Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1693, the EQUAL Act, which would eliminate the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine. I would like to thank my colleagues Representatives Jeffries, Bacon, and Armstrong for their work to bring this bill to the floor today. In 1986, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act created a 100-to-1 sentencing disparity between the amount of crack cocaine that triggered an automatic 5-year mandatory minimum sentence and the amount of powder cocaine that would trigger the same punishment. This sentencing disparity had a racially disparate impact on Black communities, did nothing to change personal behaviors, and has been a tremendous waste of taxpayer money and resources. There are no pharmacological differences between these two substances. Yet more than 80 percent of people convicted in federal court for crack offenses are Black, while only 27 percent of those convicted of powder cocaine offenses are Black. The crack cocaine sentencing disparity has forced judges to impose higher penalties for very small amounts of crack cocaine. This also had the bizarre effect of punishing those individuals lower in the drug distribution chain much more severely than the actual drug kingpins for two reasons: the kingpins generally distribute powder from which the crack is produced, and lower level defendants often lack information on the drug operation that they can turn over to prosecutors in order to obtain sentencing credit for cooperation. Mandatory minimums, whether they are equal or not, must be eliminated. The ``tough on crime'' policies based on slogans and sound bites have failed, and mandatory minimums have been studied extensively--they fail to reduce crime, they waste taxpayers' money and often require judges to impose sentences that violate common sense. Instead of arguing about whether someone should receive a five-year mandatory minimum, we should be investing in early education, workforce training, and our communities. The EQUAL Act is the next step on the long road toward eliminating this unfair sentencing disparity. In 2009, I led the effort in the House to eliminate this disparity in the Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act. That effort eventually led to the 2010 passage of the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the crack/powder cocaine disparity from 100:1 to 18:1. That was a hard-fought compromise, and the EQUAL Act will finally end this disparity. This is an important step toward fixing our criminal justice system and making it fairer. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and hope the Senate moves quickly to send this bill to the President's desk.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I hereby include in the Record the cost estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office for H.R. 2119, the Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act of 2021. The cost estimate was not available at the time of the filing of the Committee report. U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, September 24, 2021. Hon. Robert C. (Bobby) Scott, Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2119, the Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act of 2021. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jennifer Gray. Sincerely, Phillip L. Swagel, Director. Enclosure. H.R. 2119, Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act of 2021--As ordered reported by the House Committee on Education and Labor on July 15, 2021 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ By fiscal year, millions of dollars--

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to Amendment No. 3, which directs the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to reclassify public safety telecommunications officers, also called 911 dispatchers, as a protective service occupation in the U.S. Government's Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system. This Amendment would have no direct effect on these workers' wages, benefits, or other resources; proponents of this reclassification have stated that it ``would provide validation.'' The SOC classification system is a federal statistical standard used across agencies in data collection. According to OMB, ``[t]he SOC is designed exclusively for statistical purposes.'' Changes to the codes affect multiple data sources frequently used by policymakers, researchers, and employers, including the American Community Survey, the nation's largest household survey; the Current Population Survey (CPS), the key source of our monthly employment numbers; and the Occupational Employment Statistics (OES), the authoritative source of employment and wage information by occupation. These changes would undermine the intent and legitimacy of the SOC by deviating from the long-established process designed to ensure the objectivity and integrity statistical data classifications more broadly. A standing committee at OMB, the SOC Policy Committee (SOCPC), is responsible maintaining the accuracy of these codes using well-defined principles. The SOCPC undertakes a routine revision of the codes roughly once per decade; the process spans multiple years and ``involves extensive background research, periods of public comment, review of comments, and implementation of revisions.'' During its latest revision, which began in early 2012 and was finalized in 2018, OMB specifically rejected comments requesting it reclassify 911 dispatchers as directed in Amendment No. 3. In its response to public comments presented in the May 2014 Federal Register, the Obama Administration's OMB explained it ``did not accept these recommendations