Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce funding by 10 percent for programs administered by all accounts in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. By making it across the board, it makes it more difficult for the agencies to actually administer their programs, making it harder, if not impossible, for the government to protect its citizens by enforcing wage and protection laws, ensuring safe workplaces, ensuring education for students with disabilities, support for those with drug addictions. The bill, as the gentlewoman has already indicated, is already underfunded, and this would just make matters worse. Mr. Chairman, I would hope we defeat this amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Ms. Bonamici, the vice ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, for offering the amendment and for her leadership on issues affecting older Americans. The Older Americans Act was first passed 50 years ago as part of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty. It helps older Americans live with dignity and stay connected with their communities. I am proud that last year we were able to pass a 3-year bipartisan reauthorization that increased funding for the programs. But had our investments in these programs actually kept up with inflation and growing populations, the authorization levels would have been even much more. But, thankfully, the reauthorization moved us in the right direction. This amendment would bring funding for supportive services, nutrition programs, and caregiver supports in line with the authorized level. Even though these are not fully adequate to address the total need, it is another step in the right direction. So I support the amendment and our commitment to older Americans. We can maintain that commitment by adopting this amendment, so I thank the gentlewoman for offering it.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would take money from important college access programs, GEAR UP and TRIO, and use it to increase important funding for career and technical education. Because of the way the amendment is drafted, it would also jeopardize funding for minority- serving institutions to be used to increase that funding. This amendment reduces funding for programs meant to improve college access for low-income students. First of all, whether it is CTE or TRIO, all of these programs don't have enough money. One should not be stripped for the sake of another. By lifting one program that leads to one opportunity over neglecting another that leads to another opportunity, you limit the choice of future life outcomes at a time when members of the next generation should be able to choose the best opportunity for them. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment and try to fund both more robustly.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, one of the agencies affected by this amendment is the Department of Education's Office of Inspector General that is responsible for conducting independent and objective audits and investigations. It is through this agency that we can review offices like the Federal Student Aid office, and Congress can learn about policies and practices that need to be improved. It was just last March that the OIG investigated that department and found that Congress needs to do more to monitor colleges with unstable finances in order to protect students and taxpayers from abrupt school closures. Any cuts to this agency will reduce the chances that such findings will be made, and reduce consumer protections. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chair, as my colleagues have made clear, this amendment would impose a 45 percent cut on the NLRB budget. The NLRB would expect that these cuts could lead to the closure of regional offices in 17 States, but it is really the American workforce and our economy that would suffer. We benefit from a worker's right to exercise freedom of association. These cuts will delay NLRB-conducted representation or decertification elections and delay democracy for workers who deserve a timely vote. In the past 3 years, the NLRB has reinstated 7,000 workers who were unlawfully fired by their employers, and the NLRB has awarded over $191 million to workers in backpay or fees. Mr. Chairman, justice delayed is justice denied. Delayed justice is what this amendment would inflict. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment irresponsibly cuts funding for coal mine safety and health by 10 percent, cuts 96 positions in the Mine Safety and Health Administration, or MSHA. The Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 established MSHA and requires MSHA to conduct four wall-to-wall inspections every year on underground mines and two wall-to-wall inspections for every surface mine. These are mandatory and required for safety in the mines. MSHA is required to conduct spot inspections every 5 days at those coal mines that release large amounts of combustible methane since those mines have the highest risk of fires and explosions. In addition to the mandatory and spot inspections, MSHA responds to hazard complaints from miners, investigates discrimination complaints, and provides compliance assistance with standards such as the new rule to prevent the scourge of black lung disease. If this amendment is enacted, 96 positions will be cut and MSHA will have to choose between the mandatory inspections or meeting its obligation to implement these other essential functions. It can't do both, yet all of these functions are necessary to protect the health and safety of miners. Mr. Chairman, the preamble of the Mine Act of 1977 states: ``The first . . . concern of all in the coal''--or other--``mining industry must be the health and safety of its most precious resource--the miner.'' This amendment abandons Congress' commitment to America's miners and should be rejected. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from Cecil E. Roberts, the International President of the United Mine Workers of America, in opposition to this amendment. United Mine Workers of America, Triangle, VA, September 7, 2017. Members of the House of Representatives, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: On behalf of the United Mine Workers of America, I strongly urge you to reject the Amendment offered by Representative Mark Meadows of North Carolina that would reduce the Coal Mine Safety and Health program and workforce at the Mine Safety and Health Administration. At a time when mining fatalities are on the rise, we should be looking for ways to increase enforcement and oversight of mining operations, not make it harder to ensure that our miners are safe. America's miners put their lives and limbs on the line every single day for us. Our government has a responsibility to do all it can do to ensure they come home to their loved ones at the end of their shift. This amendment is a step backward in safety, putting miners at greater risk. I strongly urge that it be rejected. Sincerely, Cecil E. Roberts,.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by Mr. Walberg that would block the National Labor Relations Board election streamlining rule because this amendment would result in reverting to a previous rule that would result in needless delays in the process for conducting union representation elections. The election streamlining rule was adopted in 2015, and it has increased transparency, reduced frivolous litigation, and decreased the opportunity for bad actors to improperly delay union elections. The preelection process previously had been open to manipulation, delay, and drawn-out preelection maneuvering. I point out that the so- called 11-day election that has been referred to can only occur if both sides agree to a consent election. Another part of the rule requires the employer to provide more modern forms of employee contact information to the union prior to the elections, such as email addresses and phone numbers, as opposed to the previous requirement that the employer only provide home addresses. Under the new rule, employers must provide this electronically within 2 days of ordering an election. By ensuring that there is a timely transfer of more complete voter contact information, the rule removed another obstacle that had denied workers the opportunity to be more fully informed prior to voting on whether or not to form a union. The employer, of course, already has unfettered and unlimited access to communicate with employees, even on work time. I also want to point out that the NLRB's election procedures are now settled law. Every court where this rule has been challenged has upheld the rule. The fifth circuit, for example, said that the Board ``acted rationally and in furtherance of its congressional mandate in adopting the rule.'' The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that ``the Board engaged in comprehensive analysis of a multitude of issues relating to the need for and the propriety of the final rule.'' Mr. Chairman, history has shown when workers' rights are respected, the economy benefits. Protecting workers' rights to make their voices heard helped build a strong middle class. Research shows that the erosion of union density has weakened the middle class and exacerbated wage stagnation by breaking the essential link between increasing worker productivity and rising wages. This amendment undermines workers in their ability to exercise their right to collectively bargain. Plain and simple, the workers have a right to join a union, and if they ask for an election, they should get an election--not a delay, not interference, and not retaliation. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit the use of funds in this act to prepare for or facilitate the transfer of the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs into the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The amendment would ensure that these two important agencies charged with distinct missions to enforce workplace discrimination laws are not unduly burdened by the administration's plan to transfer responsibilities of Contract Compliance into the EEOC. Although both agencies enforce discrimination laws, they differ in their authorities, their scope, and their responsibilities. For example, Contract Compliance only addresses discrimination by Federal contractors, unlike the EEOC, which enforces the laws as they relate to virtually all employees. Contract Compliance is responsible for ensuring that the Federal contractors and subcontractors take affirmative action to ensure that all individuals have equal opportunity for employment. EEOC was created by title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and its support for affirmative action is voluntary. Contract Compliance, the focus is on contract compliance, and the ultimate sanction is disbarment of a Federal contractor. It gets its authority through an executive order and accomplishes much of its enforcement through the administrative process. By contrast, EEOC is established by statute and makes and enforces Federal statutes through lawsuits in Federal courts. Other distinctions: The ultimate client for Contract Compliance is the Federal Government, while EEOC's clients are private employees; EEOC is complaint driven, unlike the Office of Federal Contract Compliance; Contract Compliance can audit contractors, EEOC cannot; EEOC has subpoena power, Contract Compliance does not; Contract Compliance does not have the authority to file lawsuits and get punitive damages, EEOC can seek punitive damages and lawsuits; Contract Compliance enforces the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Act, the EEOC does not; EEOC protects employees from genetic discrimination, Contract Compliance does not. The proposal to transfer the Office of Federal Contract Compliance into the EEOC came about by some ideological groups that want to shrink the Federal Government, but it is unwise because it is opposed by civil rights groups and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. To underscore the collective voice and opposition to this transfer, the Senate Committee on Appropriations adopted language last Thursday that says that the committee rejects the budget's proposal to begin plans to merge the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs with the EEOC. Mr. Chair, the realignment of responsibilities would ask the EEOC to do considerably more with a lot less in terms of expertise, personnel, and funding. Further, this combination