Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to respond to the idea that this has been rushed. There have been several committee hearings over the last 10 years in the House and one of the Senate, and that information is recorded in the committee report. I also would like to point out that the burden of but for that the Gross decision has saddled older workers with now requires them to show not only that they have been discriminated against but also that they would have gotten the job or wouldn't have been fired but for the fact that they are old. All the older person knows is that when they applied for the job they were told: We don't hire old people. Well, that is not enough, because now you also have to show that you would have gotten the job anyway. You don't know who got hired, and you don't know what their qualifications were, and it is an almost impossible burden to prove that not only were you discriminated against but you know the action would not have been taken but for that action. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), who is the chair of the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Services on the Education and Labor Committee.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), who is the co-chair of the Bipartisan Disabilities Caucus.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Wild), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the co-chair of the Democratic Caucus Task Force on Aging and Families.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Stefanik), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chair, it has been more than a decade since the Supreme Court heightened the burden of proof for workers seeking to legally challenge age discrimination in the workplace; however, our responsibility to ensure that no older Americans are forced out of a job or denied a work opportunity because of age has not changed. At a time when Americans are working longer into their lives, we need policy solutions that empower older workers to challenge workplace discrimination. We know that a 2018 survey by the AARP showed that three out of five workers age 45 or older had seen or experienced age discrimination in the workplace. Some of my colleagues contend that this bill was rushed to the floor; however, we must remember that this is a bipartisan proposal that has undergone substantial debate since it was first introduced in 2009. Over the past 10 years, Congress has deliberated on this legislation through four hearings, including two hearings in the Committee on Education and Labor. Both the House and Senate have introduced and gradually improved this legislation in the 111th, 112th, 113th, 114th, 115th, and the current 116th Congress. It is long overdue. The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act is a bipartisan, bicameral solution that restores protections for older workers and ensures that we treat all workers facing discrimination, whether it is on the basis of sex, race, religion, national origin, or age, with consistency and fairness. I want to thank Congressman Sensenbrenner for working with us to bring this important legislation to the floor. I want to remind everyone exactly what this bill does. Under the bill and before 2009, if a person could prove discrimination, that was the beginning of the case. The defendant would be able to show that they would have been fired or not hired anyway, but that is on the defendant to show. If they don't show that, then it is proven discrimination, entitling the plaintiff to damages. If the defendant can show that it would have done it anyway, discrimination is already proved, and, as the gentlewoman from North Carolina pointed out, attorney's fees would be available. Under the new law, after 2009, not only do you have to prove that you were discriminated against, told we don't higher old people, you also have to prove that you would have gotten the job anyway. Well, you don't have that information. You can't show that you would have gotten the job. You don't know the qualifications of the person who was hired. So, Mr. Chair, we know that this legislation is extremely important. Older workers want this legislation, as evidenced by a letter of support from the Leadership Council of Aging Organizations, over two dozen organizations representing senior citizens; another letter, joined by 26 advocacy organizations supporting the bill; and, finally, a letter of support from AARP. Mr. Chair, I include these letters in the Record. Leadership Council of Aging Organizations, December 9, 2019. Hon. Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader, Hon. Chuck Schumer, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Schumer, Speaker Pelosi, and Minority Leader McCarthy: The Leadership Council of Aging Organizations (LCAO) is a coalition of 69 national nonprofit organizations concerned with the well- being of America's older population and committed to representing their interests in the policy-making arena. We are writing to urge you to vote for passage of the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act (S. 485, H.R. 1230). The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act (POWADA) is bipartisan and bicameral legislation sponsored in the Senate by Senators Bob Casey (D- PA) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA). The House version is sponsored by Representatives Bobby Scott (D-VA) and Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wl). The House Education and Labor Committee voted on June 11, 2019 to approve POWADA. Age discrimination is pervasive and stubbornly entrenched. Six in 10 older workers have experienced age discrimination and 90% of them say it is common. It is even more pervasive among older women and African American workers; nearly two thirds of women and three-fourths of African Americans say they have seen or experienced workplace age discrimination. Courts have not taken age discrimination as seriously as other forms of discrimination and older workers have fewer protections as a result. Ten years ago, in Gross v. FBL Financial