Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), who is a strong supporter of workers and who hails from one of the majority of States that have an ABC test.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), who knows that Social Security numbers are not available under this bill, but the same information that the Trump NLRB currently provides is in the bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rose).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the vice chair of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I have a couple of other speakers, but they are not here now, so we are prepared to close.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act is based on a simple idea that hard work should pay off. Strong labor unions and collective bargaining rights have long ensured that workers receive a fair share of the profits that they have produced. Unfortunately, decades of antiunion attacks have slowly eroded workers' collective bargaining rights, weakened labor unions, and contributed to a dramatic rise in income inequality. When workers have the power to stand together and form a union, they have higher wages, better benefits, and safer working conditions. The protecting the Right to Organize Act is an opportunity for all of us to stand with workers and help build an economy where everyone can succeed. Mr. Chair, I recognize the workers and advocates, both here today and across the country, who have been critical in bringing this legislation to the floor. In that regard, I include in the Record a letter from 138 unions and civil rights and faith-based organizations in support of H.R. 2474. January 31, 2020. Dear Representatives: The undersigned organizations support the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, as introduced by Senators Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Jacky Rosen (D- Nevada), Representatives Bobby Scott (D-Va.), Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.), Andy Levin (D-Mich.), Pramila Jayapal (D- Wash.), and Brendan Boyle (D-Penn.). The ability of working people to join together to collectively bargain for fair pay and working conditions is a fundamental right. When working people join a union, they have a voice on the job and the ability to collectively bargain for wages, benefits, and working conditions. Unions are crucial in fostering a vibrant middle class and reducing income inequality. When unions are strong, they set wage standards for entire industries and occupations, they make wages more equal within occupations, and they help close racial and gender wage gaps. For decades, however, that right has been eroding as employers exploit weaknesses in the current law to interfere with workers' rights--and face no real consequences for doing so. The result has been stagnant wages, unsafe workplaces, and rising inequality. The PRO Act would go a long way toward restoring workers' right to organize and bargain collectively by streamlining the process for forming a union, ensuring that new unions are able to negotiate a first collective bargaining agreement, and holding employers accountable when they violate workers' rights. This is important because by bringing workers' collective power to the bargaining table, unions are able to win better wages and benefits for working people. On average, a worker covered by a union contract earns 13.2 percent more in wages than a peer with similar education, occupation, and experience in a nonunionized workplace in the same sector. Moreover, when unions are strong, they set wage standards for entire industries and occupations, they make wages more equal within occupations, and they help close racial and gender wage gaps. Finally, there is a huge gap between the share of workers with union representation (11.9 percent) and the share of workers that would like to have a union and a voice on the job (48 percent). The PRO Act would take a major step forward in closing that gap. The PRO Act protects the right to join a union by: 1. Imposing stronger remedies when employers interfere with workers' rights. Under current law, there are no penalties on employers nor any compensation awarded to workers when employers illegally fire or retaliate against workers who are trying to form a union. The PRO Act would institute civil penalties for violations of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and would also require the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to go to court and get an injunction to immediately reinstate workers if the NLRB believes the employer has illegally retaliated against workers for union activity. Finally, the PRO Act would give workers the right to go to court on their own to seek relief, bringing labor law in line with other workplace laws that allow for a private right of action. 2. Strengthening workers' right to join a union and collectively bargain over working conditions. Though current federal law requires employers to bargain in good faith with the union chosen by their employees to reach a collective bargaining agreement, employers often drag out the bargaining process to avoid reaching an agreement. The PRO Act establishes a process for reaching a first agreement when workers organize, employing mediation and then, if necessary, binding arbitration, to enable the parties to reach a first agreement. The PRO Act would also allow employers and unions to agree upon a ``fair share'' clause requiring all workers who are covered by the collective bargaining agreement to contribute a fair share fee towards the cost of bargaining and administering the agreement, even in so called ``right- to-work'' states. Furthermore, the PRO Act will help level the playing field for workers by repealing the prohibition on secondary boycotts and prohibiting employers from permanently replacing strikers. 