Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, as I am sure each person in this Chamber can agree, it is simply unacceptable that many pregnant workers have to choose between their paycheck and a healthy pregnancy because they cannot access reasonable accommodations to continue working safely. As my colleagues have pointed out, most accommodations, which can include water, seating, and more frequent restroom breaks, are not complex or costly. Yet without these simple accommodations, health risks to pregnant workers can be significant and potentially tragic. The COVID-19 pandemic poses increased risks for pregnant workers at a time when pregnant women comprise 62 percent of frontline workers, including more than 75 percent of healthcare workers. Passing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act today, we can take a strong bipartisan step to guarantee that all pregnant workers have access to basic workplace protections. Madam Speaker, once again, I urge my colleagues to support the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, first, let me just restate what I said about the Congressional Research Service that found that States typically do not enact separate or specialized religious exemptions for pregnancy accommodation laws. Madam Speaker, this MTR would jeopardize women's health and risk their pregnancies in order to provide a religious exemption for employers, to exempt them from the requirement to provide just basic and reasonable accommodations for the workforce. Exactly who would want them to deny these basic accommodations? First, it is unnecessary. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act already exempts small private employers, including religious employers, with fewer than 15 employees. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 80 percent of religious organizations have fewer than 10 employees. Second, the underlying bill does not in any way amend or change the underlying exemptions in title VII of the Civil Rights Act or Americans with Disabilities Act or any other bill. It doesn't affect the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. But it would, if it is specified in this bill, give the employer the idea that they could deny reasonable accommodations if they for some religious reason don't agree with the pregnancy: women who are pregnant and divorced, women pregnant out of wedlock, pregnant in a same-sex relationship. What, you don't have to give them a water break? This amendment is unnecessary. The other exemptions are there for legitimate religious reasons, and this overbroad amendment would just cause mischief. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Wild).

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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 insert extraneous materials on H.R. 2574, the Equity and Inclusion Enforcement Act of 2019.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1107, I call up the bill (H.R. 2574) to amend title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to restore the right to individual civil actions in cases involving disparate impact, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Equity and Inclusion Enforcement Act. This legislation will restore the right of students and parents to address racial inequities in public schools. This legislation comes over 66 years after the Supreme Court ruled in 1954, in the Brown v. Board of Education case, that in the field of education, the doctrine of separate but equal has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. This comes just 4 years after the General Accountability Office found that racial segregation in public schools is now as bad it was in the 1960s and getting worse. For almost 40 years, the courts interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1964, title VI, as granting students and parents the right to bring discrimination claims against public schools and any other entities receiving Federal funds for discriminatory policies and practices. Victims of federally funded discrimination could use title VI to challenge both discriminatory policies and practices that were created with the intent to discriminate and policies and practices that, while neutral on their face, had the effect of discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. To be clear, the mere presence of the policy's disproportionate impact does not alone constitute a violation of title VI, but allowing communities to use disparate impact analysis equipped them with an important tool to combat systemic inequities for decades. Unfortunately, in its 2001 decision in the case of Alexander v. Sandoval, the Supreme Court stripped private citizens, including students and parents, of their right to bring disparate impact claims against schools and other federally funded programs. While this ruling did not invalidate the use of disparate impact analysis to prove discrimination, it reserved that power to pursue such claims to the Federal Government through administrative enforcement of title VI. In other words, this longstanding protection against discrimination in federally funded programs, including education, can now only be enforced if the administration in power so chooses. The effect of this ruling on antidiscrimination enforcement has been particularly acute in education. Since 2001, we have seen an increase in racial isolation in public schools and a decrease in resource equity. As a result, African-American and Hispanic children disproportionately attend schools that are both majority minority and underresourced. Whether this trend has been intentional or not is immaterial, but we do know that discrimination in 2020 is not the same as it was in 1964. Discrimination increasingly comes in the form of coded terminology, structural inequality, and implicit bias rather than explicit bigotry. So students and parents must be empowered to hold schools accountable for policies and practices that deny students access to quality education based on their race, color, or national origin whether or not they can prove the discriminatory policies were intentionally imposed. Understandably, parents and students have been expressing confusion and frustration because they can no longer use the Civil Rights Act to challenge discriminatory policies and practices