ability to organize and collectively bargain. However, that is not what we are doing. All that is happening now is what has happened during the whole 118th Congress: the House majority insists on spending floor time on votes like this that have no chance of succeeding. So House Democrats believe we can do better. We remain focused on the priorities and others that lower costs and grow the middle class. That is what we ought to be focused on. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think we have to get some job numbers rather than just adjectives and everything on the table. The fact is that President Trump during his 4 years lost over 6 million jobs, but President Biden so far has created over 15 million, the longest period of time with unemployment under 4 percent since the 1960s. Before you start excusing President Trump because of a pandemic, he had a pandemic for about 10 months, President Biden had a pandemic for 2 years. So this legislation the President has vetoed, I think it is helpful just to read the President's message of why he vetoed the resolution. He said: ``I am returning herewith without my approval H.J. Res. 98, a resolution that would disapprove of the National Labor Relations Board's rule entitled `Standard for Determining Joint Employer Status.' ``Since day one, my administration has fought to strengthen workers' right to organize and bargain for higher wages, better benefits, and safer working conditions. The NLRB's rule would prevent companies from evading their bargaining obligations or liability when they control a worker's working condition--even if they reserve such control or exercise it indirectly through a subcontractor or other intermediary. If multiple companies control the terms and conditions of employment, then the right to organize is rendered futile whenever the workers cannot bargain collectively with each of those employers. ``Without the NLRB's rule, companies could more easily avoid liability simply by manipulating their corporate structure, like hiding behind subcontractors or staffing agencies. By hampering the NLRB's efforts to promote the practice and procedure of collective bargaining, Republicans are siding with union-busting corporations over the needs of workers and their unions. I am proud to be the most pro-union, pro- worker President in American history. I make no apologies for my administration protecting the right to organize and bargain collectively. ``Therefore, I am vetoing this resolution. ``Joseph R. Biden, Jr.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters in opposition to this resolution in support of the President's veto from SEIU, AFL-CIO, and the Teamsters. November 2, 2023. Dear Representative: On behalf of the 12.5 million workers represented by the AFL-CIO, the 2 million workers represented by SEIU, and the 1.2 million workers represented by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, we write to urge you to support the National Labor Relations Board's (``NLRB'' or ``the Board'') recent final rule addressing joint-employer status under the National Labor Relations Act (``NLRA'' or ``the Act''). This important rule will ensure that workers have a real voice at the bargaining table when multiple companies control their working conditions. Accordingly, the undersigned unions strongly oppose any effort to nullify or weaken the rule, whether by legislation or resolution under the Congressional Review Act. The rule, published on October 27, 2023, rescinds the Trump NLRB's 2020 joint-employer rule and replaces it with an updated standard that is based on well-established common-law principles and consistent with recent D.C. Circuit decisions identifying critical flaws in the Trump NLRB's approach to this issue. The Board's updated rule is welcome and necessary because the Trump rule was harmful to workers' organizing efforts, inconsistent with the governing legal principles, and against the policies of the Act. The crux of this issue is simple--when workers seek to bargain collectively over their wages, hours and working conditions, every entity with control over those issues must be at the bargaining table. The Act protects and encourages collective bargaining as a means of resolving labor disputes. Collective bargaining cannot serve that purpose if companies with control over the issues in dispute are absent from the bargaining table. The Trump rule offered companies a roadmap to retain ultimate control over key aspects of workers' lives--like wages and working conditions--while avoiding their duty to bargain. This standard left workers stranded at the bargaining table and unable to negotiate with the people who could actually implement proposed improvements. Companies are adopting business structures specifically designed to maintain control over the workers who keep their businesses running while simultaneously disclaiming any responsibility for those workers under labor and employment laws. Such businesses often insert second and third-level intermediaries between themselves and their workers. These companies seek to have it both ways--to control the workplace like an employer but dodge the legal responsibilities of an employer. This phenomenon is often called workplace ``fissuring.'' Fissured workplaces, sometimes involving staffing firms, temp