3. Unrigging the rules that are tilted against workers. Too often, employers misclassify workers as independent contractors because only employees have the right to organize under the NLRA. Similarly, employers will misclassify workers as supervisors to deprive them of their NLRA rights. The PRO Act tightens the definitions of independent contractor and supervisor to crack down on misclassification and make sure that all eligible workers are able to unionize if they choose to do so. The PRO Act also makes clear that workers can have more than one employer, and that both employers need to engage in collective bargaining over the terms and conditions of employment that they control or influence. And in an effort to create transparency in labor-management relations, the PRO Act would require employers to post notices that inform workers of their NRLA rights and to disclose contracts with consultants hired to persuade workers on how to exercise their rights. The time for the PRO Act is long overdue, and we cannot delay in working toward its passage. We call on Congress to enact this important piece of legislation as quickly as possible to ensure working people are paid fairly, treated with dignity, and have a voice on the job. Sincerely, Economic Policy Institute, National Employment Law Project, 1worker1vote, 350.org, 9 to 5, AFL-CIO, Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, Inc., Alliance for Justice, Alliance for Retired Americans, American Association for Justice, American Family Voices, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, American Income Life (AIL), American Income Life: Michael Vasu Agency, Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO, Association of Flight Attendants-- CWA, Autistic Women & Nonbinary Network (AWN), Bend the Arc: Jewish Action. BlueGreen Alliance, California Reinvestment Coalition, Campaign for America's Future, Catholic Labor Network, Center for American Progress, Center for Law and Social Policy, Center for Popular Democracy, Center for Public Policy Priorities, Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc., Child Labor Coalition, Claimant Advocacy Program, Metropolitan Washington Council AFL-CIO, Coalition of Labor Union Women, Coalition on Human Needs, Colorado Fiscal Institute, Commonwealth Institute for Fiscal Analysis, Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd, U.S. Provinces, CWA, Demos, Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project, Economic Opportunity Institute. Endangered Species Coalition, Equal Rights Advocates, Fair World Project, Family Values @Work, Farmworker Justice, Fiscal Policy Institute, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Friends of the Earth, Futures Without Violence, GoldenHours Consulting, Greenpeace, Human Rights Watch, Indiana Institute for Working Families, Indivisible, Interfaith Worker Justice, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART), International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers (IFPTE), AFL-CIO, International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots. International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, IUE-CWA, Jobs With Justice, Justice in Motion, Kentucky Equal Justice Center, Labor Project for Working Families in partnership with FV@W, LAANE, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, League of Conservation Voters, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Legal Aid at Work, Legal Aid Society of MFS, Louisiana Budget Project, Main Street Alliance, MANA, A National Latina Organization, Maritime Trades Department, AFL-CIO, Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, Michigan League for Public Policy, Milwaukee Area Service & Hospitality Workers Organization, NAACP. National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum, National Consumers League, National Domestic Workers Alliance, National Education Association, National Employment Lawyers Association, National Equality Action Team, National Immigration Law Center, National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund, National Nurses United, National Organization for Women, National Partnership for Women & Families, National Urban League, National Women's Law Center, National Workrights Institute, NC Justice Center, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, New Jersey Policy Perspective, New Orleans Workers' Center for Racial Justice, Nonprofit Professional Employees Union. OPEIU, Oxfam America, Patriotic Millionaires, People's Action, People For the American Way, PFLAG National, Policy Matters Ohio, PolicyLink, Pride at Work, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, Public Citizen, Public Justice Center, Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Sierra Club, SMART TD, South Florida Interfaith Worker Justice, Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice, Transport Workers Union. UnidosUS Action Fund, Union Veterans Council, AFL-CIO, United Association of Union Plumbers and Pipefitters, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), United Food and Commercial Workers International Labor Union, United Steelworkers (USW), Verite, Voices for Progress, VoteVets, Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO, West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy, Women Employed, Workers Defense Project, Workers' Rights Institute of Georgetown Law Center, Working America, Working Families Party, Working Partnerships USA, Workplace Fairness, WV Citizen Action Group.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I once again urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, under current law, which has been in effect since 1935, an employer may voluntarily recognize the union if a majority of employees have demonstrated support through signed cards or a petition to organize. If an employer decides not to recognize the union based on those signatures, then NLRB will direct a secret ballot election to determine whether the employees will be represented by the union. The PRO Act does not alter these requirements which have been in effect since 1935. This amendment would limit the workers' and employers' option to enter into voluntary recognition agreements. There is no reason why we should limit workers' options to an election if the workers and employers agree to forego it. But let's be clear. The PRO Act does not require card check in lieu of elections. Instead, it strengthens current law by requiring an employer to bargain with a union if the union has demonstrated majority support and the employer's interference