in their schools. By ceding this right to the Federal Government, the Supreme Court majority in Sandoval opened the door to civil rights enforcement becoming a political issue instead of a right. While the Office of Civil Rights, the OCR, at the Department of Education is staffed with career attorneys, it is led by a political appointee. This department has repeatedly shown its reluctance to enforce and defend the civil rights of all students. Our core civil rights protections should not be up for a vote every 4 years. To that end, the Equity and Inclusion Enforcement Act would restore the private right of action of students and parents to bring a title VI discrimination claim based on disparate impact and hold schools accountable for providing equal access to quality education for all students. The legislation also requires school districts and institutions of higher learning to appoint a title VI monitor to ensure that at least one employee is responsible for ensuring compliance with the law. This includes, at a minimum, investigating complaints of discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. This provision in the bill is modeled after title IX officers in school settings. The legislation's aim is for title VI monitors to foster a culture of compliance, similar to what we now have under title IX. Finally, the bill creates an assistant secretary in the Department of Education to coordinate and promote title VI compliance. History has shown that we cannot support historically disadvantaged students or close persistent achievement gaps without robust civil rights enforcement. This is particularly true as public schools become more segregated, more segregated than they were in the 1960s and as the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbates inequitable access to quality education for underserved students. Today, we have the opportunity to restore and strengthen critical civil rights protections by passing the Equity and Inclusion Enforcement Act. Nearly seven decades after the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education which struck down school segregation, this bill would bring us one step closer to delivering on its promise of equity in education. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, 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, the question of segregation of school choice is not what the Democrats are saying; it is what the studies have shown, that there is more likely to be segregation when you give people the choice. That is why freedom of choice was thrown out by the Supreme Court as an answer to Brown v. Board of Education many years ago. You have Whites choosing the White schools, Blacks choosing the White schools, social isolation taking place, and nature taking its course. That is why you need the right to integrate the schools, and you can't do it with school choice. Madam Speaker, I think the question is clear. We have a lot of schools where the distribution of resources is done clearly along racial lines, and because you can't prove that it is with discriminatory intent, you can't do anything about it. So that is why you need the bill, and I would hope that we would pass the bill to let those who can prove that they are being discriminated against have their day in court. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I want to say a few words about what the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights found, since the ranking member mentioned the Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, by name. It found that the Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, has rescinded critical guidance to protect students' civil rights, narrow the scope, and reduced the number of investigations conducted, and decreased the budget and staffing capacity of the Office of Civil Rights at the department. The Commission's report indicated that OCR issued 38 guidance documents to improve program understanding of and compliance with civil rights statutes under the Obama administration. By comparison, the OCR under the Trump administration has issued few guidance documents and has instead rescinded critical guidance documents. Specifically, in 2018 Secretary DeVos rescinded guidance documents in support of the constitutionally protected use of race in admission or assignments to improve diversity and higher education and K-12. Also, in 2018, Secretary DeVos rescinded 2014 school discipline guidance packages, which provided local educational agencies with technical assistance through reform, discipline policies, and practices that, although racially neutral, disproportionately impacted students of color in violation of title IV. And it goes on and on to talk about what has been going on in this administration. Madam Speaker, the ranking member talked about school segregation yesterday. We had the opportunity to do something to help those localities that wanted to voluntarily desegregate their schools. And it was a bipartisan result--21 Republicans joined Democrats in providing resources to localities that wanted technical assistance in how to voluntarily desegregate their schools. That can be complicated, because in the Supreme Court case involving two localities, Louisville, Kentucky, and Seattle, Washington, voluntary school desegregation initiatives were found unconstitutional. The Court said you can do it, but in this case, you didn't do it right. So technical assistance, legal advice, is necessary to make sure that you can have an effective policy that can withstand constitutional challenge. Regrettably, 160 Republicans voted ``no'' to give those resources to those localities that want to voluntarily desegregate their schools. I mentioned the research on school choice. This is a very simple bill. It just gives the right of those who can prove discriminatory impact on their school systems--they can prove it, it just gives them the right to come to court to prove that they have been discriminated against to vindicate their rights. It is a very simple bill, and I hope that the House will pass it so their civil rights will be protected. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentlewoman is exactly right. This will have ramifications that school districts will have to defend longstanding policies where they have a clear, provable disparate impact against minority children but the parents can't prove that it was imposed with discriminatory intent, and this administration won't do anything about it until they are just stuck. Yes, if this bill passes, the parents will be able to come forth and say that the Black children are stuck in woefully inadequate schools while the White children are not. Yes, they should have to defend themselves if you can prove it. They ought to have their day in court. They can prove that the policy is having a disparate impact on their children, and according to the Sandoval decision they have to wait for this Department of Education to do something about it. On school choice, the recent studies have shown that when you don't very carefully regulate it, you can actually have more school segregation in school choice than you have now. The question on achievement is mixed. There are some studies a few years ago that said on average school choice produced results that were average. More recent studies have shown that on average school choice produces achievement numbers that are worse than average. So that is not a road we should be going down. We should make sure that people, if they prove discrimination, have their day in court. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, anti-Semitism is religious discrimination. As the motion reflects, religion is not covered by title VI. It covers discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. It doesn't cover religion. While we are picking just one religious kind of discrimination, anti- Semitism, what about the other religions? Wouldn't they deserve attention, too? This is just a political attempt to insert religion into title VI. That is controversial. Might get support for that, but that is not part of this bill. This motion just diverts attention from the core provision of the bill, and that is to open the courts so that those who can prove discrimination can have their day in court if their proof is based on disparate impact. Now, let's not divert attention away from that core idea that people who have been discriminated against ought to be able to get into court. Let's let them have their day in court. Defeat this motion and pass the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House in the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 2574, back to the House with an amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Strength in Diversity Act. It has been 66 years since the Supreme Court unanimously struck down public school segregation in the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education. In that case, the Court declared that public education where the State has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms. The Court went on to say that, ``in the field of public education, the doctrine of `separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.'' More than six decades later, we have failed to fulfill that promise. According to the Government Accountability Office, our public schools are more segregated today by race and class than at any time since the 1960s, and segregation is actually getting worse according to the Government Accountability Office. School segregation has profound consequences for students. Today, low-income students of color are more likely to attend schools with fewer experienced teachers and resources. In fact, schools serving predominantly students of color face a $23 billion funding gap compared to schools serving predominantly White students. Now, we know that integration works. Black students who attend integrated schools have higher test scores and are more likely to graduate from high school, complete college, and even earn higher wages throughout their lives. Communities across the country have recognized the importance of school diversity for student success and have developed integrative strategies to promote diversity in education. In 2016, dozens of school districts applied for funding under the Opening Doors, Expanding Opportunities grant program, which was designed to help schools to pursue voluntary, community-driven school integration strategies. Regrettably, one of Secretary Betsy DeVos' first actions in office was to terminate that program before any money was disbursed. The Strength in Diversity Act corrects this action by providing Federal support to help school districts develop, implement, or expand efforts to integrate their local schools. The legislation will also shield these resources from the whims of changing administrations and allow communities to compile best practices for tackling segregation. This expertise is critical because of a series of Supreme Court rulings that have been hostile to integration. Most recently, in the Parents Involved case, the Court struck down two voluntary integration plans, one in Louisville, Kentucky, and the other in Seattle, Washington. The Court held that using race in desegregation plans is constitutional, but only if the plan is narrowly tailored to address the compelling interest of integrating the public schools. Unfortunately, they ruled in those cases that the plans were not narrowly tailored. The Strength in Diversity Act will provide resources so that the localities will be able to design plans that will be not only effective, but also be able to withstand constitutional challenge. Addressing America's legacy of racial discrimination is often uncomfortable and complicated. However, we must confront, not ignore, inequities in education if we are to reckon with this legacy and overcome a global pandemic that threatens to worsen the achievement gaps. Our former colleague, Congressman John Lewis, once stated: ``When you see something that is not right, not fair, not just, you have to speak up. You have to say something. You have to do something.'' Let's follow his guidance and vote for the first time in more than three decades to provide new resources that will help integrate our public schools and fulfill the promise of equity in education. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the Strength in Diversity Act. I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Fudge) for her distinguished leadership in this legislation.