would derail the EEOC's efforts to reduce its backlog of charges while simultaneously trying to collect vital data relevant to the enforcement of civil rights laws. The enforcement of civil rights laws would be best served if we in Congress would fully fund both the EEOC and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance so that they both can do the vital work of securing the right to work in a place free of harassment, retaliation, and other forms of discrimination. For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, we know that there are a lot of contractors who have significant wage violations. It should be a privilege to contract with the Federal Government. Taxpayers should not be asked to subsidize companies that engage in willful and repeated wage theft. This amendment only applies to contractors with repeated willful violations, not technical violations that could result from good faith difference in interpretation of rules and regulations--willful and repeated. Awarding contracts to those kind of contractors is not only unfair to workers, it is unfair to law-abiding contractors who play by the rules but are forced to compete on an unlevel playing field with those who cut corners. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union. American Civil Liberties Union, Washington, DC, September 7, 2017. Vote YES on Amendments No. 113, No. 184, and No. 186 to H.R. 3354, the Make America Secure and Prosperous Appropriations Act, 2018 Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union and our more than two million members and supporters, we urge you to support the following amendments that may be offered during floor consideration of H.R. 3354, the Make America Secure and Prosperous Appropriations Act, 2018: 1. Amendment No. 113 (preserving funding for the EEOC/EEO-1 equal pay data collection) In July, the House Appropriations Committee adopted the Harris Amendment to defund implementation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) revised Employer Information Report (EEO-1). Amendment No. 113, offered by Representatives DeLauro, Frankel, and Scott to the FY18 CJS appropriations bill, would preserve funding for that critical equal pay initiative. The data collection at issue, through the EEO-1 that employers already must use to document the demographics of their workforces, is a critical tool to lift the cloak of secrecy that shrouds pay decisions in this country. Without such transparency, the pernicious gender and race wage gaps, and the discrimination that causes them, will continue to flourish. The new EEO-1 revision was adopted after extensive public comment and would have deterred intentional pay disparities, facilitated employers' good faith efforts to comply with equal pay laws, and identified appropriate targets for federal enforcement of nondiscrimination law. Instead of supporting this measured approach to eliminate the pay gap, the EEO-1 has been undermined by members of Congress and the Trump Administration's Office of Management and Budget, which recently halted implementation of the EEO-1 equal pay data collection. Because OMB has ordered a review and requested that the EEOC undertake a new effort, the Harris amendment could unnecessarily tie the agency's hands. Members should vote in favor of the DeLauro-Frankel-Scott amendment in order to preserve the ability of the EEOC to continue to make meaningful progress on equal pay. A vote against this amendment is a vote against equal pay. 2. Amendment No. 184 (no funding to eliminate OFCCP and transfer duties to EEOC) The Trump administration's FY2018 budget submission to Congress recommended the elimination of the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) and the transfer of its functions to the EEOC. This amendment, offered by Representatives Conyers and Scott to the FY18 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, would withhold federal funding in order to prevent implementation of this ill-advised proposal. These vital and distinct agencies have different missions and different areas of expertise. The EEOC seeks to remedy complaints of discrimination in employment. The OFCCP more broadly oversees the employment practices of federal contractors who are required to proactively monitor workplace diversity and pay equity, make meaningful efforts to recruit qualified applicants from under-represented groups, and eliminate barriers to equal opportunity for various disadvantaged groups, including veterans and individuals with disabilities. The administration's proposal would jeopardize the uniquely important missions of each agency and weakens our government's ability to effectively enforce our nation's civil rights laws. It would also place an extraordinary burden on the EEOC which already has an excessive workload and a well-known backlog. Finally, numerous organizations that work with these agencies--from civil rights, women's rights, and workers' rights groups along with business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--oppose the administration's proposal. For these reasons, we urge members of the House to support Amendment No. 184 that would prevent the elimination of

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which blocks OSHA's ability to improve tracking of injuries and illnesses in workplaces across the country. One of the problems we have is that Federal OSHA and State OSHA plans have less than 2,000 inspectors to cover 8 million workplaces nationally. If you do the arithmetic, each Federal OSHA inspector can inspect a workplace about once every 159 years. State OSHA might be able to do it once a century. So the fact that you have something on site that is there for them to see if they ever get there, the problem is they never get there. We need to make sure they have the information to know which ones to go to, which ones are the dangerous sites. The scarce resources that OSHA needs to precisely target those resources is a result of these reports. For large employers, and each illness with summary information from smaller employers, that is how they figure out where to visit. This rule also protects workers against discrimination if they report injuries. GAO has found that workers fear reporting injuries, especially where employers