Services Inc., the Supreme Court set a higher standard of proof for age discrimination than previously applied and much higher than for other forms of discrimination. Since Gross, court decisions have continued to chip away at protections. As a result, plaintiffs now have to prove that age was a determinative, ``but-for'' cause for their employers' adverse treatment of them. Before the Gross case, it was enough for plaintiffs to prove that age was one of the motivating factors. POWADA would restore the standard of proof in age discrimination cases to the pre-2009 level, and treat age discrimination as just as wrong as other forms of employment discrimination. Moreover, because courts have applied Gross' higher burden of proof to retaliation charges and to disability discrimination, it would also amend the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII's provision on retaliation, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Please vote to restore fairness for older workers by passing the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act (S. 485, H.R. 1230). Sincerely, The Undersigned Groups of the Leadership Council of Aging Organizations: AARP; AFL-CIO; AFSCME; Aging Life Care Association; Alliance for Retired Americans; American Association of Service Coordinators; American Society on Aging; AMDA--The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine; Association of Gerontology and Human Development in Historically Black Colleges and Universities; B'nai B'rith; Consumer Voice; International Association for Indigenous Aging; Justice in Aging; Leading Age; National Adult Protective Services Association; National Asian Pacific Center on Aging (NAPCA); National Association for Hispanic Elderly; National Association of Area Agencies on Aging (n4a). National Association of Nutrition and Aging Services Programs (NANASP); National Association of Social Workers; National Center and Caucus on Black Aging; National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare; National Council on Aging; National Hispanic Council on Aging; National Senior Corps Association; Pension Rights Center; PHI; Social Security Works; The Gerontological Society of America; The Jewish Federations of North America; Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement (WISER). June 10, 2019. Hon. Bobby Scott, Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Virginia Foxx, Ranking Member, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Foxx: On behalf of the undersigned organizations and the millions of workers we represent, we urge all Committee Members to vote to support H.R. 1230, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act (POWADA), sponsored by Chairman Scott and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI). POWADA is bipartisan, limited legislation to restore fairness and well-established legal standards on workplace discrimination that were undermined by certain court decisions. To ensure equal treatment and equal opportunity in employment, the civil rights laws make clear that discrimination in the workplace ``because of'' a protected characteristic or activity is unlawful. For decades, this meant that discrimination may not play any role in employment practices. Yet, 10 years ago this month, the Supreme Court erected a new and substantial legal barrier in the path of equal opportunity for older workers. In Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. (2009), the Court imposed a much higher burden of proof on workers who allege age discrimination than is required of those who allege discrimination based on race, sex, national origin, or religion. Proving that discrimination tainted the employer's conduct was no longer enough; after Gross, older workers must prove that discrimination played a decisive role in the employer's action. Since the Gross decision, the Supreme Court and lower courts have extended this same unreasonably difficult burden of proof to other types of civil rights complaints: Retaliation--In Title VII cases in which an employer retaliates against a worker who challenges workplace discrimination based on race, sex, or other grounds, the worker must now prove that retaliation was the decisive cause for their adverse treatment. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar (2013). Disability discrimination--The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether workers subjected to disability discrimination must also meet this much higher standard of causation, but four federal circuit courts of appeal have ruled that disability-based employment discrimination must be established under the higher, ``but-for'' causation standard. This line of court decisions has made it exponentially more difficult for workers who have experienced discrimination to have their day in court and prove their case. These decisions have also sent a terrible message to employers and the courts that some types of discrimination are not as wrong, or as unlawful, as other forms of discrimination. POWADA would restore the causation standard that was in effect and consistently applied by the courts before 2009, and make Congress' intent clear that discrimination in the workplace is never acceptable. Please support H.R. 1230 and swiftly pass this bipartisan legislation. Sincerely, AARP, American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), American Association of University Women (AAUW), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF), Easterseals, Equal Rights Advocates, Justice for Migrant Women, Justice in Aging, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. National Council on Aging, National Disability Institute, National Domestic Workers Alliance, National Education Association (NEA), National Employment Law Project, National Employment Lawyers Association, National Partnership for Women & Families, National Women's Law Center, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, Paralyzed Veterans of America, The Arc, The Gerontological Society of America, Women Employed, Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement (WISER).

