Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on both sides, please?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence), a co-chair of the Democratic Women's Caucus.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Bush).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this is a critical time to secure equal pay for equal work. Over the past year, the COVID-19 pandemic has driven over 2 million women out of the workforce. As women return to the workplace, failure to strengthen the equal pay protections will exacerbate and entrench the gender wage gap for years to come. Mr. Speaker, we all know that discrimination exists. The Paycheck Fairness Act will allow victims the tools they need to combat and also close loopholes that allows employers to escape liability for discriminatory pay differences. Today, we are talking about financial security for millions of families. Sixty-four percent of mothers are either the sole family breadwinner or co-breadwinner. We cannot continue to allow gender-based pay inequity to rob half of all workers and their families the wages they deserve. The Paycheck Fairness Act is our chance to finally help close the gender wage gap by reinforcing the Equal Pay Act and strengthening protections for working women. The bill would ensure that gender equality on the job is not an aspiration but a reality. Madam Speaker, I ask our colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 303, I rise to offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Madam Speaker, these amendments will: require the EEOC to provide for the collection of annual compensation data for employees disaggregated by race, sex, and national origin; add a requirement that employers post notices and distribute information electronically informing employees of their rights under this act; direct the Department of Labor establish a program to award grants to employers to engage in training and conduct self-audits to identify and reduce bias in pay practices; direct the Secretary of Labor to conduct a study and a research literature review of gender wage gap in the teenage workforce; and reestablish the National Equal Pay Equity Task Force that had been set up under the Obama administration to coordinate efforts between the Department of Labor, the Department of Justice, and the Office of Personnel Management. These amendments will make meaningful improvements to the bill, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the en bloc amendments. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I have two additional speakers. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Newman).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Williams).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I hope we would adopt these three good amendments en bloc, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who is the sponsor of the underlying legislation.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would hope we would defeat the amendment. This just recreates the loopholes that we are trying to close. You have to start with the idea that there is a differential in pay. And what we are trying to do is-- if you can explain this in any kind of way that is business-related, then they get away with it. The Fair Pay Act says it has to be bona fide and required by the job. If it is not required by the job, why do you have a differential in pay? We can do better than this, and I hope we defeat the amendment. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1868. Since the start of the pandemic, Congress has passed several emergency COVID-19 response packages to help our communities get back on their feet. Unfortunately, as the chairman mentioned, due to technicalities in the reconciliation process, some of that progress will be wiped away unless we pass this legislation. So H.R. 1868 is necessary to prevent the automatic, across-the-board funding cuts that will undermine our recovery. Just as the ranking member mentioned, that will happen unless we pass this bill. Many of those cuts will occur within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor. For example, the legislation before us protects student borrowers from automatic increases and loan origination fees and would increase the cost of taking out a student loan. The bill protects TEACH Grants, which help recruit talented individuals into the classroom. The proposal preserves funding for many of our colleges struggling to survive during the pandemic. Passing this legislation will prevent cuts to grants that go to students whose parents made the ultimate sacrifice serving our Nation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Finally, this bill protects Americans' access to affordable healthcare during the global health emergency. Mr. Speaker, Congress took bold action to get our country through the pandemic by enacting the American Rescue Plan. Now we must take this final step in the reconciliation process to ensure that we do not undermine critical programs that students and families urgently need. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I rise in support of equality and the principle that our Constitution was designed, not to shore up the dominance of the historically powerful, but to ensure the rights of all and to foster a society in which each of us is free to shape our future based on our abilities. The resolution today seeks to remove the deadline Congress put in place for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. While ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment is imperative to enshrine equal rights for women, I do not believe it is necessary to strike the deadline for ratification. However, by voting on this legislation, we may imply that it is necessary for Congress to lift a self-imposed deadline in order for the ratification to be effective. I do not prescribe to this view. Congressional authority to propose Amendments to the Constitution and the mode of ratification is outlined in Article V of the Constitution. Article V requires two-thirds of the House and Senate to propose an amendment. Congress can choose ratification through three-fourths of the state legislatures or state ratifying conventions. Once