impose sanctions or reduce bonuses for work- related injuries. This amendment would upend this important rule which allows OSHA to target their resources to inspect those that really need inspecting. This amendment would upend the rule and compromise its transparency and worker protections. The information is not individually identifiable. People are protected. But the courts have said that this information is not confidential. This amendment would rig the system against worker safety by depriving OSHA of the information they need to target the workplaces, so I request a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit the EPA from spending any funds to ensure that States fulfill their obligations under the Clean Water Act to help clean up the Chesapeake Bay. If passed into law, this amendment would endanger the progress we have made in restoring the Chesapeake Bay watershed and would put in jeopardy not only the Chesapeake Bay itself, but also critical economic contributions that the bay provides. Since the Chesapeake Bay agreement was signed in 1983, the most recent agreement signed in 2014, bay States and the Federal Government have invested significant resources in cleanup and restoration efforts. Cooperation is critical in these efforts, and only under the cooperative agreement agreed upon in the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint are we seeing a lot of progress being made. But the Chesapeake Bay cleanup efforts are part of backstops that make sure that each State does what it has actually promised to do. With these safeguards in place, States have to certify that their investments are not made in vain and that other States will also make good on their investments. This amendment would undermine this historic collaboration, endanger historic progress we have made, and give States a loophole to avoid meeting their responsibilities under the Clean Water Act. I believe that, instead of offering amendments that undermine Chesapeake Bay restorations, we should be investing even more resources to ensure that they are successful. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Amendment No. 66, offered by Representative Jayapal, to strike the $535 million increase for ICE enforcement and instead add $30 million to ICE's Office of the Inspector General and $10 million to DHS's Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. This additional oversight funding would support investigations of sexual assault in immigration detention as mandated by the Prison Rape Elimination Act. The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) was passed in 2003 as a result of a remarkable bipartisan effort led by Congressman Frank Wolf and myself in the House and Senators Jeff Sessions and Ted Kennedy in the Senate. Ten years after passage of PREA, in 2014, DHS finalized regulations to comply with PREA. This year, 2017, is the first in which DHS is instituting those regulations by auditing its facilities for compliance. We must aid DHS in its efforts to investigate and prevent sexual abuse. According to the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at DHS, during the two-year period from May 2014 to July 2016, it received over 1,000 complaints from detainees reporting sexual abuse or assault. The Office of Inspector General investigated only 24 of those complaints-- that is 2.4 percent of the total complaints that were made by detained immigrants. Immigrant detainees also face barriers to reaching the Inspector General's telephone hotline for reporting abuse, because, according to a 2013 report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), approximately 14 percent of calls placed to that hotline did not go through because, for example, the call was not answered. This Amendment is an essential step to giving DHS resources to comply with PREA and protect immigrants from sexual abuse and assault in detention facilities.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the number of amendments that were made in order by the Rules Committee, but I am appalled that the majority chose not to include one of my amendments, No. 63, to division F of H.R. 3354, which would strike a prohibition against using Federal funds for the purpose of transportation needed to desegregate public schools. This language has found its way into every appropriations act since at least 1974. The language in sections 301 and 302 of division F of the bill really represent a relic of an ugly history when States and school districts across the Nation resisted meaningful integration of public education for decades after the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. That resistance has worked. According to the GAO last year, our schools are more segregated by race and class today than they were in 1968. The persistence of these riders, if unchallenged, is morally reprehensible and has no place in 2017. I stand with the Congressional Black Caucus in calling for a total removal of this offensive language in any fiscal 2018 appropriations act.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition of H.J. Res. 111, which will overturn the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rule, prohibiting forced arbitration for many consumer contracts, including student loan contracts. Banks and large corporations often take advantage of ordinary Americans by burying forced arbitration clauses and boiler plate fine print in standard contracts. When corporations force consumers to secretly arbitrate with handpicked firms, which rely on those same corporations for repeat business, the system is rigged. Take, for example, Matthew, who enrolled in a for-profit aviation school that closed before Matthew could finish his degree. At the recommendation of the school, he had taken out $56,000 in private student loans. With debt and no credential because the school had closed, Matthew joined a class action with thousands of other students. But due to a class action ban in the loan contract, the court ruled that thousands of individual students must individually settle their disputes with the bank in arbitration. That means each individual student had to hire their own lawyer, take time off to present their case, and everything else you have to do to present a case. That is why most victims of this kind of fraud will never collect what they are owed. If each victim only loses a little bit, virtually nobody will bring a claim. With the class action, at least you can achieve an injunction so the corporation will stop. Each plaintiff might receive a little bit, but without the class action, the corporation is free to continue the fraud. Without this rule, the banks will continue to use forced arbitration clauses to advance their special interests at the expense of innocent victims who will be ripped off. Mr. Speaker, that is why we need to stand with consumers. I urge my colleagues to do that: stand with consumers, reject this repeal of the important rule, and vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 111.