agencies, or subcontractors, often leave workers unable to raise concerns, or collectively bargain with, the entity that actually controls their workplace. In such arrangements, multiple entities may share control over a worker's terms of employment. For example, if employees of a subcontractor were to unionize and bargain only with the subcontractor, it might simply refuse to bargain over certain issues because its contract with the prime contractor governs those aspects of the work (e.g., pay, hours, safety, etc.). This harms workers because the entity that effectively determines workplace policy is not at the bargaining table, placing workers' desired improvements out of reach. The way to ensure that workers can actually bargain with each entity that controls their work is to readily identify such entities as ``joint employers.'' The Act requires joint employers to collectively bargain with employees over working conditions that they control. But the Trump NLRB's joint employer rule was designed to help companies with such control escape bargaining. The rule's standard for finding a joint employment relationship was unrealistic and overly narrow. It conditioned a company's joint employer status on proof that it actually exercised substantial direct and immediate control, discounting its reserved or indirect power to control a small list of working conditions. This conflicts with the governing common law principles, which make clear that a company's power to control working conditions must bear on its employer status (and thus its bargaining responsibilities under the Act) regardless of whether it has formally exercised that power. The new final rule correctly rescinded the Trump rule. Critics of the new rule claim that its joint employer standard will outright destroy certain business models or dramatically change operations. Opponents claim, for example, that companies will be required to bargain over issues they have no control over, or will be automatically liable for another entity's unfair labor practices. This is simply untrue and a further attempt to leave workers with no opportunity to bargain with controlling entities. The final rule makes it clear that a joint employer's bargaining obligations extend only to those terms and conditions within its control. And current Board law--unchanged by the rule-- only extends unfair labor practice liability to a joint employer if it knew or should have known of another employer's illegal action, had the power to stop it, and chose not to. Similarly, critics claim that the new standard imposes blanket joint employer status on parties to certain business models like franchises, temp agencies, subcontractors, or staffing firms. This is also untrue. The rule does not proclaim that all franchisors are now joint employers with their franchisees, or that any company using workers from a temp agency is automatically their employer. The particular business model used by parties in any case is not determinative. Instead, the Board looks at every case individually, and grants companies a full and fair opportunity to explain the underlying business relationship and dispute whether they control the relevant workers' essential terms and conditions of employment. The Board conducts a fact-specific, case-by-case analysis that considers whether the putative joint employer controls essential terms and conditions of employment. Make no mistake, the Board's rule may well result in the employees of a staffing firm, for example, being treated also as employees of the firm's client, but only if the client controls the employees' terms and conditions of employment. That is the only way workers can meaningfully bargain at work. But even in that situation, the workers are deemed employees only for purposes of the NLRA and collective bargaining, and the client would be obligated to bargain only about the terms it controls. It would still be up to workers to choose whether they want to organize a union and collectively bargain with their employer or employers. Nothing in the NLRB's rule alters employers' responsibilities under any other state or federal law (e.g., tax laws, wage and hour laws, or workplace safety laws) or requires any changes to business structures. But it does make clear their responsibility under the NLRA to show up at the bargaining table. The new rule is clear and commonsense: there is no bargaining obligation for an entity that cannot control workplace policies or working conditions. And for good reason--their presence at the bargaining table would be pointless. Workers have no interest in bargaining with a company that lacks the power to implement the workplace improvements they seek. This rule simply invokes a more realistic joint employer standard on par with the standard enforced during the Obama administration, allowing a company's indirect or reserved control over working conditions to be sufficient for finding joint employer status. Workers' right to collectively bargain cannot be realized if the entity that has the power to change terms and conditions of employment is absent from the bargaining table. For the reasons explained above, the undersigned unions oppose any effort to nullify the Board's rule. In particular, we urge Congress to oppose efforts to nullify the rule under the Congressional Review