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree), who worked hard with the sponsor of this amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to thank the gentleman for his amendment and hope it passes. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this is, as my colleague has indicated, a distraction. This has nothing to do with truck drivers or the PRO Act. We are talking about discrimination against older workers. We are talking about victims of discrimination, not who gets to discriminate against them. We have a problem that older workers are facing discrimination, and everybody knows it. National organizations representing senior citizens, advocacy groups, and civil rights groups, including the AARP, have all written letters asking us to protect workers against discrimination. We are correcting the Supreme Court case and the Gross decision, which makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for older workers to prove their cases. We need to defeat this distraction and pass the bill to protect older workers against discrimination. Mr. Speaker, I hope we can defeat the motion and pass the bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to share a word about the untimely passing of Courtney Everts Mykytyn. In 1954, the United States Supreme Court unanimously struck down lawful school segregation in the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. In a unanimous decision, the Court stated, ``where the state has undertaken to provide it, [education] is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.'' Chief Justice Earl Warren went on to state that ``in the field of public education, the doctrine of `separate but equal' has no place.'' Courtney founded Integrated Schools in Los Angeles, California in 2015 to start a grassroots movement for school integration. Integrated Schools' mission states: ``America's schools are more segregated than before the Civil Rights Movement. . . . Through national organizing to promote local action, we support, educate, develop and mobilize families to ``live their values,'' disrupt segregation, and leverage their choices for the well-being and futures for their own children, for all children, and for our democracy.'' As champion for educational equity, Courtney recognized that school integration is one of the most powerful tools to ensure that all children have an equal opportunity to reach their full potential. She understood that the work of integrating our schools can be uncomfortable and complicated, and worked to educate parents and build community coalitions. Unlike many school integration efforts that place burden solely on families of color, Courtney's mission was also to challenge white families to integrate schools. Courtney was always intentional in her efforts as she boldly stated: ``We're [white people] the ones who kind of made it all [school integration] fail. Really fixing it has to be on us.'' Courtney educated white families about how true school integration requires both an understanding of systemic racism in America and the careful work of relationship-building free of self-interested agendas and without employing a white saviorism mentality. When I think of Courtney's leadership on this important issue, I am reminded of the Court's 1971 opinion in Swann v Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education led by Chief Justice Earl Warren. He stated, ``. . . [A]ll things are not equal in a system that has been deliberately constructed and maintained to enforce racial segregation. The remedy for such segregation may be administratively awkward, inconvenient, and even bizarre in some situations, and may impose burdens on some; but all awkwardness and inconvenience cannot be avoided . . .'' Courtney understood the consequences of segregation for children and our democracy. She often spoke about how segregation undermines our core American ideals of fairness and equality and worked tireless to help fulfill the promise of Brown. Courtney emphasized that integrating schools was not about sacrifice, but instead about a commitment to strengthening our democracy and building a better society. I hope advocates and families continue her legacy and commitment of fighting for school integration. Further, I challenge this body to honor Courtney's legacy in the months and years to come by taking the necessary actions to support and advance school integration. Madam Speaker, the sadness of the passing of Courtney Everts Mykytyn is offset by her transformative work on school integration. Her death is a great loss to the school integration movement and our country. She will be greatly missed. I send my deepest sympathies to her loved ones, including her husband, Roman Mykytyn, her two children, Stefan and Lulu, and the Integrated Schools community.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding, and, yes, we have a lot of military installations in the Hampton Roads area, and we are very concerned about the present situation in the Middle East. We want to talk about what is going on in the Committee on Education and Labor, and I just want to share a few things that we have been doing over the last year. Comments have been made of what Congress is or is not doing. Well, we have been protecting the income of hardworking Americans by the House passing the Raise the Wage Act, which will gradually increase the Federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour by 2025, giving 33 million workers a raise and lifting over a million people out of poverty. We haven't had an increase in the minimum wage for over a decade. The last minimum wage was over 10 years ago, and inflation has eroded the value of that minimum wage so much to the point where one study concluded that a full-time, 40-hours-a-week, minimum-wage worker cannot afford a modest two-bedroom apartment in any county in the United States. We are not talking about San Francisco or Manhattan. Not a single county in the United States can a full-time minimum-wage worker afford a modest two-bedroom apartment. So we voted in the House to increase the minimum wage. The Paycheck Fairness Act addresses pay inequity by holding companies accountable for gender-based wage disparities and protecting a worker's right to challenge systemic pay discrimination. We passed that bill. The Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act, or Butch Lewis Act, will prevent the imminent collapse of our multiemployer pension system, saving over 1 million hardworking Americans their pension, while protecting those benefits and the taxpayer's dollars. We also passed the Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers Act to prevent violence and the injuries that occur because of that. In addition, the committee has reported the PRO Act, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, which will enable workers to negotiate for better wages and better working conditions. We also passed the legislation to help in the area of children's access to quality education and a safe learning environment. We passed in the committee the Rebuild America's Schools Act which will invest $100 billion to repair our public schools' crumbling digital and physical infrastructure and will create 1.9 million jobs. We passed two important civil rights bills in the area of education: the Equity and Inclusion Enforcement Act and Strength in Diversity Act, which will empower students, parents, and communities to challenge discriminatory education policies and increase school diversity. The committee passed the College Affordability Act, which will comprehensively overhaul our higher education system so that students will be able to achieve a college degree without incurring crushing debt. We also passed legislation to protect children from school shootings. In the area of healthcare, the House has passed legislation to protect consumers from junk health plans by trying to overturn the Trump administration's short-term, limited duration insurance rule, as well as passing the Lower Drug Costs Now Act which will reduce out-of- pocket costs for customers, lower prescription drug prices, and increase transparency. We passed legislation that will protect children from child abuse, the Stronger Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. We protected seniors by passing legislation, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act. All of those bills have passed the House. None have been taken up by the Senate, and so we need to make sure that the hard work of our committee is rewarded by the passage of those bills in the Senate. But as I have said, our committee has been busy. All of the committees have been busy doing the people's work. We are doing the people's agenda, and I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to do a little bragging about what we have done.