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The amendment shifts workers who repair super yachts and large, luxury watercraft out of coverage under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act and into coverage under State workers' compensation programs. But it doesn't just amend the longshoremen act. Rather, it creates a problem with the Coast Guard law. The Coast Guard opposed an identical amendment last year because it creates widespread damage to Coast Guard regulatory and enforcement authorities, implicates U.S. treaty obligations, and could affect the collection of tonnage taxes on foreign flagged vessels. The Department of Labor also opposes the amendment because it could lead to uncertainty and foster litigation under the longshoremen coverage. Moreover, by shifting workers out of longshoremen into the weak State workers' comp laws such as Florida, it could permanently impoverish workers. Last year, the Florida Supreme Court held that the Florida workers' compensation law was so anemic that it was unconstitutional. If the goal is to provide reasonable insurance rates, then it should be in the insurance industry not by complicating the Coast Guard, by complicating the Department of Labor, and denying workers their benefits under the Longshoremen's Compensation Act. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the Committee on Education and the Workforce opposing this amendment. Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, July 12, 2017. Re Opposition to Making Amendment 302 in Order as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2018 (H.R. 2810) Hon. Pete Sessions, Chairman, Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Louise McIntosh Slaughter, Ranking Member, Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Sessions and Ranking Member Slaughter: I am writing to request that you not make Amendment 302 in order as part of the rule for the FY 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2810). The amendment offered by Representatives Frankel and Byrne changes the definition of a ``recreational'' vessel under U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) boating safety authorizing legislation. The amendment authors' goal is to change workers' compensation coverage for those repairing luxury water craft and superyachts by shifting coverage for these workers from the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act (LHWCA) into state workers' compensation programs. However, the amendment does not amend the LHWCA. Rather it changes the definition of ``recreational vessel'' under Section 4301 of Title 46 (the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971). According to the Coast Guard, this approach to amending the LHWCA will have adverse collateral impacts on Coast Guard regulatory and enforcement authorities, implicate U.S. treaty obligations, and affect collection of tonnage taxes on foreign flagged vessels. The USCG statement, attached to this letter, notes that this provision could: Exclude vessels now covered under the U.S. implementing legislation for the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships, and reduce available civil monetary penalties to deter violations; Allow a foreign vessel owner to exempt itself from tonnage taxes by declaring its vessel to be under repair; and, Allow foreign flagged vessels to avoid requirements for safety management systems under the International Safety Management Code. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) objected to this provision in the last Congress, as it would ``lead to uncertainty and foster litigation regarding Longshore Act coverage'' because the definition of ``recreational'' vessel introduces subjective criteria. This identical amendment was included in the House National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2017 as Section 3512, but was removed in the House-Senate conference following the numerous objections raised by the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Department of Labor. None of these concerns have been considered in hearings within the respective committees of jurisdiction for USCG or DOL, and deserve careful consideration before being brought to a vote. I thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Robert C. Bobby Scott, Ranking Member. Encl: U.S. Coast Guard Views on Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (this set of views applied to the identical language included in Amendment 302 that was adopted in Section 3512 the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act). Coast Guard Views on Sec. 3512 of H.R. 4909, the NDAA for FY17 The Coast Guard would oppose the previously referenced amendment to 46 U.S.C. Sec. 4301. As a general matter, it seems like this proposed amendment is out of place. Sec. 803 of the American Investment and Recovery Act amended sec. 2(3)(F) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. Sec. 902(3)(F)), a statutory regime squarely within the purview of the Department of Labor (DOL). Indeed, in 2011, it was DOL--not the Coast Guard--that promulgated the rule in question that, according to industry background documentation, would appear to be the root cause of this issue. Thus, any changes to address this issue should be more properly directed either to the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act or to DOL and its implementing regulations. Aside from the amendment's misplaced statutory location, the proposed amendment contains numerous drafting issues. For