Act (``CRA''). Here, a successful CRA disapproval resolution would be particularly harmful: it would revert the NLRB's joint employer standard to the Trump Board's 2020 rule, which stymies workers at the bargaining table. And further, as explained above, at least one federal appeals court has strongly suggested that provisions of the 2020 rule are inconsistent with the NLRA, so litigation would likely invalidate that rule as well. This would create confusion for the workers, unions, and employers regulated by the NLRB. Not only could the two standards be nullified, leaving the Board's joint employer analysis in limbo, but the NLRB's ability to address that limbo would be unclear due to CRA limitations. The CRA provides that once a disapproval resolution is passed, the underlying agency cannot issue a subsequent rule in ``substantially the same form'' as the disapproved rule unless it is specifically authorized by a subsequent law. Thus, if the Board's new rule is nullified under the CRA, and the prior Trump rule is invalidated by federal courts, the NLRB would be limited in issuing a clarifying rule. To avoid confusion and ensure stability for workers, unions, and employers, Congress must steer clear of using the CRA to address the joint employer standard. For these reasons, we ask that you support the NLRB's joint employer rule and oppose any effort to weaken or nullify the clarified standard.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the United Steelworkers, in support of the President's veto. United Steelworkers Pittsburgh, PA, November 14, 2023. Re: United Steelworkers urges a NO vote on H.J. Res. 98, which would invalidate the National Labor Relations Board's new Standard for Determining Joint Employer Status. U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: On behalf of the 850,000 active members of the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (USW), I write to oppose a misguided and short-sighted Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution--H.J. Res 98. If this resolution passes, American workers will increasingly face a fractured workplace and lose access to federally protected collective bargaining rights. Updating the NLRB joint employer standard is necessary as employers are increasingly using ``fissured'' workplace models to keep the parent company from having to bargain with workers employed by the smaller contracted companies. The continued contracting out and increased usage of temporary workers leads to terrible outcomes for the most vulnerable, precisely because these workers lack the ability to meaningfully organize and collectively bargain with their appropriate employer(s). For example, a 2014 National Employment Law Project report found that workers at subcontracted firms receive wages from 7-40 percent lower than their non-contracted out peers. That same study also showed that workers in subcontracted firms suffer higher rates of wage theft and unpaid overtime. Analysis from ProPublica has also shown that temp workers are at an increased risk of workplace injury. Lastly, and perhaps most chillingly, child workers have been found in meatpacking plants, while auto-supply chains in the South have had children as young as 14 years old working for subcontracted firms--sometimes with deadly consequences. If this resolution passes, Congress will have made it easier for corporations to shirk responsibility of their employment oversight, and make it harder for the American labor movement to stop labor abuses such as wage theft, unpaid overtime, workplace injuries, and child labor. The NLRB had to act as the result of a partisan rulemaking process during the Trump administration. Prior to 2020, the NLRB's assessment of a joint employer standard had been guided by common law for over 50 years. The NLRB, as a quasi- judicial body, would use case decisions to substantiate its joint employer standard. The Trump administration's NLRB dramatically broke with precedent and created a regulatory rulemaking process to establish a new joint employer standard. Through this final rule, the previous NLRB added non-statutory and non-common law requirements to the NLRB joint employer assessment-- notably, the requirement that an employer must ``possess and exercise . . . substantial direct and immediate control'' over a worker's ``essential terms and conditions of employment'' to be considered joint employers. The problem with this Trump era rule is that it significantly constrained the NLRB's ability to exercise jurisdiction over cases, and limited the scope of the joint employer standard on when the NLRB can weigh in. With such a weak standard, employers were able to simultaneously influence a worker's wages, hours, and working conditions--all while being inoculated from having to bargain over those issues with their workers. By returning to common-law principles in this new standard, the NLRB provides ``a practical approach to ensuring that the entities effectively exercising control over workers' critical terms of employment respect their bargaining obligations under the NLRA''. Unfortunately, Representative James John (R-MI-10), along with 29 other Republicans, introduced a Congressional Review Act resolution to repeal the NLRB's return to past precedent. USW strongly opposes the use of a CRA to undermine the NLRB. If a CRA were to be successfully used, it would prevent the federal agency from ever issuing a substantially similar rule, freezing in perpetuity a process that was designed to evolve with employment practices. USW opposes H.J. Res 98 in the strongest terms and will educate union membership on any floor vote outcome. The NLRB's released joint employer standard returns the country to prior precedent, and strengthens the legal right of millions of workers across this country to collectively bargain with their appropriate employer(s). Again, I urge you to support this new standard and oppose H.J. Res. 98. Sincerely, David McCall, International President.