Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), a hardworking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, there are 2,000 inspectors at OSHA. There are 8 million work sites. We can't expect them to visit every 6 months when the funding only allows them to visit each workplace once every 140-some years. You would have to show up at each place every 6 months to catch these violations within that timeframe. Mr. Speaker, for 40 years, the obligation to record these injuries has been considered a continuing obligation. If the purpose is to overrule the regulation because it is inconsistent with the statute, then we should fix the statute. But this resolution just gives relief to those who fail to record injuries and illnesses in violation of their legal obligation to do so. As Americans discover the plan to repeal this OSHA rule through a resolution of disapproval, there are a lot of professional organizations, in addition to the ones that have already been introduced, that have been alarmed by this resolution. The American Public Health Association has written: Injury and illness records are invaluable for employers, workers and OSHA to monitor the cause and trends of illnesses and injuries. Such data is essential for determining appropriate interventions to prevent other workers from experiencing the same harm. . . . For decades, the public health community and government agencies have identified a widespread undercount of work-related injuries and illnesses. This includes investigations by the GAO, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and academic researchers. H.J. Res. 83 will have dire consequences for injury prevention and undermine 40 years of occupational injury surveillance in the United States. The AFL-CIO has written: In the absence of enforcement, there is no question that the underreporting of injuries, already a widespread problem, will get much worse, undermining safety and health and putting workers in danger. A group of 66 professional workplace safety groups wrote: The OSHA clarifying rule on maintaining accurate records imposes no new costs to business, but is critical to assuring that workplace fatalities and injuries are prevented. Mr. Speaker, I include these letters in the Record.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my concerns with H.R. 228. While the legislation seeks to provide additional flexibility and support to Indian tribes--a worthy goal--I remain concerned that it could have the effect of weakening the services provided to families and children in Indian tribes. Currently, Indian tribes have the option to consolidate certain federal funding streams related to work and job training into one grant. H.R. 228 includes a number of changes to this consolidation option and expands the number of programs that can be consolidated. The legislation could be interpreted in an overly broad fashion resulting in the inclusion of programs that may not be appropriate to include--programs or services only ``related to'' job training, skill development, and economic development, or other related goals. Last Congress, the legislation was given a sequential referral to the Education and the Workforce Committee, on which I serve as Ranking Member. However, the legislation was not considered in the Committee and we have yet to assess its impact on education and training programs within our jurisdiction. Specifically, our Committee has an interest in ensuring that program funds are used for their intended purpose. Whether the TANF program or Head Start, adequate reporting and oversight protect beneficiaries and ensure the quality of services. For example, Head Start performance standards are vital to the success of the program. While I do not intend to oppose the legislation, I encourage continued robust oversight of the programs impacted by this bill to ensure that quality and effective education and job training programs remain available to our nation's tribes.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, our country is experiencing a retirement security crisis. Nearly 40 million private sector workers do not have access to a retirement savings plan at their jobs. The data and research also show that many middle- and low-income workers lack the ability to save enough on their own for retirement. Too many Americans lack access to retirement savings plans and too few are able to build a retirement nest egg on their own. Unfortunately, Congress has not stepped up to comprehensively address our country's retirement security challenges, but many States have stepped up and enacted innovative solutions to expand working people's access to retirement savings. California passed a law establishing a program that is estimated to provide 6.8 million workers access to a retirement savings plan. In Illinois, more than a million people are expected to benefit from the State's retirement savings program. Six other States have enacted programs. Dozens more have considered proposals to study or implement State-based retirement plans. Several of these States have worked with the Obama administration's Department of Labor on rules to ensure that their workplace retirement savings initiatives did not inadvertently run afoul of ERISA, the Federal law establishing minimum standards for private sector pensions. Last August, the Department of Labor finalized the rule specifying the ERISA safe harbor conditions for State payroll deduction retirement savings plans. The rule went into effect last October. In December, the Department of Labor finalized another rule that made certain cities and counties eligible for the same safe harbor protections. This rule only went into effect last month. Now, if there are legitimate concerns with the rules, the Trump administration