the amendment is proposed to the states, there is no Constitutionally imposed time limit on the ratification process. Article V of the Constitution is silent with regard to when a state must consider and ratify an amendment. In fact, the ratification process for the 27th Amendment took more than two hundred years. Historically, Congress has ratified amendments without specific time limitations. The first amendment to contain a time limit was the 18th Amendment, which established the prohibition of alcohol. The text of the 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd Amendments each contained language limiting the time frame for ratification. In contrast, the text of the Equal Rights Amendment ratified by the states does not contain a time limit. It is the proposing clause sent to the states for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment which contains a seven-year time limitation. Notwithstanding a lower district court ruling to the contrary, the language of a proposing clause is not legally binding. The ratification process of the Equal Rights Amendment was properly before the states and was reasonable and sufficiently contemporaneous. Therefore, having been ratified by Virginia and a sufficient number of other states pursuant to Article V, the ERA, in my judgement, has become part of the Constitution. This resolution is unlikely to add to the argument that the ERA has been ratified, and, because it implies that the deadline needs to be removed, it may strengthen arguments against because if the deadline is binding, then passage of this resolution in the House, without passage in the Senate, certainly does not cure that defect. And even with Senate concurrence, the effect of the resolution on state ratifications between the deadline and the removal of the deadline is unclear. So the passage of the resolution in the House and Senate will at best add confusion to the debate and at worst will strengthen arguments against the conclusion that the ERA has been ratified. Nevertheless, forced with a vote, it makes more sense to vote in favor than to oppose the resolution. Regardless of the outcome of this resolution on the ERA itself, the fight for equality must continue. Women still face hurdles in the pathways to success. On average, women still earn less than men for the same job functions. Pregnant women often lack basic protections and reasonable accommodation in the workplace. Perhaps most concerning of all, violence against women is still widespread and undermines the educational and social potential of women and young children in this country. I am proud to have worked with my Democratic colleagues in the House to pass legislation to remedy these inequalities. The House recently passed the Protect the Right to Organize Act (H.R. 842) which protects workers who are trying to form a union. While in most of America, women earn less than men, women and men working under a union contract receive equal pay for equal work. We have worked to fill the gaps in the patchwork of existing laws governing how and when workers take time off to care for themselves and their families. Expanding the Family and Medical Leave Act to cover more working parents and low wage workers who are currently excluded from leave policies is a top priority. There are other initiatives being considered to address inequities. Nearly two thirds of minimum wage workers in the United States are women. The Raise the Wage Act (H.R. 603) will raise the income levels of the most economically insecure households and would be a step in the right direction towards pay equity. The Pregnant Worker's Fairness Act (H.R. 1065) is important legislation that will provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant women in the workforce. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (H.R. 1620) which expands protections and provides critical funding for victim services, law enforcement training, and data collection, is now pending in Congress. However, even if all this legislation were to become law, it would not be the same as amending the Constitution to guarantee women equal rights. Discrimination in the workplace, violence in the home, and institutional barriers require systemic legal and cultural change. Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment provides an additional legal tool for combatting discrimination on the basis of sex. We will continue the fight for equality and work towards a more inclusive and equitable society.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, farmworkers toil under difficult and dangerous conditions for long hours and low pay to ensure America has a safe and plentiful food supply. Because of the scarcity of domestic farm labor, for decades, the agricultural sector has depended largely on the labor of migrant workers. The vast majority of crop workers in the United States were not born here and are undocumented or here on guest visas. Though these workers perform incredibly difficult work under hazardous conditions, they are often unable to seek recourse when their rights are violated. A pathway to citizenship, when accompanied by appropriate oversight measures, could help reduce these dedicated workers' justifiable fear of reprisal for asserting their rights. Farmworkers are integral to our communities and our economy. Creating a pathway to citizenship for these individuals--who work to feed us and our country year after year--as well as their families is both an economic and humanitarian necessity. I support legalization of vulnerable, undocumented workers and a path to citizenship. However, in exchange for legalization for some undocumented farmworkers, this bill would depress labor standards for H-2A workers. Because weakened labor standards for H-2A workers could adversely impact the domestic workforce, this bill could negatively impact the economic security of all farmworkers. Wage cuts for many H-2A workers in turn would depress wages for all farmworkers. The adverse effect wage rate (AEWR), which is often the binding wage paid to H-2A workers, is designed to ensure that wages paid to H-2A workers do not depress wages for U.S. farmworkers. This means the AEWR must be high enough to reflect wages