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, lastly, I include in the Record a letter from dozens of labor and civil rights organizations in support of the veto. November 20, 2023. Re: NLRB Joint Employer Rule CRA. Hon. Charles Schumer, Hon. Mitch McConnell, Hon. Bernie Sanders, Hon. Bill Cassidy, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Mike Johnson, Hon. Hakeem Jeffries, Hon. Viriginia Foxx, Hon. Robert ``Bobby'' C. Scott, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Members of Congress: The undersigned organizations write to share our opposition to the Congressional Review Act (CRA) challenge to the National Labor Relations Board's 2023 Joint Employer Rule. Millions of workers in precarious and subcontracted work depend on the joint-employer doctrine to protect their right to organize under the NLRA. In labor-intensive and underpaid industries like retail, hospitality, fast food, janitorial, construction, and delivery, workers hired through intermediary subcontractors like staffing agencies and specialized contract firms are effectively deprived of their labor rights because the law fails to recognize who their employers are. They provide work central to the hotels, retail operators, fast food chains, construction contractors, delivery companies, and other corporations that rely on their labor but are unable to hold those employers accountable when their labor rights are violated. While this harms a broad range of workers, it has particularly damaging impacts for women, Black workers, immigrants, people of color, and people with disabilities who disproportionately hold precarious, low-paid jobs. The Board's new rule reaffirms that, under the NLRA, a worker may be jointly-employed when more than one entity shares or co-determines the essential terms and conditions of their work. What matters is not the corporate structure or what the companies call the work relationship; what matters is who has the power to control the essential terms of employment, like pay, discipline, and health & safety on the job. Now, large corporations and industry trade groups are pushing Congress to vote for a CRA resolution to overturn the rule. Despite the claims made by these self-interested groups, the joint employer rule is a simple and necessary course correction that: Rescinds the misguided 2020 rule, which improperly narrowed the NLRA's coverage and unmoored the legal standard from the common law, by requiring workers to show that a business had ``substantial direct and immediate control'' over the essential terms of employment; Grounds the legal analysis in the common law, building on the Obama-era Browning-Ferris decision that the 2020 Trump rule overrode; Affirms that companies are liable for committing unfair labor practices (such as terminating workers for exercising their right to organize) and required to bargain with their workers as joint employers, where they control the essential terms and conditions of employment; Accounts for forms of control that are ``indirect'' and ``reserved,'' as well as direct and actually exercised, in determining whether or not there is an employment relationship; and Recognizes that the ``essential terms and conditions of employment'' include workplace health and safety, and direction as to how to complete the work, as well as control over pay and discipline. This rule is a major step toward safeguarding the labor rights of millions of workers in subcontracted employment, ensuring that corporations cannot skirt the law simply by outsourcing responsibility for their workers. Should a CRA to overturn this rule be brought to the floor, we strongly urge all Members of Congress to vote No. Sincerely, A Better Balance; AFL-CIO; American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); APALA; Asian American Pacific Islander Civic Engagement Collaborative of New Virginia Majority; Bruckner Burch PLLC; Care in Action; Caring Across Generations; Center for Economic and Policy Research; Center for Law and Social Policy; Cincinnati Interfaith Workers Center; Clearinghouse on Women's Issues; Communications Workers of America (CWA); Community Legal Services, Philadelphia; Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd, U.S. Provinces. CRLA Foundation; Demand Progress; Demos; Economic Policy Institute; Endangered Species Coalition; Equal Rights Advocates; Feminist Majority Foundation; Impact Fund; International Brotherhood of Teamsters; Japanese American Citizens League (JACL); Jobs to Move America; Jobs With Justice; Justice & Accountability Center of Louisiana; Justice at Work; Justice in Motion. Kentucky Equal Justice