based on Classification Principle 2, which states that workers are coded according to the work performed. The work performed is that of a dispatcher, not a first responder.'' In 2016, OMB declined a similar request for reclassification. Based on the principles OMB's policy committee applies to determine SOC codes, 911 telephone dispatchers are already properly and accurately classified. This point was reiterated in communications with the Education and Labor Committee in 2021, explaining ``After an extensive technical review of the requested reclassification for 911 dispatchers, OMB, consistent with the recommendation of the Chief Statistician of the United States, decided not to make such an adjustment because it is inconsistent with the statistical purposes of the SOC.'' Furthermore, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), in a written communication with the Education and Labor Committee on September 26, 2021, reported that the change made by H.R. 1175, a bill identical to Amendment No. 3, would ``will introduce costly, unnecessary logistical and data interpretation delays and challenges affecting the quality of data.'' Moreover, changes outside of the routine revision process would undermine the goal of data continuity, limiting data sources' usefulness for their key purpose of statistical analysis; create precedent for disrupting the standard SOC revision process; and undermine the SOCPC's authority as experts to apply the classification principles to determine what accuracy requires. Public safety telecommunications officers perform critical, challenging work. They deserve our honor and gratitude for their efforts. However, considering the many alternative ways policymakers could confer ``validation,'' as the proponents are seeking, there is little policy justification for this Amendment's approach to achieving that goal. The SOC is not intended to rank or group occupations by education, credentials, earnings, benefits or any other user-defined indicator of status. In conclusion, mandating a change to a statistical code would not affect these workers' wages, benefits, or other resources--but it would disrupt data series continuity; require significant additional work for government agencies, researchers, employers, and others; and intervene in an official, routine government data-collection and statistical process.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act which would deliver a win-win-win for stormwater-stressed ecosystems; the military; and communities, like Hampton Roads, that host military installations. I was pleased to introduce this bipartisan amendment with support from my Hampton Roads colleagues, Representatives Luria and Wittman, as well as Representatives Sarbanes and Brown from Maryland and Representative Mace from South Carolina. Flooding that occurs on and around bases jeopardizes military readiness and compounds the stress of military families. In addition to causing flooding, stormwater also remains a stubborn source of pollution in the Chesapeake Bay, complicating the ongoing work to restore this national treasure. For that reason, I introduced this amendment to enhance both community resilience and the health of waterways. As rainwater falls on and travels across pavement and other impermeable surfaces, it picks up all kinds of things--nutrients from lawn fertilizer, pet waste, sediments, and chemicals that pollute the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Because climate change and unchecked emissions are heating up our atmosphere and oceans, extreme precipitation events and deadly storms, like Ida, have become more severe. In addition to more frequent and severe precipitation events on land, climate change-driven sea level rise also wreaks havoc on coastal stormwater systems, especially during high tide. My amendment would help address the growing threat stormwater poses by expanding the authorization of existing infrastructure and resilience programs to help slow, store, and filter stormwater on military bases and in the communities that host them. Through the implementation of low impact design and installation of stormwater management features like stormwater ponds, rain gardens, permeable pavement, cisterns, and tree boxes, my amendment will reduce the stress on water infrastructure and address both the issue of flooding and stormwater pollution. The military recognizes climate change as the ``threat multiplier'' that it is and I am grateful for the Department of Defense's partnership in the coordinated effort to restore the Chesapeake Bay. This amendment will provide the military the authorization it needs to integrate its work to enhance mission readiness with its work to protect the communities and watersheds in which installations are situated. While we continue to work to enhance resilience in Hampton Roads and beyond, we must also work to rapidly mitigate emissions and protect precious carbon sinks--like the Chesapeake Bay--to avoid the worst of the climate crisis. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment in en bloc number four.