coerced employees into voting against the union. The only time the NLRB can order an employer to bargain, absent a secret ballot, is when the employer interferes with the union election after a majority have already indicated support through signed authorization cards or a petition. Again, this is current law, set forth by the Supreme Court, and it has been in effect since 1969. In fact, the PRO Act actually strengthens secret ballot elections by ensuring they are free and fair, both to the workers and to the employers. Contrary to the argument that this legislation undermines secret ballots, the PRO Act does make a change because it expands the use of secret ballot elections because current law allows employers to withdraw recognition of a union without an election to decertify the union if the employer has evidence that the union has lost the majority support. The PRO Act just says that union elections are required for decertification, by secret ballot, that must take place before the employer can withdraw recognition. So this actually expands secret ballot elections and, otherwise, pretty much maintains current law that has been in effect for decades. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, only to remind the House that the only time the NLRB can order an employer to bargain with a union, absent a secret ballot, is when the employer interferes with the union election after the majority has already indicated support through signed cards or petitions. If the employer wants to insist on a secret ballot, all they have to do is not violate the Labor Relations Act. The other side of it is that if they want to decertify, they have to have an election. So that is a change. But that is more secret ballot elections, not fewer. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. First, I want to point out that, by every measure, unemployment, jobs per month, a Dow Jones industrial average, even the deficit were all better under President Obama than President Trump. We also know that union members get better wages, better benefits, and safer workplaces than nonmembers. But unions have the duty to represent all workers in a bargaining unit, even those who are not members of the union. In so-called right-to-work States, that means the union must equally represent those nonmembers who are free to avoid paying their fair share of the costs of representation. This obligation to represent everyone is known as the duty of fair representation. Since all workers receive a benefit from union representation, it is only fair that everyone contribute their fair share. For example, if a worker files a grievance, the union must represent that person with individualized representation, and that could cost thousands of dollars a day. Likewise, when a union incurs expenses while bargaining for raises or benefits, everyone in the bargaining unit benefits, so it only makes sense that everyone help pay for that representation. The PRO Act permits unions and employers to negotiate labor agreements, which include a service fee to cover the fair share of the cost of providing services mandated by law. That does not mean political activities or advocacy or holiday parties or Fourth of July celebrations, just those that are required by law. It just ensures that those who enjoy the benefits of union representation pay their fair share. Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, this is the last step before we can pass the PRO Act. We know that union members make higher salaries, get better benefits, work in safer workplaces. Nonunion members benefit from the high salaries.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1620, the Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization Act. I commend my colleague and fellow Virginian, Congresswoman Elaine Luria, for introducing this bill which will further the Chesapeake Bay's ongoing restoration. As a co-chair of the bipartisan Chesapeake Bay Task Force, I recognize the critical role that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and it's Chesapeake Bay Program play in coordinating the multi- state restoration effort. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. Deterioration of the Bay and how to best address the problem has been a concern for almost half a century. While serving as a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, I was part of a joint Virginia-Maryland legislative advisory commission focused on determining what actions were necessary to address Bay issues. We concluded that restoring the Bay would require more than just Virginia and Maryland, but rather, the collaboration of the entire 64,000 square-mile watershed. The EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program, which was created during the Reagan Administration and ratified by Congress in 1987, facilitates the cooperation between the watershed states and the federal government to restore the Bay. Re-authorization of the critical Chesapeake Bay Program is long overdue. Increases in underwater grasses and the blue crab population indicate our efforts are working, however more resources and continued coordination efforts are necessary to ensure that these gains are maintained and that the Chesapeake Bay is protected. The Total Maximum Daily Load, sometimes referred to as a ``pollution diet,'' was established in 2010 and is a key part of the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program and the EPA's role in establishing and enforcing those limits are an essential part of the ongoing restoration process. The Chesapeake Bay is a national commercial, recreational, ecological treasure and we have a moral responsibility to preserve it. I commend the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for reporting this bill favorably to the full House and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I appreciate her previous remarks, but I still have concerns about this bill because it is another so-called tough-on-crime bill that fails to address the true causes of the opioid crisis and will result in more incarceration of more drug users and street-level sellers. Furthermore, there is nothing in the bill that targets the laboratories outside of the