Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 515, International Megan's Law. While I support the underlying goal of ensuring that American law enforcement agencies share information on potential child sex offenders with foreign law enforcement agencies, I am opposed to how one particular provision, added in the Senate amendment before us today, would work in practice. Other existing provisions of the bill already contain the following information-sharing requirements with and among law enforcement agencies here in the United States and abroad: U.S. sex offenders are required to provide international travel- related information to the sex offender registries; the Department of Homeland Security is required to create the Angel Watch Center to receive information on individuals seeking to enter the U.S. who have committed offenses of a sexual nature as well as registered sex offenders seeking to travel outside the U.S. in order to share all relevant information to federal, state, and local law enforcement officials; the U.S. Marshal's Service is required to notify law enforcement agencies of sex offenders seeking to leave the United States who have not transmitted their travel information to sex offender registries; the U.S. Marshal's Service is required to notify the international destination country of a sex offender's upcoming travel; and the Secretary of State should seek reciprocal international agreements or arrangements to further these goals. If our goal is to ensure that customs and border as well as law enforcement officials are notified so that they may track and investigate those sex offenders who may be engaging in sex tourism or pose a threat of absconding, these provisions have addressed those concerns. As a result, I am skeptical of what more we stand to gain by the Senate amendment's provision authorizing the Secretary of State to use a ``unique passport identifier for covered sex offenders'' that is defined as ``any visual designation affixed to a conspicuous location on the passport indicating the individual is a covered sex offender.'' At best, if this vague language is meant to describe some sort of code or symbol embedded in the passport that is only discernible by law enforcement at the border indicating that the traveler is a sex offender, it is redundant given the other information-sharing mandated by the bill's other provisions. However, if this is interpreted to mean something akin to the words ``sex offender'' stamped on the identification page of the passport, this raises serious problems and will lead to unintended consequences. First, it is simply bad policy to single out one category of offenses for this type of treatment. We do not subject those who murder, who defraud the government or our fellow citizens of millions and billions, or who commit acts of terrorism to these restrictions. Second, by treating all sexual offenders as one monolithic group ignores reality. While some pose a continued and real risk of reoffending and may be traveling to engage in sex tourism or other illicit acts, not all pose the same risk. Indeed, the failure of this provision to allow for the individualized consideration of the facts and circumstances surrounding the traveler's criminal history, including how much time has elapsed since his last offense, underscores how this provision is overbroad. Details such as whether the traveler is a serial child rapist versus someone with a decades-old conviction from when he was 19-years-old and his girlfriend was 14, just missing the Romeo and Juliet exception by one year, are significant and would allow law enforcement to more appropriately prioritize their finite resources. Third, a traveler does not have any recourse with the foreign destination country if he or she is refused entry solely on the basis of this ``unique passport identifier.'' While the bill has some due process provisions, those apply only domestically. There is no recourse if a traveler is erroneously denied entry from the destination country. Fourth, if the ``unique passport identifier'' is implemented in a way that makes it obvious to not only law enforcement officials but any member of the general public viewing the passport, this could lead to unintended consequences of persecution and harm to the traveler. This is especially troubling given that no factual context about the offense is provided. If our goal is to ensure that domestic and foreign law enforcement and customs officials are notified of potential threats, multiple existing provisions of the bill already achieve that goal without raising these problematic implementation and fairness concerns. In summary, while I support the underlying goal of ensuring that American law enforcement agencies share information on potential child sex offenders with foreign law enforcement agencies, I have grave concerns about how the redundant and problematic provision regarding the ``unique passport identifier'', added as a Senate amendment, would work in practice. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the underlying bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3231, the Federal Intern Protection Act. This bill would amend title 5 of the U.S. Code to extend protections against discrimination and harassment to unpaid interns who work at Federal agencies. The bill would define an intern as someone who performs uncompensated voluntary service in an agency to earn credit awarded by an educational institution or to learn a trade or occupation. Internships are often the first real entry into a profession; yet, unpaid interns are not expressly protected from the discriminatory practices prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and other laws and regulations. This bill would remedy this problem and extend those workplace protections to unpaid interns who may be vulnerable to egregious treatment. Madam Speaker, all too often, when unpaid interns have taken cases of workplace discrimination to the courts, the courts have ruled against them. In the Second Circuit, a unanimous panel of judges concluded that unpaid interns are not