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4502, the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education; Agriculture, Rural Development; Energy and Water Development; Financial Services and General Government; Interior, Environment; Military Construction, Veterans Affairs; Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act of 2022. I sponsored the 400 Years of African American History Commission Act with Senator Tim Kaine. This bill includes $3.3 million for the Commission to continue their critical work. Since the Commission was first funded in Fiscal Year 2020, it facilitated participation in the 400-year anniversary commemoration of the arrival of Africans in the U.S. colonies at Fort Monroe in Hampton, Virginia; initiated the 400 Distinguished Award to honor African American social justice leaders; supported programing to engage students in historic preservation; and sponsored a documentary film on Black economic empowerment. More recently, the Commission has also launched a series of virtual public education meetings to continue its mission during the COVID-19 pandemic. The legislation also includes a major federal investment in Hampton Roads by including $83.7 million for the deepening and widening of the Norfolk Harbor's channels. This project, while authorized, has not yet received its share of federal funds; however, the Port of Virginia has already begun construction on this critical project and these funds will ensure that the project maintains its timeline. The deepening and widening at the Port will allow for larger container and bulk ships visiting the Port of Virginia to arrive and depart fully loaded, providing for safer and more timely passage. The project is expected to deliver nearly $4 billion of benefits to the national economy. As a co-chair of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Taskforce, I am also pleased that this package includes much needed support for the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. This bill provides $90.5 million for the Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay program as well as $15 million for the Chesapeake WILD (Watershed Investments in Landscape Defense) Program. I sponsored legislation, with Reps. Sarbanes and Wittman, to create Chesapeake WILD grants to leverage the expertise of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service throughout the Bay's 64,000 square mile watershed. These grants will fund on-the-ground work to enhance water quality, mitigate flooding, provide opportunities for recreation, and protect habitat. This funding and these projects will advance efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay by the 2025 deadline. I am also pleased that my amendments supporting essential funding for our National Labs were adopted. These changes highlighted the need for funding for Nuclear Physics and Medium Energy Operations within the Department of Energy's Office of Science. Scientists and researchers at Jefferson Lab, located in the heart of my district in Newport News, train the next generation of scientists, advance lifesaving cancer radiation therapies, and have been awarded more than 150 patents. The funding included in the President's Budget for the Electron-Ion Collider and the design of a High Performance Data Facility at Jefferson Lab would advance our understanding of nuclear physics and increase the National Laboratories' computing power, supporting experiments that contribute to our understanding of matter and enhance our safety, quality of life, and even medical care. Also included in the legislation is funding for eight Community Projects in Hampton Roads. These projects include the expansion of rural broadband in Isle of Wight; an inventory of lead drinking water pipes in Portsmouth; the buildout and expansion of an LGBT community center on the Peninsula; an expansion of mobile health services in Franklin and Isle of Wight; the sidewalk extension for safe pedestrian connectivity in the South Norfolk community of Chesapeake; replacing athletic field lighting at public schools and a community center in Newport News; the development of a Maritime Trades magnet program for K-12 students; and the relocation of a frequently flooded YMCA in Norfolk. Federal investments like these are critical to the development and resilience of communities in Hampton Roads. This bill helps us move forward by spurring innovation, creating jobs, enhancing opportunities for trade and economic development, restoring ecosystems, and making necessary local investments. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my amendments to H.R. 4502, the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, Agriculture, Rural Development, Energy and Water Development, Financial Services and General Government, Interior, Environment, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act of 2022. These three amendments, included in en bloc three, support essential funding for our National Labs. The first amendment, which I introduced with Reps. Wittman, Beyer, Luria, and Wexton of Virginia; Reps. Suozzi and Rice of New York; and Rep. Slotkin of Michigan, highlights the need for funding for Medium Energy Operations and Nuclear Physics within the Department of Energy's Office of Science. The funding level included in the President's Budget would advance our understanding of nuclear physics, study which enhances safety, quality of life, and even medical care. Scientists and researchers at Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (Jefferson Lab), located in the heart of my district in Newport News, train the next generation of scientists, advance lifesaving cancer radiation therapies, and have been awarded more than 150 patents. Insufficient funding for Nuclear Physics and Medium Energy research would jeopardize Jefferson Lab's run times, contributing to an increased backlog of experiments ultimately slowing innovation and decreasing the United States' scientific achievements. Given the incredible work that Jefferson Lab does, I also submitted an amendment to encourage much needed investment in the Electron-Ion Collider, on which scientists at Jefferson National Laboratory and Brookhaven National Laboratory are collaborating. Again, the funding level included in the President's