United States that are responsible for flooding our communities with fentanyl and fentanyl analogues. Mr. Speaker, since President Nixon declared a war on drugs nearly 50 years ago, laws that ignore evidence and research in favor of harsh penalties and more mandatory minimums have succeeded in placing the United States as number one in the world in incarceration. Mass incarceration has gotten so bad that some studies have shown that it actually adds to crime rather than reducing crime. For example, too many children are being raised by parents in prison, and too many people have felony records who can't find jobs because they are victims of bills like this. Mr. Speaker, I have three main concerns regarding this legislation. First, the bill abandons evidence and expertise in exchange for expediency. We have a process that works well for designating controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act. This bill changes that process and allows DOJ to ignore the experts at the Department of Health and Human Services and the Federal Drug Administration. Classwide scheduling would give the Drug Enforcement Administration the ability to classify any new alternative chemical version of fentanyl as a schedule I drug. That would encompass hundreds and possibly thousands of chemical compounds. This bill also stifles research that could produce some of the best weapons against the opioid crisis. For example, lifesaving overdose treatments like Narcan could not have been developed under classwide scheduling because such scheduling creates enormous barriers for chemists studying opioid addiction by actually limiting access to the entire class of chemical compounds. Second, the bill will add to mass incarceration. This bill will allow prosecution of street-level criminals, like we had in the 1980s and 1990s. And the bill will trigger the same mandatory minimums that have contributed to mass incarceration. Possessing an analogue substance in a quantity equivalent to the weight of one paperclip would be enough to trigger a mandatory minimum of at least 5 years. A person does not even have to know the drug they are selling on the street or sharing with a friend contains that analogue substance. Classwide scheduling even allows prosecutors to seek longer sentences without a mens rea requirement. Third, this bill includes unnecessary legislation. The Department of Justice already prosecutes cases involving drug analogues under existing law.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Analogue Act allows prosecutors to prove that a substance is chemically similar to fentanyl and has the same psychoactive effects. The Federal Analogue Act protects due process rights and is an important check on overcriminalization. Let's not enact another law that sends more people to prison while ignoring the root causes of the present crisis, which is substance abuse and which should be dealt with as a public health problem. That is the approach we should take, and we can take that approach by rejecting this bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today on a solemn occasion. I have the honor of representing Newport News, Virginia, and last week, the Newport News community lost Police Officer Katie Thyne, who was tragically killed in the line of duty. Officer Thyne was only 24 years old and was the mother of a 2-year- old daughter. The Newport News community has lost someone who dedicated her life to public service. In addition to serving with the Newport News Police Department, Officer Thyne was a Navy veteran, and she also spent time volunteering as a basketball coach at the local Boys and Girls Club. Only 11 Newport News police officers have died in the line of duty in the last 100 years, and the last loss of an officer in the line of duty occurred over 25 years ago. Officer Thyne was the first woman. I want to send my deepest condolences to the friends and family of Officer Thyne, as well as members of the Newport News Police Department who are dealing with this tragic loss of a colleague.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 943, the Never Again Education Act. With each passing year, there are fewer and fewer people who can provide firsthand accounts of the horrors of the Holocaust. We have a responsibility to ensure that the lessons of the Holocaust are not forgotten. As Elie Wiesel once said: ``Wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must, at that moment, become the center of the universe.'' This legislation creates a grant program to fund Holocaust education programs across the country. As we confront a disturbing rise of anti-Jewish bigotry and acts of hate, let us invest in the minds of young people to understand the destructive powers of intolerance and how to use that knowledge to embrace understanding and insight. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairwoman Maloney, Mr. Bacon, Mr. Norcross, and Ms. Stefanik for their leadership, and I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the United House of Prayer for All People as the church celebrates its 100th year anniversary. The United House of Prayer for All People was founded by Bishop Charles Manuel Grace in 1919 in West Wareham, MA. The church is now headquartered in the District of Columbia and has 137 places of worship in 27 states. Bishop Charles Manuel Grace's vision for the United House of Prayer for All People was for it to be a place of worship that also addressed the critical needs of communities devasted by social and economic injustice. The impact of the church can be seen through community development, enterprise, and improved housing throughout the United States. United House of Prayer has developed thousands of multi-family and single-family homes while maintaining affordability in neighborhoods across the country. The church has also made a major impact on education. The late Bishop Walter McCollough, the church's second leader, founded the McCollough Scholarship College Fund to afford young people the opportunity to pursue their dreams of higher education. The late Bishop S.C. Madison established the St. Lady D. Scholastic Achievement program to reward grade school students for maintaining good citizenship