has the administrative tools available to appropriately amend the final rules in the same fair, thoughtful, transparent manner in which they were promulgated. However, this CRA disapproval resolution, which was just introduced last week, will nullify the rule that puts a safe harbor in place to ensure the plans do not run afoul of ERISA. At the same time, under the CRA rules, it would make it impossible to enact a similar rule to protect these savings plans in the future without specific congressional approval. This afternoon, the House will also consider a CRA disapproval resolution which would overturn the month-old rule aimed at helping certain cities and counties offer workplace retirement programs. Mr. Speaker, Congress should not be in the business of destabilizing efforts that increase workers' ability to save for retirement, and we should not be going out of our way to undermine states' rights to implement their own innovative solutions. These two resolutions represent an attack on our Nation's working families. Congress must stand up for working people who do not have access to retirement plans at their jobs. America's working families deserve an opportunity to be able to save enough to retire with dignity and peace of mind. I urge my colleagues to reject both of these CRA joint resolutions of disapproval.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of myself and Representatives Robert Wittman, Donald McEachin, and Scott Taylor to honor Dr. Katherine Goble Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan, and Mary Jackson, an extraordinary group of women from Hampton Roads, Virginia recently featured in the critically acclaimed and Oscar-nominated film Hidden Figures. Tomorrow evening, Senators Warner, Kaine, and Brown are joining me in hosting a screening of Hidden Figures here at the United States Capitol. I would like to take a moment to recognize the accomplishments of the remarkable women depicted in this film Breaking down barriers of both gender and race at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, these women, and many like them, laid the groundwork for John Glenn to become the first American to orbit the earth, and for Neil Armstrong to walk on the moon. I am proud that their stories are reaching a wider audience. Though she began her career as an educator, in her 28 years working for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (the forerunner to NASA) Dorothy Vaughan helped pave the way for the diverse workforce and leadership NASA enjoys today. Beginning at NACA Langley in 1943, Mrs. Vaughan was assigned to an all-black computer pool. By 1949, she was the Section Head of her group, becoming NACA's first black supervisor and one of NACA's first female supervisors. Mrs. Vaughan was one of the first to master computer programming and said that she felt like her work at NASA Langley put her on ``the cutting edge of something very exciting.'' While she broke barriers at NACA, Mrs. Vaughan also took an active role in her community as a member of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. and a longtime member of St. Paul AME Church of Newport News. Early on, Dr. Katherine Goble Johnson showed that she was an exceptionally bright young woman. Graduating high school at 14 and college at 18, Dr. Johnson worked as an educator before relocating to Newport News where, in 1953, she began her work at NASA Langley. She too was assigned to an all-black computer pool. Within weeks of her entry in the NASA ranks, Dr. Johnson was asked to temporarily assist in the Spacecraft Dynamics Branch in the Flight Dynamics and Control Division. She never left. There, she became known for her knowledge, accuracy and contributions in providing trajectories necessary to successful spaceflight. Dr. Johnson has been the recipient of numerous awards throughout her 33 year career with NASA, and was recently awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Barack Obama. A leader in her community, Dr. Johnson has served as President of the Lambda Omega Chapter of the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. and as a Trustee and Elder at Carver Memorial Presbyterian Church in Newport News, Virginia, where she continues to be a dedicated member. Mary Jackson was born and raised in Hampton, Virginia, and attended the Hampton Institute, now Hampton University. She too was an educator prior to joining NASA, and after a circuitous journey found her way to NASA Langley working as a mathematician in 1951, reporting to Dorothy Vaughan. Following additional math and physics work at previously segregated Hampton High School, Mrs. Jackson became NASA's first black female engineer in 1958. An accomplished mathematician, she remained committed to ensuring that NASA's female professionals had the opportunity to succeed and finished her 34 year career as Langley's Federal Women's Program Manager working to hire and mentor NASA's next generation of leaders. Mrs. Jackson kept active in her community, as a member of Bethel AME Church in Hampton, the Newport News-Hampton Chapter of the Continental Societies, Inc., and Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Margot Lee Shetterly, author of Hidden Figures, for shining a spotlight on the remarkable story of these women. As the daughter of a NASA Langley scientist, Mrs. Shetterly was surely steeped in the accomplishments of these great women growing up. I would also like to thank Theodore Melfi, director of the film, actors Octavia Spencer, who played Dorothy Vaughan, Janelle Monae, who played Mary Jackson, and Taraji P. Henson, who played Katherine Johnson, and all others who played a part in telling these women's stories on the silver screen. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that the stories of these exceptional women are no longer hidden. It is my hope that this film will help inspire the next generation of leaders to challenge themselves and to strive to break through any bathers they may face.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. This resolution threatens the success of the law we fought so hard to pass, so I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong opposition of H.J. Res. 57. This resolution takes aim at the heart of the Every Student Succeeds Act, or ESSA. That bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. This resolution would strike down regulations that provide necessary clarity to States about what it means to ensure that all students are taught to high standards, and what it means to provide accurate data on student academic performance and resource equity. States now lack direction needed to proceed with implementation of the bill. Just last week, the Department removed all ESSA technical assistance to the States from the public domain, despite numerous and repeated requests for technical assistance from State and local leaders. Mr. Speaker, when Congress came together to pass ESSA, we made a promise, the promise of stability and consistency and a full replacement of No Child Left Behind. And while we promised new flexibilities, those flexibilities came with guardrails to guide the decisionmaking, to ensure protections for vulnerable students, and to support educators and school leaders. This resolution breaks that bipartisan promise. Contrary to the wishes of some, ESSA was not a blank check to States from the Federal Government. ESSA is a fundamental approach with much power restored to the State and local level, but it comes with Federal protections for vulnerable students. So we must not waver in our commitment to give States the support and guidance they need to move forward. Mr. Speaker, some claim the regulations are unnecessary because States can just read the law and implement it. But we all know, based on precedence and common sense, that the new landscape of ESSA would necessitate regulatory clarity from the executive branch, just as all Federal agencies routinely update existing regulations as new legislation is passed. Providing stakeholders with direction and clarity about how to carry out the Federal laws as big as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is not new. No Child Left Behind led the Bush administration to undergo similar rulemaking, and it was more than 2 years before the regulations were fully realized. It also enabled States, in their efforts, to move forward with timely submission of their ESSA plans. If this resolution of disapproval is enacted, States will have no ability to prepare State plans that require Federal approval until after the Department reestablishes requirements and criteria, causing an unwelcome and unnecessary delay for States eager to move forward, leaving ESSA unregulated before States to just wait until the new regulations are passed, and also undo months of work that is currently underway. In effect, the lack of clarity on how to effectively utilize the new flexibilities, while meeting statutory requirements, may lead many States to revert to--they have to revert to something--maybe the No Child Left Behind narrow policies and systems, the very policies that the ESSA eliminated. Mr. Speaker, where the law's requirements are ambiguous, agency interpretation is necessary to set a Federal floor. Without that floor, compliance with the Federal law becomes subjective, with different standards being applied from State to State. This kind of subjectivity was the same problem we had with No Child Left Behind when States relied on guidance without regulation. Under that scheme, the Department could not be held accountable for treating one State different from another, and that is what we are correcting through the enactment and regulation of ESSA's core requirements. Those requirements must be applied fairly across all States. That is the whole point of a Federal law. The Department conducted hundreds of meetings, held public forums and listening sessions, and read and responded to thousands of comments to produce a consensus-driven rule. The Department made significant revisions before finalization, and they were met with praise from teachers, State education chiefs, local administrators, parents, and civil rights communities. Regardless of whether you think the rule is perfect or flawed, the substance of the rule is a reasonable interpretation that provides clarity for States to enable their compliance with statutory requirements. Now, President Trump has administrative tools at his disposal to revise or completely rewrite this regulation. However, it is clear, based on history of implementation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that regulatory clarity is necessary. Using the CRA to block the rule is unnecessary and shortsighted. It hurts students and schools. It undermines a bipartisan intent of Congress and leaves States in a lurch by causing confusion and delays for the submission of their State plans. It also undermines equity protections for vulnerable students that the law was intended to serve.