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment. While I appreciate that the gentleman from Georgia acknowledges the importance of providing resources to support school diversity, encouraging the use of IV-A funds for this purpose is not a reasonable solution. Schools already rely on a very limited amount of IV-A funding for a wide range of activities and programs, including mental health resources, educational technology, STEM education, extracurricular activities, and other critical needs. This amendment would effectively force schools to choose between addressing school segregation and providing mental health services. Developing, implementing, and expanding school diversity initiatives is costly and should not come at the expense of important programs already being supported by title IV. We will not improve services for students, parents, and communities by cutting the same size pie into even smaller slices. The purpose of the Strength in Diversity Act is to provide direct and additional investments in education that helps communities integrate their schools without undermining existing school programs and services. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I am hereby including in the Record the cost estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office for H.R. 2694, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. 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 9, 2020. Hon. 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. 2694, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Sofia Guo. Sincerely, Phillip L. Swagel, Director. Enclosure.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of three amendments to H.R. 7617. My amendment, offered with Mr. Wittman, Ms. Luria, and Mr. Beyer, reflects the need to adequately fund the important work done at Jefferson Lab. JLab, in my district in Newport News, is home to the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility, also known as CEBAF, the primary research tool in the U.S. for enabling basic research on the quark and gluon structure of protons and neutrons. Worldwide, a community of more than 1,700 scientists from over 275 institutions depend on this facility for their research. The City of Newport News has agreed to transfer ownership of a building to the Lab to support its work, but the $2 million included in this year's appropriations bills fall short of the $9 million needed to transfer that building and move forward with the renovation and expansion of CEBAF, for which the Department of Energy has already approved Critical Decision 0. I also rise today in support of the amendment offered with my colleagues, Mr. Wittman, Mr. McEachin, Ms. Luria, Ms. Spanberger, and Ms. Wexton, in regard to the urgent need for robust funding to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for coastal construction projects. The Army Corps has worked to keep America's waterways and ports open to trade, while working with our communities to ensure that they can continue to live with the water that surrounds Hampton Roads. My district is home to the Port of Virginia which is 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. The Port of Virginia is responsible for nearly $40 billion in economic activity in the Commonwealth of Virginia. It is critical to our financial well-being that we ensure that the Port is able to handle to the increased number and size of containers. The Port and the Army Corps of Engineers have undertaken the dredging and widening and deepening of the Norfolk Harbor to enable safe and efficient two-way passage of the new larger container ships. The project will require a New Start designation to keep the projected time line intact. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting additional funding to support our National Labs and the construction at the Norfolk Harbor to keep both of these essential projects moving forward. I also rise in support of Rep. Murphy's amendment which I was proud to cosponsor, as co-chair of the Modeling and Simulation Caucus, along with Rep. Bergman, an active caucus member. This amendment emphasizes the importance of funding for the Synthetic Training Environment (STE) account. Funding for the Synthetic Training Environment program is an investment in simulation technology to help service members train virtually for their missions. Advancing modeling and simulation technology is a long-term investment that enables us to remain competitive in with innovations in medicine, training, and transportation and I urge my colleagues to support these investments.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my two amendments to H.R. 7617. My first amendment is offered with Virginia Representatives Wittman, Luria, and Beyer and reflects the need to adequately fund the important work done at Jefferson Lab. JLab conducts primary research in subatomic particles, but the $2 million included in this year's bill falls short of the $9 million needed to move forward with the renovation and expansion to JLab, which the Department of Energy has already approved. I also rise in support of my amendment offered with Virginia Representatives Wittman, McEachin, Luria, Spanberger, and Wexton in regard to the urgent need for robust funding for the U.S. Corps of Engineers for coastal construction projects. The Port of Virginia and the Corps of Engineers have already undertaken the dredging, widening, and deepening of the Norfolk Harbor to enable safe and efficient two- way passage of the new larger container ships. The project will require additional funds and a New Start designation to keep the projected timeline intact. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting additional funding to keep both of these essential projects moving forward and on schedule.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the distinguished ranking member that we did have a hearing in February and, actually, a briefing in May that the minority party decided not to participate in. And insofar as the Speaker, she was here. If I had opened, she would have had to listen to me and to you and would have been here waiting all that time. The Speaker is busy, so I called on the Speaker so she could speak and return to her busy schedule. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, could you advise me how much time is remaining on both sides?

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