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to mention these bills for the people. The people will be much better off if we can get a little cooperation down the hall and improve education, improve healthcare, and improve working conditions.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, we are continuing to work.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I include my remarks in favor of both Articles of Impeachment. Every Member of Congress swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and that oath should be the guide for all of us when considering articles of impeachment against the President of the United States. There has been considerable public debate over what constitutes impeachable offenses; the Constitution names them as `Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.' Under normal circumstances, the country could wait until the next election to remove an undesirable president from office. Issues like the President's Muslim ban, separating babies from their parents at the border, trying to undermine access to health care, cutting funding for education, standing in the way of commonsense gun legislation, or other harmful policy stances are not impeachable offenses, but issues that will be addressed in the 2020 election. However, our founders included impeachment in the Constitution for times when an official's conduct was so egregious, we could not wait for the next election to remove that individual from office. President Trump's Ukraine scheme was intended to influence the 2020 election to make it an unfair process, and that highlights a key reason why he must be impeached and removed from office. Multiple House Committees have conducted extensive investigations into the President's conduct. The facts are uncontested. President Trump invited Ukraine to interfere in our next presidential election and leveraged desperately needed military aid and a high-profile visit to the White House to promote his scheme. This constitutes an attack on our electoral system and democracy itself and is a gross abuse of presidential power. This scheme needs to be viewed in the context of other actions by this President. The Mueller report found multiple instances of obstruction of justice committed by the President, and that obstruction has continued. Furthermore, the President has continued to violate the Emoluments Clause by profiting from foreign and domestic business transactions from the moment he took office, and that violation has continued. With the Ukraine scheme, the President has admitted in public to actions that sacrifice national security for his own personal, political gain and then he insisted that he did nothing wrong. His ongoing attack of the whistleblower serves to discourage other whistleblowers from coming forward, his intimidation of witnesses during impeachment proceedings, his orders to witnesses to ignore subpoenas, and his invitation to China to meddle in our next election all indicate that, left unchecked, this President will not cease his misconduct and will seek to do it again. The President continues to put his own personal and political gain above the law and his conduct in these matters constitutes clear abuses of power and an ongoing threat to our democracy. If the President had simple acknowledged the basic fact that trying to sabotage the next presidential election is wrong, and that he would not continue such behavior, we could be discussing the question of waiting until the next election to express our views on his conduct. We would have to discuss the credibility of such a statement, but a discussion over waiting for the election would be a relevant issue. However, that is not the case. President Trump continues to obstruct properly convened investigations and he continues to abuse his power by trying to undermine the next presidential election. For all of these reasons, I will vote for both articles of impeachment. I came to the 116th Congress to serve the people of Virginia's Third Congressional District, and to focus on my work as chair of the Committee on Education and Labor. Committee Democrats have been working to expand access to the building blocks of a strong middle class--a quality education, a rewarding job, and affordable health care. The House has already passed the Raise the Wage Act, the Lower Drug Costs Now Act, the Paycheck Fairness Act, the Stronger Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, the Butch Lewis Act, the Dignity in Aging Act, and the Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers Act. The Committee has also approved the College Affordability Act, the Rebuild America's Schools Act, the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, and other critical legislation awaiting a vote by the full House. Later this week, the House will ratify the USMCA with strong labor protections. However, if we expect our democracy to survive, President Trump's abuse of power cannot be ignored. No one is above the law.

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 the House passage of H.R. 582, the Raise the Wage Act, which would boost wages for millions of lower-wage workers. 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. 5038 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 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 liquated, 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. This September, 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, such as Medicaid and subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. 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 earlier this year. 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 Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes. Madam Chair, I would first like to thank Chairman Neal, Chairman Pallone, the Speaker of the House, and other Democratic leaders for their leadership in lowering skyrocketing drug costs. The Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act is a historic proposal to improve the health and well-being of all Americans. Not only does this legislation lower drug costs for taxpayers and seniors on Medicare, but it also reduces drug costs for businesses and families across the country, allowing employer-sponsored plans to access the same cost savings negotiated for Medicare. In fact, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, H.R. 3 will save households and businesses more than $160 billion over the next 10 years. In my district, this means savings for approximately 600,000 people in public and private health insurance programs. H.R. 3 will save the taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, and these savings will be reinvested in healthcare priorities. These priorities include funding new cures through the National Institutes of Health; funding community health centers, which serve 29 million Americans across the country; and combating the opioid epidemic. Simply put, the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act will lower prescription drug costs for workers today while investing in a healthier future for all Americans. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and deliver on our bipartisan promise to lower healthcare costs for the American people. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Davis), the distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor and chair of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Investment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Wild), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor.