Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to acknowledge the gentleman from Georgia, Representative Doug Collins, and the gentleman from New York, Representative Hakeem Jeffries, for their hard work and dedication in improving this bill over the last several weeks. Historically, the United States of America has been plagued with serious, fundamental problems within our criminal justice system. For far too long, policymakers have chosen to play politics and disapprove of common-sense policy that is specifically geared towards reducing crime by instead enacting so-called ``tough on crime'' slogans and soundbites, such as ``three strikes and you're out,'' ``mandatory minimum sentencing,'' and even rhymes such as, ``you do the adult crime, you do the adult time.'' These policies may sound appealing, but their impact ranges from a negligible reduction in crime to an actual increase in crime. Turning to the bill we are debating today, I recognize that the FIRST STEP Act includes a fix to the calculation of good time credit, which I have sought for many years. Calculating good time credit as Congress had originally intended is a serious improvement made by this bill. This bill also improves the auditing process for enforcing the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) to protect prisoners from sexual assault. It places prohibitions on shackling pregnant and post-partum women. The bill expands the use and transparency of compassionate release for terminally ill prisoners. It also requires the federal Bureau of Prisons to house prisoners closer to their primary residence, so they can maintain ties to their family and community. And there is a significant investment in programs designed to reduce recidivism. But process is essential to crafting an effective bill. There were no hearings on this bill. Nor has a CBO score been done. Nor has a prison impact analysis been prepared. And it is obvious that experts had little to do with drafting the bill. As a result of this process, there are several problems with the bill. First, the version of the bill we are voting on today is unnecessarily complicated by the use of a risk assessment tool. I have reached out to experts in the field of prison reform, and I have not found anyone who will say that risk assessment tools should be used to determine which prisoners can use time credits to gain early release from prison. Instead, they suggest that simply increasing programming for everyone will reduce recidivism and the complicated risk assessments are unnecessary and will stand in the way of reducing recidivism for many prisoners. The risk assessment process may also exacerbate existing racial disparities in the federal prison system. Second, experts have raised serious concerns about excluding groups of prisoners from this program who we know will be released from prison and therefore should be involved in the program. Third, there are questions of cost and funding. The Bureau of Prisons has cut contracts with halfway houses and terminated 6,000 correctional officers. This bill cannot achieve its goals without an adequately staffed prison system, as well as sufficient space at halfway houses. Even in the absence of hearings and experts, we can see that some of the opposition to this bill is almost comical, because it is lodged by advocates who support other legislation that carries the same provisions that are either similar to or worse than what they complain about in the FIRST STEP Act. Others oppose the bill because it does not include sentencing reform and therefore does not address mass incarceration. Unfortunately, the bill those advocates hold up as ``sentencing reform'' fails to make any meaningful reduction in mass incarceration, and may in fact add to mass incarceration. It is in the context of this absurd process that we have to vote on this legislation. Unfortunately, without the appropriate analysis, we can only guess about its impact. Based on that guess, it is my determination that no prisoner will be worse off, but many may be significantly better off, under the FIRST STEP Act. I expect that public safety will be enhanced by this bill, because more people will receive programming to reduce their likelihood to commit future crimes. Although this is a shameful process, I will therefore support the bill. Mr. Speaker, as the process moves forward, I hope that the sponsors of this legislation will continue to improve it, based on evidence and research.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for allowing me to speak on this ver important issue, and I thank her for leading this Special Order on this important topic, which is gun safety, especially as it relates to school safety. Keeping all students and educators safe is a top priority. On Friday, we had another tragedy. A small town that few could point out on a map is now infamous. Santa Fe High School, near Galveston, Texas, experienced a mass shooting, leaving 10 dead: Eight students, two teachers. Several students said to the media, they knew this would eventually happen to them. Our thoughts and prayers are with those students and with the families suffering from acts of gun violence, but enough is enough. This shooting marks at least 16 shootings in schools just this year. Using the same metrics, there have been hundreds of school shootings since the April 1999 shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado: Marjory Stoneman Douglas; Sandy Hook; Columbine; Virginia Tech; and now Santa Fe. We watch, year after year, as students and educators lose their lives to gun violence, both in and out of school. Yet, in the decades since Columbine, Congress has taken virtually no action. Instead of ignoring these tragedies, Congress must have some hard conversations about guns, about mental health, about bullying, and about policies that contribute to the school-to-prison pipeline. And more than just conversation, Congress must act with policies built on evidence-based research, not slogans and sound bites. We all agree that we must do all that we can do to protect our students and prevent violence of all forms, including gun violence. In the wake of Columbine, the knee-jerk reaction was to put more police in schools, invest in security infrastructure such as metal detectors, and turn our schools into fortresses. The research, based on such policies, is clear that more guns and schools built like Fort Knox will not make our students and teachers safer, and likely will negatively impact vulnerable students. There is evidence that with more police in schools, they will be more likely to arrest the children than to protect the children. After Columbine, we passed legislation providing services for those caught up in the juvenile justice system, but, unfortunately, over the years, that funding has evaporated. After Sandy Hook, no action was taken either. The Democratic Gun Safety Task Force made a list of recommendations of actions we could take, like an assault weapons ban, limiting the size of magazines, closing loopholes in background checks, more investments in mental health, and funding evidence-based policies that reduce crime. Unfortunately, no action has been taken on this list of initiatives. Yet, we have seen virtually no action, even after the situation in Parkland, Florida. Instead, we have seen calls to arm teachers, allow racial discrimination in the name of safety, and equip every school with more armed police officers. These measures have created a culture of fear and anxiety that actually makes the school-to-prison pipeline worse, and it does nothing to increase school safety. We know what needs to be done to address school shootings. We need to equip our school leaders, teachers, and parents with the resources necessary to ensure access to school-based mental health services; we need to prevent bullying and harassment; and we need to achieve safe and welcoming learning environments for all students. Comprehensive and collaborative interventions will help address school violence, improve school climate, and keep students safe. Students desperately need the staff and resources to better meet the mental health needs of students. We must invest in hiring more school counselors, psychologists, and social workers. Trauma-informed care is a framework that helps all stakeholders recognize the signs of trauma and provides training on how to support children coping with trauma. And we need proactive, not reactive, approaches to handling school discipline. Unfortunately, far too many schools today do not utilize the prevention interventions and, instead, rely heavily on suspensions and expulsions. The evidence is clear: the overuse of exclusionary discipline and the disparate treatment of students of color and students with disabilities robs our most vulnerable students of the opportunity to learn and to achieve. In 2014, the Obama administration released a guidance package that focused on clarifying schools' obligation under Federal civil rights law to identify and address racial bias in discipline policies and practices. Those guidelines showed localities how to reduce those disparities without jeopardizing school safety. The guidance has recently been under attack from the administration and congressional Republicans, who are actually trying to claim the guidance has contributed to the school shooting in Parkland. Not only is this claim exploiting a tragedy to advance previous priorities, it is also factually false. The guidance package, in no way, required schools to change discipline policies if disparities did not exist; and if the disparities did exist, they were not required to take any action that reduced school safety. Further, the guidance rightly pointed out that research shows suspensions and expulsions are ineffective and, actually, a harmful means of handling school discipline. Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to take action because what we have done so far is not enough. We must enact commonsense gun violence prevention measures, and we must provide resources to educators and students to increase access to mental health services. I hope that as we move forward from yet another tragedy, that we can stand together, ready to support our teachers, students, and families with real, evidence-based solutions.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, there is a lot wrong with this bill, but as ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I am particularly concerned about its impact on students. SNAP eligibility is tied to eligibility for other vital Federal programs, so the proposed cuts in SNAP eligibility will also cut access to free school meals for 265,000 children. Research has consistently shown that students struggling with hunger have lower grades, are less able to focus, and more likely to miss school. This bill would undermine the ability of hundreds of thousands of students to reach their full potential by cutting SNAP benefits for the family and reducing school benefits for children. In the wake of a $1.5 trillion tax cut for corporations in the top 1 percent, it is a shameful statement of priorities when you try to pay for these tax cuts by reducing food assistance programs for low-income students. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5242. This legislation under consideration today will improve our understanding about the role of school resource officers. But we must acknowledge that this bill barely scratches the surface of what is actually required to keep our schools safe, and I urge this body to do more. In the wake of February's tragic shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, many have called for a so-called Federal focus on hardening of our schools, which includes increasing Federal dollars to hire more police officers and embracing the most harsh punishments for school discipline, and even allowing school teachers to carry firearms, despite the overwhelming evidence that many of these initiatives do more harm than good. In fact, anyone hoping for a discussion of evidence-based methods for preventing school violence must be profoundly disappointed at our reaction since February. Anyone hoping that the call for harsher school discipline would be sensitive to how it would be applied to students of color and those with disabilities must be disappointed. Anyone hoping this Chamber would find the political will to take a stand with parents, students, and the overwhelming majority of Americans to take action on sensible gun legislation must be disappointed. We have failed to act as one after another of these unthinkable tragedies have become commonplace. In the decades since the 1999 shooting at Columbine High School, States and districts have rushed to increase school-based law enforcement presence. The Parkland tragedy serves as a painful reminder that this effort has not, despite its best efforts, eliminated mass school shootings. Nearly two decades later, mass shootings in schools still persist, while student behavior has been criminalized, leading to millions of students entering the school-to-prison pipeline. H.R. 5242 would direct the Departments of Justice and Education to conduct voluntary data collection on school districts' hiring of law enforcement officers. And I would remind my colleagues that we have a tool that collects a lot of data, not only on the presence of school officers, but also on how they impact school equity. I urge my colleagues to stand in defense of the Civil Rights Data Collection. That is the Civil Rights Data Collection which collects data on equity in education, data such as access to advanced placement courses, data on suspensions, data on access to pre-K and other questions of access and equity, and would call on the Trump administration to affirm its intent to maintain the integrity of that collection. Mr. Speaker, I also urge my colleagues to stand with students and parents in defense of civil rights under the guise of school safety. The Trump administration has signaled its intent to revoke the Education-Justice discipline guidance that provides districts with the tools to address racial disparities in discipline in a way that would not jeopardize school safety and ensure that school law enforcement officers are trained to serve in a school setting. Without a shred of evidence, Secretary DeVos has blamed mass school shootings on civil rights protections and the guidance that clarifies district-level obligations under Federal civil rights law. I urge my colleagues to join me in calling on President Trump and Secretary DeVos to discontinue their misinformation campaign and maintain the entire so-called rethink discipline package. As districts rush to hire resource officers, this body must commit to maintaining resources that empower districts to do so without negatively impacting equity in education. Mr. Speaker, I also urge this body to increase investments in education. Teachers and students need access to mental health services, counseling, and evidence-based violence prevention programming. Teachers need comprehensive support, including increased salaries. The conversation on school safety that speaks only to hardening of the schools and hiring law enforcement officers will harm far more people than it will protect. Lastly, I urge this body to consider and pass commonsense gun safety legislation. Gun violence in and outside of the school is a public health epidemic that merits bold and bipartisan congressional support. Meanwhile, this bill does provide for the collection of data and the hiring of police officers in our schools. This information can be helpful as we decide how to best allocate resources to address school safety. Mr. Speaker, I therefore support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for introducing this bill. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an institution that has been at the forefront of education in America for the last 150 years. This April, Hampton University is celebrating the 150th anniversary of its founding. To mark the occasion, I would like to take a moment and recognize the wonderful legacy of this institution of higher education that lives on today. The seeds from which Hampton University grew were planted in 1861. During the Civil War, Fort Monroe, the Union-controlled coastal fortress, was a beacon to slaves in Hampton, Virginia and the surrounding towns. General Benjamin Butler, Commanding Officer of the fort, had issued a declaration that any slaves that made it to Union lines would not be returned to their masters, but declared ``contraband of war.'' Overrun with slaves desiring their freedom, the Union created a camp for the refugees a few miles northwest of the fort. It was in this camp that Mary Smith Peake, a free black woman held classes for escapees under a large oak tree, in violation of Virginia law prohibiting the education of free or enslaved blacks. This tree would later be named the Emancipation Oak, as it was the first place in the South when the Emancipation Proclamation was read aloud to a crowd. The classes and meetings held under the Emancipation Oak were the beginning of education on the campus of what was to become Hampton University. After the war, there were no existing pathways for freedmen to rise from their station in slavery. Recognizing this, Brigadier General Samuel Chapman Armstrong, head of the Freedmen's Bureau in Hampton Roads, founded the Hampton Normal and Agricultural Institute in April 1868. While nominally the school's mission was to train black teachers to fill the demand for the education of black Americans, the school's founder suggested the true purpose of the school was ``to train selected Negro youth who should go out and teach and lead their people first by example, by getting land and homes; to give them not a dollar that they could earn for themselves; to teach respect for labor, to replace stupid drudgery with skilled hands, and in this way to build up an industrial system for the sake not only of self-support and intelligent labor, but also for the sake of character.'' Hampton became a model for the creation of other schools designed to uplift Black America. Within nine years of arriving on Hampton's campus for his education, Booker T. Washington was founding Tuskegee Institute in Alabama. Hampton continued to produce black educators and skilled craft and tradesmen. Many of the campus buildings of this era were built by Hampton students. Hampton expanded its programs, increasing its course offerings to include business, nursing, and other arts and sciences classes. In 1930 the school was renamed Hampton Institute, recognizing its growth from its agricultural and teacher training roots. And in 1984, after a thorough nine-month study of Hampton's rapid growth and development and acknowledging its commitment to attracting quality students and talented faculty, offering a robust selection of academic programs, as well as its status as a premier research institution, it was recommended that Hampton Institute change its name to Hampton University. Hampton's current legacy has been shaped over the past 40 years by President Dr. William R. Harvey. Dr. Harvey came to Hampton in 1978 as the 12th President of the school. Under his leadership, Hampton has remained an innovative institution of higher education. If Dr. Harvey's tenure were measured solely by the creation of traditional campus facilities, the construction of the Convocation Center, Student Center, Sports Facilities, Libraries, schools of journalism and physical sciences would be a fitting tribute to his tenure. But Dr. Harvey has also had the vision to ensure that Hampton was at the forefront of innovative new technologies and opportunities. Hampton University's Proton Therapy Institute is the only one of its kind in Virginia, and through its partnerships with NASA, Hampton is currently the only historically black college and university in control of a NASA satellite mission. Over 150 years, Hampton University, ``Our Home by the Sea,'' has grown from an outdoor academy for newly freed slaves to an established research university and one of the bedrock institutions of the Hampton Roads region. Its athletic teams have won scores of championships in multiple sports. Its alumni have achieved acclaim in the arts, sciences, business, and politics. And Hampton has held a place of reverence in the story of Historically Black Colleges and Universities in America. I would like to commend Dr. Harvey, the faculty, staff, students, and alumni of Hampton University on the occasion of their sesquicentennial, and I wish them another 150 years of success, growth, and achievement as a pinnacle of higher education in our country.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague from Virginia, Congressman Garrett. I want to thank him for organizing this evening's Special Order, but first I want to commend him for his work as a Virginia State senator for making April 23 Barbara Johns Day in the Commonwealth of Virginia. This April 23, Monday, marked the first official recognition of this important day in the Commonwealth. Almost 64 years ago, the Supreme Court struck down lawful school segregation in the case of Brown v. Board of Education. What few people know is that Virginia was one of the four cases decided that day. There were three other States, and Washington, D.C., had another case that was decided the same day. Virginia's involvement in Brown v. Board of Education stood out because that effort was led by a student, namely Barbara Johns. She was only 16 years of age. This stalwart figure in the struggle for equal education stood up to challenge the notion that African Americans should receive separate and unequal education under the law. Barbara Johns grew up in Farmville, Virginia, and attended Robert Russa Moton High School, an all-Black school serving more than 450 students despite the fact that the facility was designed for only 180. She described the inadequacies of the school as having shabby equipment, no science laboratories, no separate gymnasium. Conditions were so bad at the high school that, in 1947, even in Jim Crow Virginia, the State offered money to improve the school, yet the all- White Prince Edward County School Board refused to accept the State's funding. Barbara took her concerns about the school to a teacher, who responded by asking her to do something about it. After months of contemplation and imagination, she began to formulate a plan. Seizing on the moment, on April 23, 1951, Barbara Johns, a 16- year-old high school student, led her classmates on a strike to protest the substandard conditions at Robert Russa Moton High School. Her leadership and advocacy ultimately garnered the support of NAACP lawyers Spottswood Robinson and Oliver Hill to take up her cause and the cause of more equitable conditions at Moton High School. After meeting with the students and the community, they filed suit in Federal court in Richmond, Virginia. The Virginia case was called Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, and, in 1954, Davis became one of the four cases decided in the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education. There is a saying that ``courage is not the absence of fear, but the assessment that something else is more important.'' Her courage led to the powerful language in the Brown decision that still rings true today. In the case, the Court said: ``Today, education is perhaps the most important function of State and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the Armed Forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today, it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the State has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms. ``We come, then, to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other `tangible' factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.'' And the Court concluded: ``We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of `separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.'' Those powerful words were provoked by the courage of Barbara Johns and others like her who led the charge to bring the cases to the Supreme Court. The example of Barbara Johns should serve as an example for all of us. She did not sit on the sidelines, and neither should we. We should speak out when we see injustice, we should act when we see inequity. The best way to honor her legacy is to act in the same spirit that she did. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Garrett), for providing an opportunity to remind us of our obligation to do the right thing.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 2. We often get distracted by debating the title of a proposed constitutional amendment without getting into serious discussion about whether or not the specific provisions will actually help balance the budget. If we are ever going to balance the budget, the fact is it is going to require Members to cast some tough votes, and many of these votes will be career-ending votes, and a constitutional amendment calling itself the balanced budget amendment cannot change that reality. Meaningful deficit reduction is politically difficult, and it is ironic that the Republican majority seems suddenly concerned about the deficit and balancing the budget. They must have forgotten that just 4 months ago they voted for a $1.5 trillion tax scam that gave massive handouts to big corporations and the wealthiest 1 percent. They repeatedly claimed that these tax cuts would pay for themselves, but last week the Congressional Budget Office told the truth, estimating that their tax scam will add almost $2 trillion to our national debt. Mr. Speaker, one of the most consequential votes I cast early in my career was the 1993 Clinton budget. That budget included tax increases and spending cuts, many of which were very unpopular at the time, but it was the fiscally responsible thing to do. Not one Republican voted for the 1993 Clinton budget. Needless to say, the 1993 budget was a tough vote, but it helped create over 20 million jobs, the stock market more than tripled, it led to the first balanced budget in a generation, and, by the end of the Clinton administration, it included projected surpluses large enough to have paid off the entire national debt held by the public by 2008. But it also contributed to 50 House Democrats losing their seats in the next election. As soon as the Republicans took control of the Federal Government in 2001 with the White House, House, and Senate, they passed massive tax cuts, not paying for them; fought two wars, didn't pay for it; passed a prescription drug benefit, didn't pay for it. So by 2008, instead of zero national debt held by the public, the debt was $5.8 trillion. So now we have the balanced budget amendment, and the problem is that the balanced budget amendment will not balance the budget. The fact is that the major provision in this legislation is the requirement that if a budget is unbalanced, it requires a three-fifths vote, and the fact is that this proposal will actually make it virtually impossible to ever pass a fiscally tough deficit reduction plan similar to the 1993 Clinton budget. That budget wasn't balanced in the first year, and, under this proposed amendment, instead of a simple majority, it would require a three- fifths supermajority in the House and the Senate. The fact is, it should be obvious that any tough deficit reduction plan will be unbalanced in the first year, and so it will be harder to pass by requiring a three-fifths supermajority than a simple majority. The question is: Will that supermajority make it more likely that we would end up with a fiscally responsible budget or a fiscally irresponsible budget? Obviously, it is more likely that we would pass a fiscally irresponsible Christmas tree budget where every Member gets a present under the tree than it would be to get enough career-ending votes to meet the three-fifths requirement under this legislation. And note that this amendment places no limit on how far out of balance the budget can be once you get to three-fifths. Mr. Speaker, we shouldn't be distracted by the resolution's misleading title. Balancing the budget will require tough votes, not constitutional amendments. My colleagues must seriously consider whether the resolution's actual provisions will help or hurt. It is obvious it would make it virtually impossible to pass any kind of balanced budget or responsible budget; therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise, on behalf of Congressman Morgan Griffith and myself, to recognize the achievements of Ron Carson who has made the plight of tens of thousands of disabled coal miners a central part of his life's work. Through his decades of work directing three black lung clinics in Southwest Virginia, and tireless advocacy efforts across the coal fields of this country, he offered help and hope to miners whose lungs were irreversibly scarred with the scourge of black lung disease. Ron was born in Pennington Gap, Virginia during segregation. He attended a one-room primary school on land that his great-great- grandmother, Rachael Scott, had donated in 1939 for education of black children in Lee County. Ron and his wife Jill, a Member of the Town Council in Pennington Gap, founded the Appalachian African American Cultural Center in that same brick school house, which now preserves the life stories, history, heritage, culture and events of African Americans in Southwest Virginia. Although segregated in housing and schools, African Americans found a measure of inclusion in Central Appalachia, where they were able to work free from the harsh conditions in the Deep South, and many received equal pay for their work mining coal. Ron worked for Westmoreland Coal Co. in Appalachia, Virginia as did his stepfather. His grandfather and great-grandfather both worked for many years for Blue Diamond Coal in Bonny Blue, Virginia. Ron later attended the Massachusetts School of Pharmacy, and in 1990 returned as an outreach worker in the black lung clinic operating out of the St. Charles Community Health Clinic. For the past 20 years he has served as the director of three black lung clinics which are now part of Stone Mountain Health Services. In addition to helping miners secure diagnostic tests, treatment and benefits counseling, Ron led an effort to develop what is now the largest program for non-lawyers to successfully advocate for black lung benefits before the U.S. Department of Labor. There are very few attorneys who represent miners filing claims for black lung benefits. And, coal miners proceeding pro se are no match for the expert legal and medical resources that coal companies and insurers dedicate to each case. Ron and his team have worked to fill this void by providing training for clinics, doctors, lawyers and lay representatives in all 15 coal producing states. The lay advocates working for the Stone Mountain clinics have helped miners win over 2,000 black lung claims in the past 17 years. In recent years, Ron documented how miners with progressive massive fibrosis (PMF), the most advanced form of black lung disease, have flooded the clinics in southwestern Virginia. Working with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), he recently co- authored an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association which verified an epidemic of this lethal form of the disease in Central Appalachia and helped to elevate national awareness. ``Mining disasters get monuments, meanwhile black lung deaths get tombstones. And I've seen many a tombstone in the last 28 years from black lung,'' he noted. At a roundtable Ron organized in Wise, Virginia, disabled miners, physicians and lawyers explained how the current black lung adjudication process keeps justice out of reach for far too many deserving miners and survivors. Ron Carson has been accessible to Members of Congress and provided wise counsel, as well as compassionate and enduring service to his community. He has been recognized by the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) and his peers in the black lung community. On behalf of our colleagues in the House of Representatives, Congressman Griffith and I extend our appreciation for Ron's service to those in need.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. H.R. 620, the so-called ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017, is an attack on the civil rights of Americans with disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act, or the ADA, is a civil rights law passed in 1990 to protect people with disabilities from discrimination in all aspects of society. I recognize that the ADA falls within the committee jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, and I am here as the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce because, if H.R. 620 were to become law, it would have a profound effect on students and workers with disabilities who are trying to learn, work, or just generally access their community. Mr. Chair, prior to the ADA, people with disabilities had no recourse if they faced discrimination in employment, housing, transportation, health services, or when accessing public schools. The ADA is nearly 28 years old, and yet we still have continued gross noncompliance with the law. H.R. 620 specifically targets title III of the ADA regarding access to public accommodations. Title III prohibits discrimination in public accommodations such as restaurants, shopping malls, and hotels. By adding a notice and cure requirement, H.R. 620 shifts the compliance burden to the victims of discrimination. H.R. 620 effectively provides that discrimination against people with disabilities can continue until somebody hires a lawyer to file a legal complaint of discrimination. Then the bill allows 6 more months to achieve some undefined substantial progress. So even when people know they are out of compliance with the ADA, they don't have to do anything under the bill until somebody files a formal legal complaint. Mr. Chair, this bill does not help people with disabilities. This is an attack on civil rights. That is why the disability community and civil rights communities are unanimously opposed to H.R. 620. There are 236 organizations that joined a letter, led by the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, opposing the bill. More than 500 national and State organizations signed a letter, led by the National Council on Independent Living, urging Congress to reject the bill. More than 200 organizations signed a letter, led by The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, urging Congress to reject the bill. The ADA was enacted to eliminate barriers of discrimination against people with disabilities. And so I strongly urge each of my colleagues to stand with people with disabilities: protect civil rights by voting ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, unions empower workers with the freedom to negotiate for a fair return on their work and they provide a collective voice to advocate for policies that benefit working people. Union workers, including those in the public sector, have more access to paid leave, medical and retirement benefits, and higher pay than workers who are not unionized. Children of union members experience more upward mobility than children of workers who are not covered with union contracts, and States with higher union density have stronger workplace protections. There is a long history of unions helping the least powerful secure dignity on the job. This is the 50th anniversary of the Memphis sanitation workers' strike in 1968. After two workers were crushed in garbage compactors, the Memphis sanitation workers peacefully protested for better pay and safer working conditions. They sought representation from the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME. They marched with placards that simply stated: ``I am a man.'' Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., long recognized that the fight for civil rights was fundamentally linked to economic justice and he gave his last public address before his assassination on behalf of these workers. Despite police brutality and the deployment of 4,000 National Guardsmen, the strike was ultimately successful and AFSCME negotiated higher wages and safer conditions. The unions representing the workers in the public sector continue to empower our workers and communities today. Just this month, when temperatures plunged to dangerous lows, the Baltimore Teachers Union fought for children who were forced to bundle up in coats and hats in their own classrooms because there was no heat in their schools. Around the country, the SEIU represented hundreds of thousands of healthcare workers who provide in-home healthcare for our Nation's elderly and disabled. In many States, these workers are State employees, and the unions play a crucial role in bargaining for better wages, better training, and in advocating for increased Medicaid funding so they can deliver services to the disabled and the elderly. Despite the great work these unions have done on behalf of working people, they are constantly under attack by corporate interests determined to cripple the labor movement, and we know why. Big corporations and the top 1 percent have rigged our economy against working people. They have gamed the system, including our tax laws, to redistribute wealth to a select few. They have starved our economy of investments in education, infrastructure, and housing. The campaign to weaken unions has contributed to extreme income inequality and wage stagnation, as smaller and smaller shares of corporate earnings are paid in wages. The latest of these attacks is happening in the Supreme Court. On February 26, the Court will hear oral arguments in Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, on the question of whether or not to overturn 40 years of precedence affirming the principle that public employees who choose not to join a union may be required to pay a fair share fee to cover the costs of collective bargaining and contract enforcement. In 1977, the Supreme Court ruled in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that fair share States may authorize the payment of fair share fees to support unions' collective bargaining on behalf of employees. The Court found that