employees covered by existing laws. In the 1997 case of O'Connor v. Davis, an employee at a State hospital harassed an unpaid intern, calling her Miss Sexual Harassment and subjecting her to sexually explicit comments. The court stated that it was not unsympathetic to O'Connor's situation and acknowledged that she was not in quite the same position to simply walk away from the alleged harassment, as her success at school was dependent on her successfully completing her internship. The Second Circuit noted that Ms. O'Connor's dependency on her employer made her vulnerable to continued harassment much as an employee dependent on a regular wage can be vulnerable to ongoing misconduct. Despite that, the Second Circuit concluded: ``It is for Congress, if it should choose to do so, and not this court to provide a remedy under either title VII or title IX for plaintiffs in O'Connor's position.'' As ranking member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, I urge Congress to do more to protect unpaid interns, be it in the Federal sector, in the Halls of Congress, or in the private sector. The House Committee on Education and the Workforce has jurisdiction over legislation that strengthens worker protections and defends the civil rights laws of workers, including fighting against discrimination and supporting diversity in the workplace. Now that the House is about to complete the consideration of H.R. 3231, covering Federal workers, I am calling on the leadership of the Committee on Education and the Workforce to move expeditiously to consider the companion legislation, H.R. 3232, the Unpaid Intern Protection Act. That bill would ensure that unpaid interns in the private sector are free from discrimination and harassment as prohibited by the Civil Rights Act. Extending workplace protections to nonpaid interns, who under current law lack the protections provided by civil rights laws, should be a priority for the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and that is because internships have become such an important part of the workforce. According to the 2014 State of Internships Report from a college intern database, InternMatch, about two-thirds of interns surveyed said internships were important for long-term career advancement and about the same number even stated that internships should be mandatory. Student surveys showed that over 60 percent want to intern in the private sector, about 14 percent in the government sector, and 19 percent in nonprofit organizations. As Members of Congress, our position should be clear. Regardless of whether an internship is at a Federal agency, on Capitol Hill, or at a Fortune 500 company, we must ensure that the unpaid status of interns does not leave them without a remedy when their civil rights are violated. To that end, we should begin by passing H.R. 3231, the Federal Intern Protection Act. We should then start working on legislation to provide similar protections to unpaid interns who work in the private sector. I want to thank Ranking Member Cummings for his leadership on this bill, along with my fellow cosponsors, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Meng) and the Delegate from Washington, D.C. (Ms. Norton). I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York and the gentlewoman from Ohio for organizing tonight's Special Order to focus on the toll that gun violence has taken on communities across America and, especially, the disproportionate impact it has had within communities of color. Tonight's conversation comes at an important time. On average, every day more than 30 people are killed by firearms, many in mass murders. Now, rather than do what they say is celebrate the problem, I want to talk about solutions. Last Tuesday, the President announced the executive actions that his administration will take to prevent gun violence. I commend the President for taking this action, in light of the current congressional leadership's refusal to responsibly address this epidemic. These executive actions will ensure stronger enforcement of current laws and will reduce the number of lives lost to gun violence. To begin with, the President's executive actions will narrow the ``gun show'' and Internet loopholes by actually enforcing licensing requirements for gun dealers and overhauling the background check system to make it more effective and efficient. Under current law, only licensed gun dealers are required to perform criminal background checks for all gun sales, and only those individuals deemed to be ``engaged in the business'' of dealing in guns are required to obtain a license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the ATF. The executive actions make it clear that the commonsense proposition that anyone making a profit from the sale of guns, or who regularly makes gun sales or earns a livelihood from gun sales, is, in fact, engaged in the business and therefore must obtain a license and conduct required criminal background checks, even if those sales occur at gun shows or over the Internet. The question of whether someone is engaged in business will be determined by normal legal standards as opposed to people just declaring themselves to be exempt, which is going on now. Some of these people are even making a living selling firearms. They need to get a license. This is the present law, and the President has said that he will enforce it. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, as part of executive actions, will overhaul its National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the NICS system, to make it more effective and efficient by hiring more than 230 additional examiners and other staff so that the Bureau can process background checks 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and improve its notification of local authorities when prohibited persons unlawfully attempt to purchase a gun. These people are currently breaking the law when they illegally try to buy a firearm, and local law enforcement officials need to be informed. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, this system has already caught more than 2 million people trying to buy guns illegally, and they need to be held accountable for breaking the law. Furthermore, dealers will also be required to notify law enforcement if their guns are lost or stolen in transit. This transparency and accountability will ensure that law enforcement will be notified and can begin investigations when these losses occur. Executive actions will also leverage the buying power of the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Homeland Security to conduct or sponsor research into gun technology. When the Federal Government begins buying guns using that kind of technology, it will make it more likely that this technology will be used. There is technology that makes it impossible for anyone other than the true owner to use weapons, and the more purchases the Federal Government makes, the more likely it is that technology will actually be installed in future weapons. The President has also directed the departments to review the availability of smart gun technology on a regular basis and to explore potential ways to further its use and to encourage research to more broadly improve gun safety. The President's plan also proposes a new $500 million investment to increase access to mental health treatment to ensure that people who need help do not fall through the cracks of the mental health system. This is in addition to the huge increases in mental health funding under the Affordable Care Act. Mental health services are considered essential services, and so now virtually all health insurance policies include mental health coverage. While modest and within the President's executive authority, these executive actions will go a long way in keeping guns out of the hands of people who never should be able to purchase them in the first place. But that is executive action. Congress needs to act so that more can be done to actually protect citizens from gun violence. The House Democratic Gun Violence Prevention Task Force has consistently reiterated that Washington has a moral obligation to do something to address our Nation's gun violence epidemic. The most effective way to address this epidemic is through comprehensive, evidence-based policy proposals. Our task force has put forth several proposals that will go a long way in achieving these goals. These proposals include reinstating and strengthening the assault weapon ban, reducing the size of magazines, implementing universal background checks, cracking down on illegal gun trafficking and straw purchases, improving our mental health system, and implementing comprehensive, locally tailored, evidence-based violence prevention and intervention programs. The gentleman from California, Representative Mike Thompson, is the chair of the House Democratic Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, and he has introduced a resolution to establish a select committee of the House to study gun violence. That resolution is cosponsored by Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and 11 cochairs of the task force. The proposed select committee would be comprised of six Republicans and six Democrats who would study the research and issue a final report and recommendations, including legislative proposals, within 60 days of its establishment. It would study and make recommendations to address many issues, including the causes of mass shootings, methods to improve the Federal firearms purchaser background check system, connections between access to firearms and dangerously mentally ill individuals, Federal penalties for trafficking and straw purchasing of firearms, loopholes that allow some domestic abusers continued access to firearms, linkages between firearms and suicide, gun violence's effect on public health, the correlation between State gun violence prevention laws and the incidence of gun violence, the importance of having reliable, accurate information on gun violence and its toll on our Nation, the implementation of effective gun violence prevention laws in accordance with the Second Amendment to our Constitution, and the rates of gun violence in large metropolitan areas. Mr. Speaker, by taking a deliberate, research-based approach to gun violence, treating it as we would a public health challenge, we can significantly reduce the ravages of gun violence. The President is limited by his executive authority on what alone he can do to address this epidemic. Long-term reforms can only be achieved through congressional action. I hope that the leadership of the Congress will follow the President's lead and act in a bipartisan basis to address this critical issue using public health strategies and evidence-based proposals. Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York and the gentlelady from Ohio for coordinating this Special Order.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1927, the so-called Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act. In 2013, in Butler v. Sears, Judge Posner of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals spoke critically of the commonality in damages requirement found in this bill. He said that ``the fact that damages are not identical across all class members should not preclude class certification. Otherwise defendants would be able to escape liability for tortious harms of enormous aggregate magnitude but so widely distributed as not to be remediable in individual suits.'' The court found that such a requirement ``would drive a stake through the heart of the class action device.'' Furthermore, Mr. Chair, the bill includes the so-called FACT Act, which would have a devastating impact on workers exposed to asbestos. In the last few decades, thousands of workers in my district have developed asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma because of asbestos exposure that occurred between the 1940s and 1970s. This exposure was inflicted upon many victims by corporations, such as one a New Jersey court found to have ``made a conscious, cold- blooded business decision, in utter flagrant disregard of the rights of others, to take no protective or remedial action.'' That is the kind of business that will benefit from the bill. The victims don't want it. In the letter the ranking member will be introducing, they point out that veterans represent 8 percent of the population, but 30 percent of the victims. That letter points out that the FACT Act would mandate unnecessary public disclosure of sensitive personal information and would increase the cost of litigation, thereby limiting the available pool of money to compensate the victims of those cold-blooded business decisions. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would recognize that the asbestos victims have suffered too much already. Therefore, we should defeat this legislation.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mrs. Watson Coleman for her leadership on all of these issues, particularly education. There is a growing bipartisan understanding that in order for our Nation's children, especially those in low-income communities, to fulfill their potential and succeed in college and career, that we must expand access to affordable, high-quality, early learning opportunities. Decades of research shows that properly nurturing children in early years of life supports enhanced brain development, cognitive functioning, and emotional and physical health. Research has also shown that one investment that leads to better educational outcomes, stronger job earnings, and lower crime rates is quality early learning programs. These programs help prevent and reduce achievement gaps for low-income students and create long-term benefits for our Nation, such as lower crime rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, and higher high school graduation rates. Yesterday I attended a screening of the documentary ``The Raising of America,'' which explained the challenges working families have in raising children and helping them succeed. Even though there is nearly universal understanding of the importance of high-quality, early- learning opportunities, many families are not able to afford or access these opportunities. As the documentary clearly explained, working families are more productive than ever, but our Nation lacks the Federal policies that these families need in order to better balance their work and family responsibilities. For example, unpredictable, unstable schedules place an undue burden on working families, impacting their ability to maintain child care. We are among the richest nations in the world. The United States is the only such nation that does not provide paid leave to families to invest time in early development of their children. The United States doesn't even provide universal access to quality, affordable child care. This is simply unacceptable. The Democrats on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce have been working with our colleagues in the Democratic Caucus on a working families agenda. This agenda supports families by giving them the tools that they need to better balance work and family. The working families agenda calls for commonsense policies, such as paid sick leave, paid family leave, and access to universal, high- quality child care to help balance work and family responsibilities. In addition, it supports increased wages by calling for an increased minimum wage and legislation to reduce discrimination in the workforce. But access to high-quality child care is an integral part of the working family's agenda. In the recently passed spending bill, we increased funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grants by $326 million. This increase is a strong, positive step in the right direction, but we must build on this effort. That is because over 20 States cannot serve all of the eligible families, and some States aren't even accepting eligible participants to sign up on their wait list. Now, we are not talking about whether the child is eligible or not or whether they receive it, but whether a child can even be placed on a wait list to hope for funding. If we want parents to work and we want children to be able to determine their futures, if we want strong and stable families, we must provide these families with access to high-quality child care and other early-learning opportunities. These efforts are a national priority, and all children deserve the opportunity to reach their full potential. Again, I want to thank you for your leadership for bringing this issue to a Special Order.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The House is yet to take another vote in 60 seconds to demonstrate its relentless fixation on systematically destroying the Affordable Care Act. More specifically, we must vote on a budget reconciliation package that, if enacted, will take away healthcare access for millions of Americans. This isn't a new exercise. In addition to the 61 unproductive votes, futile lawsuits have been brought in courts, and meritless attacks have been mounted with the goal of destroying the progress we have made. And we have made progress improving a system that didn't work for American families before the Affordable Care Act. Since the enactment of the law: over 17 million uninsured Americans have gained insurance; young people can stay on their parents' policies until age 26; healthcare costs are growing more slowly today than in past decades; annual checkups are not subject to deductibles; an insurance company can't charge you more for just being a woman; we are in the process of closing the prescription drug doughnut hole; and if you want to change jobs or start a business or start a family, you have healthcare options even if you have a preexisting condition. That is the progress we have made. Despite that progress, the legislation before us turns the clock back on all of that progress. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to point out some serious concerns about the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan, which would direct the commission to examine the role that regulations have on wage stagnation and income inequality by examining the negative impact regulations have on wages. It is my belief that this amendment is based on the false premise that all regulations have some negative impact on workers and their wages. It should be clear that this one-sentence amendment does not encompass the full story about the critical impact that workplace regulations can have on improving the health, safety, and income of workers. For example, the rules and regulations that have been offered and put into effect by the Department of Labor under this administration have improved worker safety, increased workplace opportunity, and increased wages. The benefits are indisputable and far outweigh the costs. For example, the home care workers rule would extend overtime and minimum wage protection to 2 million home care workers. The proposed overtime rule would extend overtime pay protections for more than 5 million American workers who currently would be putting in dozens of overtime hours for no extra pay at all. Now, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to note that the description of this amendment shows an apparent concern for the problems that working families face, and the gentleman from Michigan has talked very extensively about it: wage stagnation and income inequality. If that is what we are going to address, there are ways of addressing it. For example, we could bring to the floor for a vote the Raise the Wage Act, which would increase the minimum wage to $12 an hour by 2020 and would give over 30 million Americans a raise. We could support the Department of Labor's proposed rule that increases the overtime salary threshold, which would update the overtime rule to ensure that 5 million more Americans would be eligible to earn overtime for hours worked over 40 hours a week. Since the 1970s, worker output has increased by 74 percent, while the hourly compensation of the typical worker has only increased 9 percent. Workers simply aren't receiving a fair share of the wealth they create, and the overtime rule would help address this disparity. We could cosponsor the WAGE Act that would protect hardworking Americans' fundamental right to join together and bargain for better wages. To date, 67 House Democrats support the Workplace Action for a Growing Economy, the WAGE Act, legislation that would strengthen protections for workers who want to raise wages and improve workplace conditions. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support these alternatives, but to oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the members of the 31st Street Baptist Church in Richmond, Virginia on their 100th anniversary. During the turn of the last century, African Americans continued to face significant oppression and discrimination. In 1895, despite the adversity facing the Black community, African American Baptist Churches came together to form the National Baptist Convention of the United States to strengthen and unify Baptist Churches. Today, it is the largest predominately Black Christian denomination in the United States. The 31st Street Baptist Church grew out of this movement and was consecrated in 1915. The church quickly established itself as a leading voice in the Richmond community and its congregation rapidly grew. Members were active in the community and encouraged to attend the historic March on Washington in 1963. Sadly in 1966, the church structure was burned down. But out of the ashes, 31st Street Baptist Church persevered and its current sanctuary was built. From 1982 to 2007, Reverend Darrel Rollins led the church. Under his leadership the church prospered even further. The congregation grew from 150 to 1,300 and the church added more than 50 new ministries. These ministries included assistance to seniors, nutrition assistance, and a consortium of three sister churches. Today, the Church feeds 70 to 250 people a day during the summer in the East End community. The physical building of the church has also grown and has become accessible to all. More recently, the 31st Baptist Church was recognized by the Tricycle Gardens, a nonprofit working to expand access to healthy foods in Richmond, with the Golden Trowel award for the church's community garden that contributes to the food available at their soup kitchen. The garden has continued to grow under Rev. Dr. Morris Henderson's leadership and has even received a farm serial number from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The First Lady's Let's Move! Initiative has also recognized the church and its urban farm for its positive impact on the community. This unique garden is just one of the many ways that 31st Baptist Church has served and enriched the Richmond community. Mr. Speaker, as the 31st Street Baptist Church of Richmond, Virginia celebrates this historic anniversary, the congregation can rejoice in 100 years of fellowship and service to the Richmond community. I wish them many more years of joy and dedicated service to the community.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, as I've stated before, this conference report is not the bill I would have written on my own. It is a product of compromise, but a product that did not require either side to compromise on our core beliefs. A core belief of mine--and a core belief of my caucus--is that Congress deems authority to the executive branch to interpret, implement, and enforce federal law. That is the foundational tenet of administrative law. Although some provisions included in the conference report seek to limit the regulatory power of the Department of Education, nothing in this conference report will inhibit or impede the Secretary's authority--as granted by the Constitution--to interpret, implement, and enforce compliance with the Federal law, including the Secretary's authority to promulgate regulations that clarify and interpret vague statutory terms. Those provisions were carefully negotiated between the Chair and me. The Every Student Succeeds Act provides states with new flexibility to design systems that hold schools accountable for improving student outcomes, but the Federal government is ultimately responsible for protecting the civil rights of all students. To fulfill that responsibility, the Secretary of Education will maintain regulatory, oversight, and enforcement authority sufficient to fully implement this new law.