Center; KIWA; Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; Legal Aid at Work; Long Beach Alliance for Clean Energy; National Advocacy Center of the Good Shepherd; National Center for Law and Economic Justice; National Council for Occupational Safety and Health; National Domestic Workers Alliance; National Education Association; National Employment Lawyers Association; National Employment Law Project (NELP); National Institute for Workers' Rights; National Organization for Women; National Partnership for Women & Families. National Resource Center on Domestic Violence; National Women's Law Center; New Jersey Association on Correction; North Carolina Justice Center; Northwest Workers' Justice Project; Public Justice Center; Restaurant Opportunities Centers United; Santa Clara County Wage Theft Coalition Service Employees International Union; Shriver Center on Poverty Law; TechEquity Collaborative; The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; The Legal Aid Society; The Women's Employment Rights Clinic (WERC) at Golden Gate University (GGU); Transport Workers Union of America. UAW; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America; United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW); Women Employed; Worker Justice Center of New York; Worker Power Coalition; Workers Defense Action Fund; Workplace Fairness; Workplace Justice Lab at Rutgers University; Workplace Justice Project at Loyola Law Clinic; Worksafe; Young Invincibles.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate that the credit rating that was threatened was the result of the Republicans threatening a default on our debt. That wasn't anything the Democrats had done. Again, I just reiterate that under Biden over 15 million jobs were created. Under Trump over 6 million were lost. We have had the longest period of time of unemployment, under 4 percent, since the 1960s. I think that is a fairly easy record to defend. Mr. Speaker, in closing, there is no reason to override the President's veto, and the votes aren't going to be there. Unfortunately, this is how the Republicans have operated during the 118th Congress. This is going to be the least-productive Congress in history. In contrast, under Democratic leadership, last Congress, we delivered on significant results. We created millions of jobs, reduced unemployment to record lows, and, under this administration, kept it under record lows. We have saved more than a million people's pensions under the multi-employer pension fund, and we helped tens of thousands of businesses because they were legally obligated to pay into those failing funds until the businesses went broke. We delivered historic funding for education. We improved child nutrition. We brought the number of uninsured Americans down to the lowest level ever. I think we can take credit for all of that. By prioritizing and wasting time on efforts like this, the Republican majority is failing to live up to the same standard that Democrats have lived up to. Mr. Speaker, I commend the President for vetoing H.J. Res. 98 and protecting American workers. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this override effort and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and recognize the work of Maggie Garrett, who recently left Americans United for Separation of Church and State (Americans United or AU) after leading AU's Public Policy Department and advocating for the separation of church and state for nearly 20 years. Maggie worked on church-state issues before state legislatures, Congress, and the Executive Branch, becoming a nationally recognized expert on religious liberty issues and how these issues intersect with other civil rights. Prior to joining Americans United, Maggie served as Legislative Director and Staff Counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Georgia, and as Staff Attorney at the ACLU of Alabama. During her time in Alabama and Georgia, Maggie litigated high-profile cases. At the ACLU of Georgia, she also lobbied the state legislature, working with legislators across the political spectrum to fight for policies that protect civil rights and civil liberties and improve the lives of all Georgians. She played a key role in educating legislators about the harms of a proposed state Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), successfully working to ensure that the measure did not advance since it was drafted in a manner to deny civil rights protections in the name of religious liberty. In 2007, Maggie joined Americans United as Assistant Legislative Director and remained at AU for almost 17 years, achieving the position of Vice-President for Public Policy. In her role at AU, Maggie worked tirelessly to ensure that religious freedom is not misused to license invidious discrimination. Maggie led the work of the Coalition Against Religious Discrimination (CARD)--a diverse set of stakeholder groups she brought together from religious, religious freedom, civil rights, labor, reproductive rights and health, LGBTQ rights, and secular organizations--to oppose taxpayer-funded religious discrimination in social service programs. Maggie's leadership of CARD, together with her expertise, helped ensure that the religious freedom of people who use taxpayer-funded social services is protected and that these programs include safeguards for the separation of church and state. Also, as part of her work at AU, Maggie co-chaired the National Coalition for Public Education (NCPE), a group of more than 50 national organizations working to oppose private school vouchers. Maggie has long been a champion of public education and fought to ensure that public funds remain in our public schools to be used for the education of all students. Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my thanks and appreciation to Maggie for her years of service to the cause for separation of church and state and to protecting civil rights. Her decades of expertise were invaluable to me and my staff. Our Founding Fathers knew from personal experience the dangers of governmental entanglement with religion, leading them to enshrine religious freedom in the First Amendment of our Constitution. In fact, Thomas Jefferson warned against such excess in the Virginia Assembly in 1779, with the introduction of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom which would serve as the nation's precursor to the First Amendment; he cautioned that, ``our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions on physics and geometry.'' Maggie's work carried on that tradition. For over two decades, Maggie fought to uphold the separation of church and state, a foundational principle that is the cornerstone of true religious freedom. I wish her the best in her next role as Vice-President of Federal Affairs with the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, where she will follow her other passion, advocating for the humane treatment of animals, inspired by her beloved rescue dogs Atticus and Finn.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the amendment I joined with Congressman Issa and Delegate Moylan in support of foreign military funding for the Philippines. Earlier this month, as cochair of the United States-Philippines Friendship Caucus, I had the opportunity to meet with the President of the Philippines, along with members from the Philippine House of Representatives, to discuss the important bilateral relationship between our two countries. In these discussions, we emphasized our shared maritime vision of keeping peace and freedom, particularly in the South China Sea. As the gentleman from California has mentioned, we are pleased to see the Biden administration recognize this important relationship, particularly by enhancing the defense cooperation agreement. This would allow the United States and the Philippines to better address the shared challenges in the Indo-Pacific region. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6655, A Stronger Workforce for America Act. Workers who are looking for higher paying careers and businesses looking for skilled workers should be able to rely on our workforce development system. Unfortunately, decades of chronic disinvestment and lax quality standards in our workforce system have contributed to unsustainable out-of-pocket costs for both workers and employers. I thank Ms. Foxx for her bipartisan cooperation in drafting the legislation. This bill makes an array of critical improvements to the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, or WIOA, in that it will improve our workforce development system for everyone. It will help create a skilled workforce for the millions of new jobs created under the American Rescue Plan Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, the bipartisan infrastructure law, and the Chips and Science Act. Specifically, this bill will ensure that workers displaced from their jobs can access robust development services, including through individual training accounts by guaranteeing that they will receive a training voucher for no less than $5,000. This kind of investment will ensure displaced workers can pay for training in jobs that lead to high-quality, good-paying careers like welding or nursing, among many others. It also creates an emphasis on employer-led initiatives that equip workers with the skill sets they need to fill jobs in critical industries, and it helps the currently employed workforce upskill to avoid displacement and advance their careers. Moreover, it will serve individuals with barriers to employment by codifying reentry programs for justice-involved individuals and boosting summer and year-round employment opportunities for youth, especially those who have become disconnected from school and work after the pandemic. Finally, it streamlines the eligible training provider list to ensure that programs are aligned with the skills and hiring demands and that State and local workforce boards are held accountable for achieving positive outcomes for program participants. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support the A Stronger Workforce for America Act because it will create more opportunities for working Americans to gain a foothold in the middle class. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two letters. One is from the American Association of Community Colleges and the Association of Community College Trustees, and the other letter is from the Society for Human Resource Management, better known as SHRM.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes), the vice ranking 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 recognize the fact that we received a letter from ITI in support of the legislation, the Information Technology Industry Council. They point out that the bill will help many workers obtain the skills needed for today's jobs by increasing the cap on incumbent worker training funds to allow the current workforce to reskill and upskill and directs 50 percent of the funds toward workforce skill education through the individual training accounts, on-the-job training and employer-led initiatives, as well as including digital literacy skills, which play a pivotal role in today's jobs. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from ITI.