Budget Request is essential to moving this critical project forward. I thank my colleagues Reps. Wittman, Beyer, Luria, Wexton, Suozzi, and Rice for their support of this effort. By supporting the development of the Electron-Ion Collider, we enable researchers to answer pressing physics questions about the world in which we live. Lastly, I was pleased to see funding for the High Performance Data Facility to support real-time analysis for experiments across the National Laboratories included in the President's Budget. The proposed facility would meet the needs of increasingly complex research projects across the labs. Jefferson Lab, the first National Lab to deploy a graphics processing unit for scientific computing, is incredibly well- suited to house this facility on the East Coast. Establishing the facility at Jefferson Lab would not only increase the National Laboratories' computing capacity, it would also enhance their resilience and help Jefferson Lab achieve its vision for a diversified scientific mission moving forward. I thank my colleagues Reps. Wittman, Beyer, Luria, and Wexton for their support of this amendment. These amendments, like the underlying bill, help us move forward, spurring innovation, creating jobs, facilitating incredible discovery. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and these amendments.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise to celebrate the life and legacy of Susan Scanlan. Susan was a public servant, leader, and mentor who dedicated herself to improving the lives of women and families. This personal drive led Susan to help found the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues and its associated policy arm, the Women's Research and Education Institute (WREI), in 1977. For five years, Susan served as the Caucus's director before taking the helm of WREI's Congressional Fellowship on Women and Public Policy, which provides aspiring policy leaders with invaluable Capitol Hill experience. Thanks to Susan's leadership, the WREI Congressional Fellowship (and its successor) has placed hundreds of talented fellows in congressional offices, bringing their unique talents, strengths, and passion for women's issues to the Hill. Throughout my service in Congress, I have had the pleasure and honor of hosting over a dozen fellows through this successful program. These fellows have been incredible assets to both my office and the work of the institution. Most importantly, however, they have had the unique opportunity to gain firsthand experience in policymaking--all because of Susan's work. Today, the WREI Congressional Fellowship--Susan's legacy--lives on through the Congressional Fellowships on Women and Public Policy. My thoughts and prayers are with her family and friends.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 848, the Consider Teachers Act of 2021.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 848) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 in order to improve the service obligation verification process for TEACH Grant recipients, and for other purposes.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 848, the Consider Teachers Act, introduced by Senators Braun and Sinema in the Senate, and led by Delegate Holmes Norton and Representative Spartz in the House. High quality teachers are the backbone of our Nation's education system. Yet, since even before the COVID-19 pandemic, communities across the country, particularly low-income communities, have faced a growing shortage of educators. To address this shortage, the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education grant program, or the TEACH grant program, offers upfront grant aid to incentivize individuals to pursue teaching and serve in low-income communities. Since 2007 these grants have helped people across the country become high-quality teachers in the communities where they are needed most. However, administrative issues with the program have inadvertently converted thousands of these grants into loans which must be paid back with interest. According to an investigative report in 2016, upwards of 63 percent of TEACH grants had been converted to loans, leaving badly needed teachers with burdensome debt. The bipartisan bill we are considering today addresses these issues in two key ways: First, it implements a reconsideration process to ensure TEACH grant recipients do not see their grants converted into loans by mistake; and, second, the bill creates flexibility so that teachers can still fulfill the grant's requirements in light of school closures and disruptions caused by the pandemic. Simply put, the Consider Teachers Act is a bipartisan legislative fix which will ensure TEACH grants can continue to strengthen and expand our Nation's teacher workforce. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate again my thanks to Representative Spartz and Delegate Norton for working across the aisle on this bipartisan priority in the House. As my colleagues have reiterated, the TEACH grant program is supposed to help prepare high quality and diverse educators for our Nation's underserved students. Today it is critical that the TEACH grant program actually works as intended as we recover from a global health emergency that cost education jobs, exacerbated achievement gaps, and worsened the teacher shortage in many States and districts. That is why we must ensure that Federal initiatives to strengthen the teacher workforce make it easier, not harder, for individuals to enter the teaching profession. The Consider Teaching Act would help achieve this goal by ensuring that TEACH grants do not have the unintended effect of leaving educators with burdensome loans. This simple yet urgent step will allow prospective teachers across the country to continue accessing the resources they need to pursue careers in teaching. Importantly, this bill is an opportunity to demonstrate that regardless of party affiliation, each of us in Congress shares a commitment to improving the quality of education by investing in well- prepared teachers. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, again, to support the bill and vote for the Consider Teachers Act. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the INVEST in America Act. I want to thank Chairman DeFazio for bringing this bill to the floor. I represent the 3rd congressional district of Virginia where the Chesapeake Bay meets the James, Nansemond, and Elizabeth Rivers. This location presents both challenges and opportunities. My district is home to the Port of Virginia, one of the largest and busiest ports on the eastern seaboard. With 95 percent of our nation's trade moving by water, it is essential that the port is able to maintain operations. Unfortunately, due to sea level rise, both attributable to climate change as well as historic subsidence, these same waterways also pose a serious risk. State and local elected officials in Virginia already appreciate the significant threat sea level rise poses to Hampton Roads. Unfortunately, the cost to proactively and aggressively address this problem head-on is far too great for any city to bear by itself. While Hampton Roads has already spent considerable sums of money to address the rising water and implement resilient infrastructure where feasible, the scope of the entire project to actually address the problem is expected to total in the billions of dollars. Hampton Roads is also home to significant traffic backups throughout the region, especially at waterway crossings. The widening of the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel is primarily being financed with local and state revenue from sales and gasoline taxes in the Hampton Roads Transportation Fund but it requires federal support. There are limits to how these major transportation projects can move forward without federal assistance. For example, the Downtown and Midtown Tunnels, connecting the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth, were in such a state of disrepair and need of expansion that the Commonwealth had few options other than to enter into a lopsided private-public partnership leading to egregious tolls for decades to come. The Hampton Roads region is also in vital need of public transit investments. Our airports, roads, and bridges are in need of repair and I would urge the committee to commit crucial federal support for infrastructure in every state. This infrastructure bill includes much needed investments in a cleaner and greener infrastructure. This bill targets investments that will improve energy efficiency and resilience and grow local economies without passing the burden onto local communities. I am pleased that this bill will also directly impact my district by dedicating nearly $24 million in critically needed infrastructure funds, so that we can invest in the future of our communities. With these funds the Birthplace of America Trail can expand in Newport News; the City of Chesapeake can begin a pilot program for electric emergency response vehicles; Hampton Roads Transit can move forward with the Bus Rapid Transit project making traveling around Hampton Roads without a car easier; Tidewater Drive, a major arterial road connecting to Naval Station Norfolk, can be repaired; and work on the Craney Island Access Road, which will help keep up with the increased import/export demands at the Port of Virginia, can advance. Mr. Speaker, this bill makes necessary investments that will create good-paying jobs and resilient infrastructure as we face the rising seas and changing climate.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and, more importantly, I thank her for her leadership of the Congressional Black Caucus and her leadership on the Committee on Financial Services. Madam Speaker, we are slowly recovering from the economic mess that we inherited after the last administration. The number of jobs, up. Unemployment, down. Initial claims for unemployment insurance, down. The economy is going in the right direction, but, clearly, not fast enough. That is why the American Jobs Plan and the American Families Plan are so important. The American Jobs Plan will create funding for the traditional infrastructure, like roads, bridges, tunnels, rail, public transit; also investments in ports. It also proposes significant investment in broadband. And we have heard how important broadband is because it connects families and businesses to the internet, and connects students to the internet. Those students who did not have connectivity could not take advantage of educational opportunities for over a year, and if they don't get connectivity, they will be disadvantaged going forward. We need to have universal broadband, and the investments in the American Jobs Plan and the American Families Plan will go a long way towards universal access to broadband. We even have electric charging stations for people who are not inclined to buy electric cars if they can't charge those cars on the highway. And people are not building charging stations along the highway because there are not that many electric cars. The American Jobs Plan will have funding for electric charging stations so that more people will be inclined to buy electric cars. And not surprisingly, as soon as that happens, all of the restaurants up and down the highways will have charging stations so people will be inclined to