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 58, the joint resolution of disapproval of the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to teacher preparation programs. This resolution would not only block the rule in question, but according to the rules of the CRA, it would tie the hands of this and of any future administration from re-regulating the provisions until a successful reauthorization of the Higher Education Act might take place. Mr. Speaker, this rule in question provides clarity to States on how to increase teacher preparation program quality, transparency, and the equitable distribution of well-prepared teachers. It was promulgated to enable compliance with the statutory provision included in the 2008 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. According to a study by the Education Schools Project, more than 60 percent of new teachers feel unprepared to enter the classroom. We also know that disadvantaged students are taught disproportionately by new, inexperienced, and underprepared teachers. Congress sought to address this in the HEA reauthorization through the inclusion of requirements that are clarified by this regulation. Congress clearly intended for these equity-focused provisions to be meaningfully implemented; however, absent Federal regulation, the bipartisan intent of Congress has gone unfulfilled. Despite statements made by many on the other side of the aisle, the Department of Education did engage in extensive consultation with stakeholders and the public in drafting and then in finalizing this rule. The draft rule put forward in 2014 lacked the appropriate flexibility and was met with overwhelming resistance. Through an extended comment period, the Department worked for more than 2 years to revise the rule and produce a final rule with considerably more flexibility for States and institutions. Regardless of how flexible the rule is or not, I believe that, upon careful review of the regulation and the statutory provisions, the final rule is clearly within the scope of the agency's regulatory authority. Whether one thinks the rule is perfect or flawed, the substance of the final rule is reasonable and is clarifying an interpretation of how to comply with statutory requirements. It is now 2017. Federal requirements to improve teacher preparation program quality and transparency have gone largely unfulfilled since the 2008 reauthorization. In such an instance, it is well within the purview of the implementing agency to regulate and more clearly interpret statutory requirements to prompt meaningful compliance and inform Congress and the agency in subsequent reauthorizations. The executive overreach or illegality of a rule and the disagreement with the substance of the rule are not two sides of the same coin. Republicans now control the executive branch. President Trump has administrative tools at his disposal to revise or to completely rewrite this regulation. It is clear, based on the history of the implementation of these provisions, that regulatory clarity is necessary. The responsible approach would be to utilize those tools to improve the regulation. In the history of the Congressional Review Act, Congress has only used it once to disapprove a regulation. Instead of engaging in the hard work of governing by revising the teacher preparation rule, my colleagues have resorted to this act of repealing yet another rule that is meant to support our Nation's families and children. It is unnecessary, and we must recommit to doing the right thing for those whom we serve. I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution of disapproval. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before I address the disapproval resolution, I just want to acknowledge the important role Federal contractors have in meeting the needs of the Federal Government. Employment and critical services in many districts, including my own, are heavily reliant on Federal contractors, including those who serve a critical role for our Nation, supporting the needs of the military, the Coast Guard, Homeland Security, and many others. That said, it is imperative that contractors are bidding on a level playing field when they compete for contracts. Unfortunately, this resolution would effectively reward contractors who cut corners, endanger the rights of their workers, and, studies show, compromise quality. Although most Federal contractors obey labor laws, studies by the GAO, the Senate HELP Committee, and others document that Federal contractors with histories of serious, willful, and repeated violations of labor employment and nondiscrimination laws continue to be rewarded with Federal contracts. For context, it is important to know that contracting rules already require agencies to determine whether or not a prospective contractor is responsible before awarding a contract. Amongst the criteria considered is whether or not the contractor has ``a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics,'' and ``a satisfactory performance record.'' As previous speakers have noted, violations can already be considered. However, contracting officers don't have access to a list of those violations until this rule is issued, nor are contracting officers required to review a bidder's labor violations history. The rule implementing the executive order on Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces does not add any extra layers of review. Rather, it would fill that data gap by requiring contractors to disclose whether they have violations of 14 longstanding labor laws, including the Fair Labor Standards Act, OSHA, Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act, and nondiscrimination laws. It only applies to contracts over $500,000, so we are not talking about mom-and-pop operations. But if listing those violations of fair pay and safe workplace laws constitutes an administrative burden, more the reason to make them be listed. They are to be disclosed. And although we have heard about allegations, and although some violations may not be final, the only thing that has to be disclosed are those violations for which there has been an agency determination. That is, an allegation is made, it is investigated, and the company has been found to be in violation. It may be on appeal or whatnot, but there has at least been