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

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the letter that we received from the California Youth Opportunity Network. They say: ``This reauthorization will improve numerous training services, planning, and outcomes for opportunity youth, and we respectfully urge timely consideration of this bipartisan legislation on the floor of the House.'' They go on to say: ``We should not be turning away a young person trying to work toward a better future because of paperwork. For this reason, we are also extremely supportive of the provision which streamlines the eligibility determination process.'' Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from COYN of April 1, 2024. April 1, 2024. Hon. Virginia Foxx, Chairwoman, House Committee on Education and Workforce, Washington, D.C. Hon. Bobby Scott, Ranking Member, House Committee on Education and Workforce, Washington, D.C. Dear Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member Scott: We write to express our support for passage of H.R. 6655, A Stronger Workforce for America Act to reauthorize the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) through the US House of Representatives. WIOA is critical for organizations like the California Opportunity Youth Network (COYN) and New Ways to Work (NWW) to help disconnected youth achieve self-sufficient and successful career outcomes. This reauthorization will improve numerous training services, planning, and outcomes for Opportunity Youth and we respectfully urge timely consideration of this bipartisan legislation on the floor of the House. We also urge your commitment to ensure adequate resources are authorized and appropriated in the future to meet demands for services and resources can more efficiently be used. COYN and NWW are committed to advancing opportunities for youth who are out of school and out of work and/or involved with the foster care, juvenile justice, and youth homelessness systems. That's why we are pleased to see language in the new WIOA reauthorization bill that broadens WIOA Youth Program eligibility to include all out-of-school, homeless, foster, and justice system-impacted youth. These are young people we know through research will face barriers and are at-risk right now. Accessing WIOA for systems-involved youth can also be challenging, especially if they are concurrently pursuing their education goals. Replacing the definition of ``out-of- school youth'' with ``Opportunity Youth'' and categorically including systems-involved youth will allow job training providers to better meet their goals and encourages state and local workforce boards to develop service delivery systems to better reach and serve this population. We also know the existing documentation requirements to prove eligibility represents a major barrier in accessing WIOA programs and services, especially for Qpportunity Youth and systems-involved youth who typically lack access to the necessary forms. We should not be turning away a young person trying to work toward a better future because of paperwork. For this reason, we are also extremely supportive of the provision which streamlines the eligibility determination process by allowing youth to self-attest that they meet the eligibility criteria while still ensuring accountability and eligibility in the future. Finally, the bill would also require state WIOA plans to increase their focus on Opportunity Youth and other at-risk young people. We support this effort to encourage states to not just develop and submit compliance plans but to truly produce a strategic vision and plan for serving Opportunity Youth, through WIOA and other programs, and understanding their circumstances and needs. H.R. 6655, A Stronger Workforce for America Act was approved by the committee with wide bipartisan support. Passing this bill through the House is a critical step to build upon WIOA's strong foundation and make efficiency improvements, along with new flexibilities that will ensure better outcomes for states, workforce boards, training providers and more importantly the millions of young people who could be helped on their pathways to careers. We look forward to working with you and your staff to support this legislation as it moves to the House floor and to ensure adequate appropriations are provided to the programs in the future. We again support passage of H.R. 6655 through the House and thank you for your work on advancing bipartisan legislation. Sincerely, Sean Hughes, California Opportunity Youth Network. Robert Sainz, New Ways to Work.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a senior member of the Appropriations Committee.