hook up; and while they are waiting, they will go in and take advantage of the restaurant. Madam Speaker, those are just some of the investments in the American Jobs Plan. It also includes school construction. There is an article recently in Virginia that told the story that about 50 percent of the schools in the Commonwealth of Virginia are over 50 years old. That sends a disappointing message to students when they are going into old schools. It gives the impression that education is not important. We need to improve our schools, and we can do that with the funding in the American Jobs Plan. Madam Speaker, we have funding to improve housing, that we have heard, and many other projects. Creating millions of jobs, good-paying jobs--mostly union jobs--where they are guaranteed to be able to negotiate a decent wage and equal pay for equal work. But those jobs will go unfilled unless we also pass the American Families Plan, which has funding for childcare and early childhood education and improved child nutrition so parents can actually go to work; job training and apprenticeships and improved access to higher education so workers can get the skills needed to perform those jobs. These bills will create millions of jobs and enable workers to perform those jobs, and these programs will be fiscally responsible because they will be paid for. Madam Speaker, that is how we will build back a better America.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 7 of House Resolution 486, I call up the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 13) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission relating to ``Update of Commission's Conciliation Procedures'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials on S.J. Res. 13.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 13, a Congressional Review Act resolution disapproving the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, Conciliation Rule. This resolution will help ensure fairness for those who bring forth charges of unlawful workplace discrimination. When the EEOC has found that an employer likely violated the law, it is required under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1984 to engage in conciliation before filing a lawsuit. This conciliation process is meant to be an informal and confidential opportunity for parties to settle a charge of discrimination in lieu of going to court. Unfortunately, in the final weeks of the Trump administration, the EEOC issued a final rule that imposed onerous new requirements on the conciliation process. Under the new rule, the EEOC must provide an employer with a written summary of the facts and the nonprivileged information the EEOC relied on to determine that the employer violated the law. Notably, the rule requires the EEOC to expose the identities of workers or groups of workers for whom relief is being sought unless they proactively request anonymity, and their witnesses. This new rule will put a thumb on the scale in favor of employers in cases where the EEOC found that they likely violated workers' civil rights. Specifically, the rule incentivizes employers to focus litigation on whether the EEOC failed to satisfy the rule's new requirements instead of whether the employer engaged in unlawful discrimination. In fact, on settlement--settlements had been more likely since the Supreme Court ruled that this conciliation process should be informal, unlike the rule that was promulgated late in the Trump administration. This will allow unscrupulous employers to drag out the conciliation process, possibly for years--and even avoid accountability altogether-- by just litigating over whether the EEOC complied with the conciliation rule rather than correcting the discriminatory process. The EEOC rule conflicts with the Supreme Court's 2015 decision in Mach Mining v. EEOC. It was a unanimous decision. It held that the EEOC must have the discretion to use whatever informal means of settlement are appropriate in each individual case. However, under the new rule, a rigid conciliation process will apply across the board, one-size-fits- all, in every case of workplace discrimination. This solution will likely lead to increased retaliation against victims of discrimination and witnesses, as well as needless delays in justice for workers. We know that justice delayed is justice denied. This is why civil rights leaders and worker advocates across the country have called on Congress to pass this Congressional Review Act resolution and restore fairness for victims of workplace discrimination. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a Statement of Administrative Policy from the Biden administration in support of this resolution. Statement of Administration Policy S.J. Res. 13--A joint resolution for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission relating to ``Update of Commission's Conciliation Procedures''--Sen. Murray, D-WA, and no cosponsors The Administration supports Senate passage of Senate Joint Resolution 13 to nullify the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) recently promulgated ``Update of Commission's Conciliation Procedures,'' which became effective on February 16, 2021, under the Congressional Review Act. The rule that S.J. Res. 13 would nullify imposed onerous and rigid new procedures on the EEOC's obligation to conciliate or ``settle'' meritorious claims of employment discrimination, that risks unduly delaying and diverting limited resources from agency efforts to investigate and resolve meritorious claims of employment discrimination. The rule increases the risk of retaliation by making it easier for employers to demand the identities of those with information about unlawful discrimination, which will likely- have a chilling effect on the willingness of victims and witnesses to come forward. S.J. Res. 13 would nullify the rule's unnecessary and burdensome standards that would likely result in increased charge backlogs, and lengthier charge investigation, resolution and litigation times. The resolution will also ensure that EEOC has the flexibility to tailor settlements to the facts and circumstances of each case, thus increasing the likelihood of voluntary compliance. The resolution will furthermore ensure that justice for workers subject to discrimination is not delayed, or potentially denied, due to costly and time-consuming collateral litigation.