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wilson), a former educator herself.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am honored to endorse the conference report on S. 1177, the Every Student Succeeds Act. We have certainly come a long way since we were on the floor debating H.R. 5, the Student Success Act, earlier this year. I had sincere objections to much that was found in H.R. 5, but thanks to the commitment to work together to try to fashion a decent bill with Chairman Kline and our counterparts in the Senate, Senator Alexander and Senator Murray, along with the many long nights from our respective staffs, we found a way to produce a conference report that balances the desire for more localized decisionmaking with the need for Federal oversight to ensure equity for underserved students. This conference report is the embodiment of what we can do when we work together in Washington--a workable compromise that does not force either side to desert its core beliefs. Mr. Speaker, the modern Federal role in elementary and secondary education began with the promise in Brown v. Board of Education when a unanimous Supreme Court held that, in 1954, ``it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education'' and that ``such an opportunity is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.'' Yet, despite the Brown decision, our education system has remained fundamentally unequal. That inequality is virtually guaranteed by the fact that we fund education basically by the real estate tax, guaranteeing that wealthier areas will have more funds than low-income areas. Across the Nation, gaps in equity persist. These gaps made it impossible to realize the opportunity of an education to all on equal terms because too many schools lacked the basic resources necessary for success. Too many schools failed children year after year. And these gaps disproportionately affected the politically disconnected: those in poverty, racial minorities, students with disabilities, and English language learners. This was unacceptable. In 1965, Congress addressed the inequality by passing the first Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, which provided Federal money to address--and I quote from the original bill--``the special educational needs of children of low-income families and the impact that concentrations of low-income families have on the ability of local educational agencies to support adequate educational programs.'' Simply put, Congress acknowledged that the right to an education is a civil right that knows no State boundaries and that the Federal Government has a role to ensure that all States are fulfilling their promises for all of America's children. The current iteration of the ESEA, No Child Left Behind, has run its course. It is so broken that the administration currently offers over 40 States waivers from its most unworkable provisions. This has not only created a great amount of uncertainty for students, parents, educators, and communities, but it has also resulted in uneven protections for underserved students and a lack of transparency for our communities. This conference report improves upon both the current law and the waivers, lives up to the promises of Brown and the intent of the original ESEA, and addresses the key challenges of No Child Left Behind. First, the Every Student Succeeds Act maintains high standards for all children but allows States to determine those standards in a way that requires those standards to be aligned with college readiness. The Every Student Succeeds Act requires States to put in place assessment, accountability, and improvement policies that will close the achievement gap but with locally designed, evidence-based strategies that meet the unique needs of students and schools. The conference report requires the transparent reporting of data to ensure that schools are responsible for not only the achievement of all of their students but also for the equitable allocation of resources to support student learning. The conference report helps States and school districts reduce the overuse of exclusionary policies by allowing the existing funding to be used for the Youth PROMISE plans, which is an issue I have been working on for many years. Youth PROMISE plans are comprehensive, evidence-based plans that are designed to address neighborhoods with significant crime, teen pregnancy, and other problems, and they are designed to reinvest savings generated by those plans to keep the plans working in the future. The conference report recognizes the importance of early learning, a priority of both red and blue States alike, by authorizing a program to assist States in improving the coordination, quality, improvement, and access to pre-K. Most importantly, while many of these new systems will be created by the States, under the conference report, the Federal Government maintains the ability to make sure that States and localities are living up to their commitments--that all students are being counted and that schools are being held accountable for their achievement. While this conference report is not the bill that I would have written alone--or that any Member would have written alone, for that matter--I have no doubt that this bipartisan conference report will make a positive difference in the lives of our Nation's children and will live up to the goal of the original ESEA: making an opportunity for an education available to all on equal terms. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Fudge), who is the ranking member of the subcommittee that reported this bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

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

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, could you advise us how much time is still available on both sides.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier).

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).