paid in the local labor market. This bill would change the way the AEWR is currently calculated over the first ten years to reflect average wages paid to farmworkers in the region according to their specific occupation, rather than the average wage paid to farmworkers across all occupations. However, the bill fails to require the use of data that actually reflects local wage conditions. Additionally, while setting limitations on how much AEWR wages can decrease after an initial one-year freeze, the bill imposes caps on wage increases from year to year, limiting whether AEWR can truly reflect wages paid in the local labor market. As a result of these changes to the AEWR, the majority of H-2A workers would see their wages actually go down, albeit modestly, while others would see the growth in their wages capped. I have opposed similar efforts proposed by the Trump Administration that would depress wages. This year, I was pleased to lead House efforts to include an increase to the federal minimum wage in the House-passed American Rescue Plan (H.R. 1319). While those minimum wage provisions did not ultimately survive Senate budget reconciliation rules, I will continue to push for H.R. 603, the Raise the Wage Act, which would gradually raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2025. I am confident that in the next ten years, we will enact a meaningful increase in the federal minimum wage, boosting wages for workers across our nation--including farmworkers. However, I am concerned that H.R. 1603, Farm Workforce Modernization Act of 2021, will create artificial barriers to wage growth, or worse, lead to wage cuts, continuing to leave farmworkers relegated to low pay and economic insecurity. Our country's wage and hour laws are designed to ensure that workers are guaranteed a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. But this right is only as strong as a worker's ability to hold employers accountable, especially in court. Unfortunately, this bill creates obstacles that may delay farmworkers' ability to access their day in court, when they have been victims of wage theft. While I welcome extending coverage of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA) to H-2A workers, adding a mediation requirement to both the MSPA and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is problematic. This bill enables employers to impose three months of mandatory mediation when an H-2A worker brings a civil suit under these laws, even if the worker does not consent to the mediation and wants his or her day in court. This undermines the voluntary nature of mediation and provides bad actors with an avenue for delaying or denying wage recovery. This delay could prove significant for farmworkers who may be in this country for a limited amount of time to participate in litigation. This is especially fraught given that, in contrast to MSPA, the FLSA provides for recovery of unpaid wages and liquidated, or double, damages and recovery of attorney's fees, plus costs. This provision may also pull domestic farmworkers or other visa classifications of workers into required mediation where there are collective or class actions, thereby undermining incentives for other workers to join with H-2A workers to seek redress. Last Congress, I supported the passage of H.R. 1423, the FAIR Act, to ban forced arbitration in many areas, including employment, because it could delay or totally block workers' access to courts. We should promote legislation that protects workers' fundamental right to have their day in court, not delay it. This bill denies newly legalized farmworkers and their families access to key social safety net programs. Denial of benefits that can promote economic stability, coupled with the bill's wage suppressing provisions, threatens to create a long-term pool of economically vulnerable workers. While most of these individuals do not currently have access to these benefits due to their immigration status, leaving immigrant workers who are granted legal status under this legislation without access to social safety net programs establishes a dangerous precedent that access to health care and other basic necessities can be traded away for a path to legal status. This legislation weakens the current recruitment and hiring standards for U.S. farmworkers. A reduction in employers' obligations to hire U.S. workers under this bill will undermine one of the core principles of the H-2A program: that H-2A workers should fill in gaps in the farm workforce that U.S. employers are truly unable to fill, rather than merely replacing U.S. workers that employers could attract with reasonable efforts. I raised concerns with similar efforts to modify recruitment standards by the Trump Administration in 2019. Agricultural work is hazardous, and workers in this sector have few legal health and safety protections. Ensuring that H-2A workers and all farmworkers have safe, healthy working conditions is critical. I am pleased that this bill requires H-2A employers to maintain heat illness prevention plans and requires H-2A employers in the dairy industry to maintain workplace safety plans. However, as presently written, some provisions are ambiguous and would be difficult to enforce; other provisions have weak minimum requirements that would limit their value. As this legislation moves forward, I would urge the inclusions of stronger health and safety standards. Strong labor protections are vital to protect both H-2A workers, who are vulnerable given their temporary status, and domestic farmworkers, whose employers may be disincentivized to provide employment. This is especially true given that farmworkers have historically been carved out of labor and employment laws, leaving these workers with fewer wage protections and rights to bargain for better working conditions. While this bill does make some improvements in immigration law, I look forward to supporting a version of this bill that more accurately reflects strong labor standards.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 485) to reauthorize the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, and for other purposes.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure under consideration.