example, the proposed amendment contains no limitation of the ``dismantling'' language to those activities ``in connection with the repair of such vessel.'' Irrespective of the drafting issues, the proposed amendment would not provide any immediate relief as the draft language contains terms undefined by statute that prevent it from being self- executing. Finally, if adopted, the amendment would likely create a wholly unnecessary bifurcated regulatory scheme between the DOL regulations under 20 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 701.501-701.505 and additional regulations promulgated by the Coast Guard. The proposed change to the definition of a ``recreational vessel'' to include ``any vessel, including a foreign vessel, being repaired or dismantled [. . .] during such repair or dismantling if the vessel (1) shares elements of design and construction of traditional recreational vessels (as so defined); and (2) when operating is not normally engaged in a military, commercial, or traditionally commercial undertaking'' has significant impacts on Coast Guard regulatory and enforcement authorities. The change in the definition would expand the current exclusion for ``recreational vessels'' from the U.S. implementing legislation for the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships. Specifically, civil penalties for owners of ``recreational vessels'' are statutorily limited to $5,000 as compared to the $37,500 maximum penalty for all other vessel owners. The change in the definition could be construed to allow a foreign vessel owner to exempt itself from tonnage taxes required under 46 U.S.C. Sec. 60301, by claiming that its vessel is ``being repaired'' and thereby a recreational vessel exempted from tonnage taxes. The change in the definition could also be construed to allow foreign flagged vessels to avoid the requirements to maintain a safety management system onboard under 46 U.S.C. Sec. 3201, et seq. by claiming that its vessel is ``being repaired'' and thereby a recreational vessel exempted from Safety Management Requirements under the International Safety Management Code. In addition to these statutory impacts, there are numerous Coast Guard regulations not related to Longshoreman and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act authorities that would be impacted by the change. These include: 33 C.F.R. Sec. 95.001 33 C.F.R. Sec. 151.51 46 C.F.R. Sec. 2.01-7 46 C.F.R. Sec. 4.03-50 46 C.F.R. Sec. 67.11 46 C.F.R. Sec. 136.105 This list is by no means exhaustive. Given the time for review, the Coast Guard has not been able to conduct a comprehensive review of statutory and regulatory impacts that would be implicated by this change. Furthermore, as drafted, this change would require the Coast Guard to reallocate a substantial amount of financial and personnel resources to ensure that its regulations were in alignment with the revised definition. Such an undertaking is wholly incompatible with the current fiscal climate.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) for proposing this amendment. The Rebuild America's Schools Act would help ensure that each of our Nation's 50 million public school students, taught by 3 million teachers, will have access to safe, healthy, and high-quality learning facilities and internet access sufficient for digital learning in the classroom. This bold proposal would create nearly 2 million jobs, improve student learning, and revitalize under-resourced communities. The Rebuild America's Schools Act is a win for students, families, workers, and the economy; and any responsible infrastructure proposal put forth by Congress should include a bold investment in our Nation's public schools. Mr. Speaker, this bill was introduced on the 63rd anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education because, despite the promise of Brown, our public school facilities remain largely separate and woefully unequal. Last year, on the 62nd anniversary of Brown, Ranking Member Conyers and I unveiled the findings of a GAO report that found that more students are attending schools highly segregated by race and class. Now, that most recent GAO report examining the state of our public schools' infrastructure saw that low-income and minority students are served by poor and inadequate school facilities. If we are to fully achieve the promise of Brown, then no child should remain in a classroom with a leaking roof or a broken heating system. All students should have equitable access to science labs or spaces for high-quality career and technical educational programs. Mr. Speaker, 12 States do not invest any money in capital construction projects in public schools, leaving responsibility of ensuring high-quality classrooms up to localities and local property taxes, which virtually guarantees inequitable funding between high- and low-income districts. This bill targets Federal funding for school infrastructure to districts and school buildings with the greatest need for improvement to their physical and digital infrastructure, which would be an important step in fulfilling the promise of Brown. All too often, when Congress talks about infrastructure investment, we speak only about investments in roads, bridges, and other public buildings. Public schools are often left out of the conversation, but schools must be part of that conversation on infrastructure. The Rebuild America's Schools Act will ensure safe drinking water in schools, prevent instructional materials like textbooks from being ruined as a result of broken heating and air-conditioning systems, and improve air quality that students breathe in the schools. It will bring access to digital learning for more than 11 million students in nearly 20,000 schools who do not already have it. Finally, the bill would mean high- quality jobs for nearly 2 million pipefitters, construction workers, and other hardworking Americans. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to defeat the previous question so we can debate and pass the Rebuild America's Schools Act. We owe it to America's students and hardworking families.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, and I have to point out that, after redistricting last year, I no longer represent the Richmond area.