and honor roll achievement. The United House of Prayer continues to be an extraordinary force in serving the needs of the less fortunate and impoverished citizens across this country. I am fortunate to represent several House of Prayer congregations in Virginia's third congressional district. The House of Prayer provides youth community programs, senior citizen projects, food banks, child care, and other community projects. The church remains focused on being a place where all nations and people, irrespective of denomination or creed, can pray and worship in spirit and in truth. The 100-year celebration of the United House of Prayer for All People is not just a celebration of bricks and mortar, it is a celebration of faith, unity, and dynamic leadership. Madam Speaker, the United House of Prayer for All People, under the current leadership of Bishop C.M. Bailey, has never sought public recognition for their hard work and dedication to the community. Bishop Bailey and the church have dedicated their lives to the advancement, growth, and success of communities throughout the country. I congratulate them on their 100th anniversary and I am excited to see the positive contributions they will continue to make in the years ahead.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of this resolution and thank the gentlewoman from Nevada for her leadership. Mr. Speaker, this resolution conveys the congressional disapproval of the Department of Education's refusal to protect students and taxpayers from predatory institutions. Those students are victims of widespread, proven fraud about graduation rates, job placement rates, and transferability of credits. Fortunately, the law provides relief, but instead of maintaining the Obama-era borrower defense rule, which provides a fair and streamlined process to provide debt relief to defrauded students, the Department of Education has finalized a new borrower defense rule that prevents an overwhelming majority of defrauded students from getting relief. We should reject this new rule and provide meaningful relief to defrauded students. Making defrauded students whole is the right thing to do, but it is not the only thing we should do. We must ensure that students and taxpayers are not defrauded in the first place. That is why we should pass the College Affordability Act, a comprehensive overhaul of our higher education system that cracks down on low-quality, predatory schools. The College Affordability Act holds schools accountable for students' success and cuts the cost of college for students and families across the country. Mr. Speaker, to address the present problem, those students need relief today. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution of congressional disapproval.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 1230, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1230, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act, or POWADA. I want to thank my colleagues, particularly the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for working to pass this bipartisan proposal to restore workplace protections for older workers. In 1967, Congress passed the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, or ADEA, which recognizes the Federal Government's role in preventing older workers from being forced out of jobs or denied work opportunities because of their age. Importantly, the ADEA was enforced using an evidentiary standard that gave older workers a fair shot at holding employers accountable for age discrimination. Under this standard, workers seeking to challenge age discrimination in employment only had to prove that age was a motivating factor or one of many motivating factors behind an employer's discriminatory action. For decades, this mixed-motive standard was consistent with the evidentiary standard in title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which covers claims of unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, sex, national origin, or religion. Unfortunately, in 2009, in the Gross v. FBL Financial Services case, the Supreme Court upended decades of precedent, significantly raising the burden of proof for older workers. In its 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that plaintiffs must prove that age was the decisive and determinative motivating factor for the employer's conduct. Under this altered framework, older workers cannot prevail unless they can show that the adverse action would not have occurred but for the employee's age. This higher threshold not only makes it harder for workers who have suffered discrimination to achieve redress, it also sends a message to employers that they need not treat age discrimination as seriously as other forms of discrimination. By amending the ADEA to clarify that the mixed-motive standard is the evidentiary standard for evaluating claims, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act would restore workers' protections and reestablish a consistent burden of proof for claims alleging discrimination on the basis of age. The 2009 Gross decision also opened the door for the courts to apply the but-for standard to other civil rights laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the antiretaliation provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The bill before us clarifies that the mixed-motive standard also applies to those three civil rights acts as well. Despite the bipartisan support in both Chambers for this bill, I am disappointed that the White House has already threatened to veto this legislation. In reality, the administration has a troubling pattern of blocking legislation to help the very forgotten workers it promised to support. In addition to this legislation, the administration has placed veto threats on the Raise the Wage Act, which would gradually increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025, and the Workplace Violence Prevention for Healthcare and Social Service Workers Act, which would support the safety of healthcare and social service workers. Mr. Chairman, today the House has a chance to be on record and stand up for the average American worker. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.