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), the chair of the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Services, and cosponsor of the House version of this resolution.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just to state on the question of whether or not the individuals can be revealed, identifying the aggrieved individuals must take place, but not if the individual or individuals have requested anonymity. That means you have to know that you are about to be revealed. You have to proactively request anonymity. If you haven't gone through those steps, then you will be revealed. That is an unnecessary step. It puts people in unnecessary jeopardy, and I hope they would not subject that. It is not necessary. The EEOC has an obligation to do conciliation, but they need to do it on an individualized case, best aimed at settlement and based on an individual case, and reveal the information that is best for that purpose, and no more. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, it is our responsibility to reverse the EEOC's new conciliation rule. Before this harmful rule change, the EEOC's conciliation process was what it was meant to be, an informal, flexible, confidential opportunity to settle discrimination claims before going to court. That is what the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2015. Now, the new conciliation rule is threatening to stack the process against workers by subjecting those who make discrimination claims to an increased risk of retaliation and allowing employers to hijack the process to focus on whether it failed to conciliate, not whether the employer violated the law. Simply put, this is an unnecessary new regulation which will, at best, delay justice for victims of discrimination and, at worst, open the door for collateral litigation, adding potentially years to the process before ever reaching the merits of the discrimination claim. That is why advocates of victims of discrimination support the resolution. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights signed by 24 civil rights groups in support of the resolution. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Washington, DC, June 9, 2021. Re Support S.J. Res. 13, a Congressional Review Act Resolution of Disapproval to Protect Workers from a Harmful EEOC Rule Dear Representative: The undersigned 24 civil and workers' rights organizations urge you to vote for S.J. Res. 13, a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution of disapproval to undo a January 14, 2021, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) final rule that threatens to harm working people seeking relief from discrimination and to impede the work of the EEOC. The EEOC final rule made several changes to conciliation, the process by which the EEOC tries to settle a charge of workplace discrimination. Instead of ensuring that discrimination charges are resolved fairly, the EEOC's final rule imposes several new obligations and disclosures that: Significantly weight the conciliation process in favor of employers; Delay justice and increase the likelihood of harm to working people; Divert scarce EEOC staff time and resources away from investigating discrimination; and Contravene controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedent. The Senate passed S.J. Res. 13 on May 19, 2021. If the House now passes this resolution, Congress could undo this harmful rule and restore the status quo with respect to the EEOC's procedures. A resolution of disapproval is an appropriate exercise of Congress's power in this case, because the CRA is the most expeditious and effective option for addressing the negative impacts of the EEOC's final rule. The EEOC must be able to conduct its work efficiently in order to be effective in its mission to prevent and remedy workplace discrimination. This mission is even more critical in the middle of a global pandemic that continues to have severe economic repercussions for women, people of color, and other marginalized communities, including a heightened risk of job loss, health and safety hazards, and discrimination based on sex, race, age, and disability. Individuals who experience discrimination on the job already face significant hurdles to seeking redress, including retaliation, lack of information about their rights, and lack of access to legal assistance. When an individual does file a charge of discrimination against their employer with the EEOC, the agency collects information and conducts an investigation. If the EEOC finds ``reasonable cause'' to believe employment discrimination has occurred, the parties are invited to participate in the conciliation process, which seeks to settle or resolve the charges of discrimination informally and confidentially, in lieu of filing a lawsuit. Title VII requires the EEOC to attempt resolution of charges informally before considering or proceeding with litigation, and the EEOC may only pursue litigation if conciliation