the fair share fees are constitutional under the First Amendment because they support collective bargaining, not political activities. This practice fosters States' interests in preventing labor disputes, cures the free rider problem of employees benefiting from union representation while shifting the costs to their coworkers, and improves the delivery of services by State and local governments. In Janus, the plaintiffs want to overturn laws in 23 States and the District of Columbia that now require public sector workers who decide not to be members of the union to pay a fair share fee. These workers enjoy all of the benefits of the union: higher wages, safer workplaces, effective grievance procedures. In these fair share States today, public and private employees who do not want to join a union may be required to pay their fair share for expenses for services required by law, not political, but the services required by law to benefit all workers. Janus seeks to overturn that law and allow people to benefit from all of those services without paying their fair share. The challenge to the long-serving precedence is the latest move by corporate interests to weaponize the First Amendment against working people. We have seen it before in Citizens United, which used freedom of speech in the First Amendment to justify virtually unlimited corporate contributions to political campaigns. Here in the House of Representatives, we frequently see similar antiunion attacks dedicated to weakening the labor movement's ability to function as an advocate for working people and as a counterweight to corporate power. Whether in the Supreme Court or here in Congress, the campaign to weaken unions is a campaign to strip workers of their most basic protections. This is why it is crucial for Congress to defend against any attacks to undermine workers' freedom to negotiate for better wages and better working conditions. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for organizing this Special Order.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter in opposition to the bill from the AFL-CIO. AFL-CIO Legislative Alert American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, Washington, DC, January 9, 2018. Dear Representative: The AFL-CIO urges you to oppose the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act, H.R. 986, which would deny protection under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to a large number of workers employed by tribal-owned and - operated enterprises located on Indian land. Among these workers are over 600,000 tribal casino workers, the vast majority of whom are not Native Americans. In recent years, the number and type of enterprises affected has grown well beyond the gaming industry, and would now include mining operations, power plants, smoke shops, saw mills, construction companies, ski resorts, high-tech firms, hotels, and spas. Many of these are commercial businesses that compete with non-Indian enterprises. As proposed, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act would strip all workers in these enterprises of their rights and protections under the NLRA. The House bill, introduced by Representative Rokita, would overturn a decision by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in San Manuel Indian Bingo & Casino, 341 NLRB No. 138 (2004), which applied the NLRA to a tribal casino enterprise. In San Manuel, the NLRB looked to Supreme Court and circuit court precedent to articulate a test for whether the NLRB should assert jurisdiction over tribal enterprises, whether located on tribal lands or outside them. (Before San Manuel, NLRB jurisdiction was determined based solely on location: On tribal land, the NLRB would forego jurisdiction; off tribal land, the NLRB would assert jurisdiction. Under the San Manuel test, the NLRA will not apply if its application would ``touch exclusive rights of self-governance in purely intramural matters.'' Nor will the NLRA apply if it would ``abrogate Indian treaty rights.'' The Board in San Manuel also considered other factors, including whether the casino in question was a typical commercial enterprise, employed non-Native Americans, and catered to non-Native American customers. In San Manuel, the Board concluded that applying the NLRA would not interfere with the tribe's autonomy, and the effects of the NLRA would not ``extend beyond the tribe's business enterprise and regulate intramural matters.'' However, the test articulated in San Manuel provides a careful balancing of tribal sovereignty interests with the NLRA's federal labor law protections. In a companion case, Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corp., 341 NLRB No. 139 (2004), the Board tipped the balance the other way and didn't assert jurisdiction. The AFL-CIO supports the principle of sovereignty for tribal governments, but does not believe that employers should use this principle to deny workers their collective bargaining rights and freedom of association. While the AFL- CIO continues to support the concept of tribal sovereignty in truly internal, self-governance matters, it is in no position to repudiate fundamental human rights that belong to every worker in every nation. Workers cannot be left without any legally enforceable right to form unions and bargain collectively in instances where they are working for a tribal enterprise which is simply a commercial operation competing with non-tribal businesses. The International Labour Organization (ILO), an agency of the United Nations, has confirmed this view in response to a question about whether excluding (from the NLRA) workers employed on tribal lands would conform with principles of freedom of association. These values are at the core of the ILO Constitution and the ILO's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. The Director for the International Labour Standards Division wrote that in the absence of tribal ordinances offering full protection of internationally recognized rights, ``it is critical that the State (the national authority) takes ultimate responsibility for ensuring respect for freedom of association and collective bargaining rights throughout its territory.'' In other words, if the tribes themselves don't guarantee these basic rights--and many do not, the U.S. government must not abdicate its responsibility to protect them. Notwithstanding the importance of the principle of tribal sovereignty, the fundamental human rights of employees are not the exclusive concern of tribal enterprises or tribal governments. In fact, the vast majority of employees of these commercial enterprises, such as casinos, are not Native Americans. They therefore have no voice in setting tribal policy and no recourse to tribal governments for the protection of their rights. The AFL-CIO opposes any effort to exempt on an across-the- board basis all tribal enterprises from the NLRA, without undertaking a specific review of all the circumstances--as current NLRB standards provide. Where the enterprise employs mainly Native American employees with mainly Native American customers, and involves self-governance or intramural affairs, leaving the matter to tribal governments may be appropriate. However, where the business employs primarily non-Native American employees and caters to primarily non- Native American customers, there is no basis for depriving employees of their rights and protections under the National Labor Relations Act. Sincerely, William Samuel, Director, Government Affairs Department.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 140. As has been pointed out, buried in section 3 of this otherwise noncontroversial water and lands bill is the text of H.R. 986, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act. This nongermane provision would strip thousands of employees of their rights and protections under the National Labor Relations Act at Tribal enterprises located on Tribal lands. At issue in the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act are two solemn and deeply rooted principles: First, the right that Indian Tribes possess in matters of local self- governance; Second, the rights of workers to organize unions, bargain collectively, and engage in concerted activities for mutual aid and protection. Rather than attempting to balance these two important principles, the bill chooses sovereignty for some over the human rights of others. I would note that the approximately 75 percent of workers employed at Tribal casinos are not members of the Tribes running the casino, but this bill would strip labor rights of hundreds of thousands of these workers as well as those who are actually members of the Tribes. In doing so, this legislation would abandon the carefully drawn balance between Tribal sovereignty and workers' rights that was adopted in the San Manuel decision by a Republican-led National Labor Relations Board in 2004. Perhaps prompted by litigation, the board ruled that the National Labor Relations Act will only apply if it does not impact the exclusive rights of self-governance in purely intramural matters or abrogate rights guaranteed by treaties. The San Manuel decision is based on legal principles governing Federal laws of general applicability with respect to Indian Tribes that have been upheld by appeals courts for over 30 years. That is why courts have ruled that Tribes must comply with labor and employment laws such as the Fair Labor Standards Act; the Occupational Safety and Health Act; the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA; and the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act. Yet this bill singles out the National Labor Relations Act on the grounds that Tribes must be given parity with State and local governments which statutorily are exempt from the NLRA. Maybe States and localities should have been considered, but the statutes are clear that they are exempt. This is not a reason why Tribes should be exempt from an otherwise generally applicable law. Furthermore, State and local governments are covered under title VII of the Civil Rights Act; whereas, Tribes are expressly exempt. For employees of Tribal enterprises, therefore, unions are the sole protection under Federal law against discrimination, including sexual harassment, because they can negotiate a collective bargaining agreement that enforces employees' rights to be free from such conduct. Democrats and Republicans together have insisted that our trading partners abide by and enforce basic labor rights anytime we do a trade deal. And Congress has repeatedly required these obligations in trade agreements, but today the House will vote on a bill that takes away the assurance that employees have for the freedom of association if they are employed in many Tribal casinos. This creates a fair question: Would this legislation place the United States Government in breach of any of the trade agreements that are now in effect? According to the International Labor Organization, in an opinion on a similar bill a few years ago, it would, in fact, put us in breach of trade agreements. We should be able to fashion compromises that, frankly, protect both workers' rights and Tribal sovereignty, but what is before us today fails that test. There is no principled basis for stripping hundreds of thousands of workers from the right to join a union and negotiate better wages simply because they happen to work in a commercial enterprise on Tribal lands. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands (Mr. Sablan), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will you advise as to how much time is left on both sides.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield the gentlewoman from Ohio an additional 1 minute.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield the gentleman from Maryland an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said about State and local being exempt and Tribes not being exempt. Well, that was a decision made way back when. The law specifically exempts State and local. Maybe it should; maybe it didn't; but it did. Tribes were not specifically exempted. So in conclusion, this bill will strip hundreds of thousands of employees of the right to join a union. Where some Tribes have Tribal labor ordinances that are fair and workable, others do not. And at least one expressly prohibits the formation of unions. There is no principal basis for excluding these workers from coverage under labor law just because they happen to work in a commercial enterprise on Tribal lands. If this bill will come into law, it will be the first rollback of workers' rights under Federal law in over 70 years, and it may well place the United States in violation of several international trade agreements. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.