an agency determination of guilt. The rule requires contracting officers to focus on whether such violations are serious, repeated, willful or pervasive. The rule helps bring those contractors with a history of violations into compliance by way of labor compliance agreements so they can continue to be considered for contracting opportunities while they improve their records. Some have mislabeled this rule as the ``blacklisting rule,'' but this suggestion and characterization ignores the rules' meaningful compliance provision. The reality is that this rule would, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, encourage agency contract officials to push bidders with serious labor law violations ``to enter into labor compliance agreements'' rather than to disbar or suspend them. I want to point out that a coalition of 20,000 construction contractors submitted testimony to the Small Business Committee where they wrote: ``Employers--primes and subs have more rights, remedies and redress for non-responsibility determinations based on lack of integrity or business ethics under the executive order than the current Federal Acquisition Regulation procedures specifically provide.'' Now, this testimony suggests that the rules are far more contractor- friendly than the detractors have characterized. It would be premature to dismantle this rule because it hasn't even been put into effect because it has been under a court injunction. Further, repealing the rule under the CRA would bar future consideration of substantially similar rules unless Congress enacts subsequent enabling legislation. So the bottom line is that there are winners and there are losers if this legislation passes. The winners, if this legislation passes, would be companies who willfully, and repeatedly, and pervasively violate labor laws. The winners would be the contractors who cut corners and gain an unfair competitive advantage over law-abiding contractors. The losers will be workers who are employed by Federal contractors. They will be more susceptible to wage theft, unfair working conditions, and unsafe workplaces run by unscrupulous contractors. Losers will be the law-abiding contractors who lose contracts because they abide by the laws protecting their workers. This is why the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule enjoys support from a widespread number of businesses, veterans, civil rights, and labor organizations from the Easterseals to Paralyzed Veterans of America, to the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. That is why I oppose this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), the vice ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, can you advise both sides how much time is remaining.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, I just want to restate a couple of provisions. One is this underlying regulation only applies to contracts in excess of $500,000. As previously stated, this information that is to be disclosed can already be considered in contracting. This regulation makes it available so it can be considered. It is not just allegations. We are talking about agency determinations after an investigation. Now, the regulation requires consideration of the fact of whether or not a determination is final or whether it is on appeal. That is to be considered. But not all violations in the fullest of time are to be considered at all. Only those that are serious, repeated, willful, or pervasive violations of fair pay and safe workplace violations are to be considered. And so for the people who are not blacklisted, the guilty are encouraged to participate in labor compliance agreements so they can continue to receive contracts while they improve their records. In closing, Mr. Speaker, let us recall who the winners and losers are if this resolution of disapproval passes. The winners will be the unscrupulous contractors who cut corners and compromise the safety of their workers. The losers will be the workers, who are the most susceptible to wage theft and unfair working conditions, and the law- abiding contractors who face unfair competition. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record three letters: one from The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, another from the American Industrial Hygiene Association, and, finally, one from a coalition of 134 business, labor, and civil society groups which stand in opposition to this resolution of disapproval. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Washington, DC, January 31, 2017. Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: On behalf of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 200 national organizations to promote and protect the civil and human rights of all persons in the United States, we write in strong opposition to the use of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to repeal the regulations implementing the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order. The Fair Pay regulations represent a much-needed step forward in ensuring that the federal contractor community is providing safe and fair workplaces for employees by encouraging compliance with federal labor and civil rights laws, and prohibiting the use of mandatory arbitration of certain disputes. Employers that have the privilege of doing business with the federal government also have a responsibility to abide by the law. The Fair Pay regulations are crucial because they help ensure that federal contractors behave responsibly and ethically with respect to labor standards and civil rights laws. They also encourage companies applying for federal contracts to comply with federal civil rights laws such as the Fair Labor Standards Act (which includes the Equal Pay Act), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and their state law equivalents. The Executive Order also bans contractors from forcing employees to arbitrate claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as well as claims of sexual harassment and sexual assault. We urge you to oppose any attempts to roll back the protections that stem from the Executive Order on Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces. The Order and implementing regulations provide strong protections against the federal government contracting with employers that routinely engage in discrimination based on race, sex, age, or disability, violate workplace health and safety protections, withhold wages, or commit other labor violations. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact June Zeitlin, Director of Human Rights Policy. Sincerely, Wade Henderson, President & CEO. Nancy Zirkin, Executive Vice President.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this budget resolution and its intent to compromise the health insurance of all Americans. Republicans continue to pursue the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, root and branch, despite the fact that there is no credible plan to deal with the chaos that this repeal will create. Thirty million Americans will lose their insurance, the vast majority being working families. There is no plan to protect the other Americans who have enjoyed improved consumer protections and benefits. Although the rates have gone up, they have gone up at half the rate that they had been going up before ObamaCare, and most of those in the marketplace don't even have to pay those increased prices because of increased tax credits. When Republicans talk about repeal and replace, the only thing guaranteed is the repeal part. Republicans have shown little interest in producing an alternative. We have heard lots of complaints, but we have not seen a plan that will make things any better. Remember, when Medicare was created, most of the Republicans in Congress voted ``no.'' Republicans in the House have voted numerous times, over 60 times, to repeal some or all of the Affordable Care Act without proposing a credible alternative, and now we have some vague ideas but no plan to deal with the total chaos that will be created if ObamaCare is repealed. I urge my colleagues to save the health and economic security of all Americans by defeating this resolution.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Chairman, over the past 2 weeks, the majority has considered three bills on the House floor designed to undermine the ability of the executive branch to implement essential economic and public health protections for the people we have the honor to represent: the so- called Midnight Rules Relief Act, which could retroactively disallow rules issued as far back as June of last year; the REINS Act, which requires a majority vote of both Houses of Congress before any major rule can go into effect; and today's Regulatory Accountability Act, which is an 82-page omnibus bill which would effectively tie the executive branch into so much red tape that environmental, workplace, and consumer protections might never see the light of day. By enacting these statutes, Congress would impair the constitutional duty of the executive branch to ``take care that laws be faithfully executed'' and replace them with a series of layers that can be applied by deep-pocketed special interests, including one provision that prevents some rules from going into effect that may affect public safety if somebody files a lawsuit. The question is: Who loses when these playing fields are tilted this way? Well, just a couple within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor, 4.2 million working people would lose. That is the number of people who would be eligible for overtime pay as a result of the responsible actions taken by the Obama administration. They would lose the benefit of overtime for time worked in excess of 40 hours a week. Working families and seniors could lose their retirement savings. Last year, the Obama administration released a fiduciary rule that ensures that retirement savings are protected from financial advisers who may prioritize fees over services. Without the rule, working families and seniors could lose billions of dollars every year in retirement savings by being unnecessarily charged by unscrupulous financial advisers. Students in low-income school districts could lose. Without the Department of Education's new supplement-not-supplant rule, these students would lose critical resources, and those resources would be redirected to wealthier districts. So let's be clear. The bill before us is not on the side of children, workers, and retirees. Instead, the bill throws sand in the gears of the regulatory process by adding more layers to the process, rigging it in favor of powerful corporate interests, and encouraging frivolous lawsuits. That is not what Congress should be focusing on. Instead, we should be building on the progress that has been achieved over the last 8 years. We should be considering legislation that increases wages, improves the lives of working families, increases access to high quality child care and early childhood education, supports quality public schools in every neighborhood, makes colleges more affordable, helps American families balance work and family life, and empowers workers to organize and collectively bargain. That has been the focus of my Democratic colleagues on the Education and the Workforce Committee, and that focus will remain in the years ahead. So I urge the majority to partner with us to protect and promote the rights of working people and students by defeating this bill.

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