has failed. The final rule will only deepen the barriers working people face coming forward to report discrimination and obtain justice. It requires the EEOC to grant the employer access to details of the victim and witnesses' identity and allegations, escalating the risk of retaliation for workers. Claims of retaliation made up more than half of all charges filed at the EEOC in FY 2020, and fear of retaliation prevents many victims of discrimination from coming forward and many witnesses from being forthright--something that may be especially true during an economic crisis. The rule also requires the EEOC to disclose critical information concerning the EEOC's legal analysis of the case to employers, and employers only. In other words, the EEOC would be required to automatically tum over its case files to employers whom the agency believes to have acted unlawfully, but not to the working people who are seeking a remedy for the discrimination they faced. This practice would exacerbate resource and information inequities between the parties to the benefit of employers only. Although the proposed rule would allow disclosures to the charging party upon request, many working people who file charges are unrepresented by counsel and will not know to make such a request. The EEOC, whose mission is to prevent and remedy discrimination, should not, in its own procedural rules, disadvantage the very party seeking to remedy discrimination. By imposing inflexible rules on the conciliation process, the EEOC final rule also flouts congressional intent and is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent. In its unanimous 2015 decision Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, the Supreme Court explained that ``every aspect of Title VII's conciliation provision smacks of flexibility,'' which allows the EEOC to tailor its approach to conciliation in the way most appropriate in each case. Without flexibility, the EEOC will be forced to divert resources away from investigating and remedying workplace discrimination and put them toward satisfying the final rule's burdensome standards, resulting in increased delays at the expense of victims of discrimination. In addition, the rules would saddle EEOC with wasteful collateral litigation attacking the conciliation process, prolonging harm to workers through increased delay. This tactic was prevalent before Mach Mining, and that case itself shows the potential impact: The workers in Mach Mining--women excluded from coal mining jobs due to sex discrimination-- were forced to wait nine years after the first charge was filed for relief, in part because of unmeritorious employer challenges to the conciliation process. By invoking the CRA and passing a resolution of disapproval, Congress could quickly restore the status quo with respect to the EEOC's conciliation procedures, minimizing the harm to workers and eliminating the need for the EEOC to expend its scarce resources either undertaking rulemaking processes to rescind the conciliation rule or implementing the onerous new procedures in the final rule, and defending the sufficiency of the new conciliation process in collateral litigation by employers. Importantly, application of the CRA to the final rule ensures that the EEOC would be prohibited from promulgating a ``substantially'' similar rule in the future that would hinder vigorous enforcement of federal workplace antidiscrimination laws. The final conciliation rule was both procedurally and substantively flawed, raising concerns about its integrity. As such, Congress's exercise of the CRA would be warranted here. Accordingly, we urge you to support and vote for S.J. Res. 13, the CRA resolution of disapproval of the EEOC's final rule. Please contact Gaylynn Burroughs of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights at burroughs@civilrights.org, or Maya Raghu of the National Women's Law Center at mraghu@nwlc.org, if you have any questions. Thank you, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, National Women's Law Center, A Better Balance, AFL-CIO, American Association of University Women (AAUW), Anti- Defamation League, Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Center for American Progress, Equal Rights Advocates, Feminist Majority, Futures Without Violence, Institute for Women's Policy Research, National Action Network, National Association of Councils on Developmental Disablities, National Employment Law Project, National Organization for Women, National Partnership for Women & Families, National Workrights Institute, Public Citizen, Sikh Coalition, TIME'S UP Now, Women Employed, Workplace Fairness.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, we cannot allow employers to drag out the conciliation process rather than be held accountable for violating workers' civil rights. As I said at the beginning of this debate, justice delayed is justice denied. That is why I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this resolution and taking a critical step to ensuring that those who suffer workplace discrimination can get timely and fair justice. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) for working with me on the House version of the resolution. I ask for the support of the House to pass the resolution to overturn the EEOC regulation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 486, I call up the bill (H.R. 2062) to amend the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and other laws to clarify appropriate standards for Federal employment discrimination and retaliation claims, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 2062, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act of 2021.