Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would follow the guidance of the business and the civil rights communities and oppose the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from Virginia. We oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the gentleman for his amendment. I support the important work being done by afterschool, before school, and summer programs. These programs have been proven to increase academic achievement, increase student achievement, and reduce dropouts. This is especially powerful in light of some studies that show that many students actually regress during the summer. If they are given effective summer programs, that regression can certainly be stopped, so it is a very powerful idea. I thank the gentleman for offering his amendment, and I hope that it is adopted.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of ESEA is to increase resources to an education, especially focused on areas of high poverty. The underlying bill limits the amount of money that can be spent under the bill. It takes money by changing the formula from low-income areas to high- income areas, and now this amendment tries to eliminate one of the most devastating impacts, that is the requirement of the maintenance of effort. If there is Federal money going into the States, it can only increase money going to education if the States maintain their effort. If they are able to reduce their effort and just replace the money they were spending with the Federal money, then there has been no increase in education, and the ones left behind continue to remain behind. This is an extremely important amendment. It makes sure that the Federal money actually increases the money going to education to help those left behind, and I would hope that we would correct this grievous error in the underlying bill by adopting the amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not in opposition.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois. The amendment is thoughtful and necessary to restore employee protections that are already in current law. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This amendment will make evidence-based prevention approaches a reality. We all know that many evidence-based approaches save more money than they cost. This will allow the private sector to make those investments and prove that we are right. So I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland for introducing the amendment and thank him and the gentleman from Indiana for their leadership. This is a great amendment, Madam Chair. I trust it will be adopted, and we will be able to make great progress in education and other social services.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for this great amendment. I know, working with him on the Committee on the Judiciary for many years, that he is a strong supporter of crime prevention initiatives; and restorative justice and conflict resolution programs have been shown to reduce crime time and time again, and so these concepts are appropriate in our schools. They will help create safe learning environments. I am delighted to support it.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have a number of concerns regarding the amendment as it is currently drafted. I would first note that the amendment gives great weight to the ``free exercise of religion'' without acknowledging the other half of the First Amendment, and that is the Establishment Clause. I am also concerned that the amendment is duplicative of previous efforts under ESEA. In No Child Left Behind, section 9524 requires the U.S. Department of Education to issue guidance on constitutionally protected prayer in public elementary and secondary schools. This guidance was developed with the Office of the General Counsel in the Department of Education and with the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice. Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned that the amendment implies that teachers can participate in religious activities with their students. The Constitution prohibits teachers from participating in religious activities with students when those teachers are acting in their professional capacity. Public school employees simply do not have the ``right to make the promotion of religion a part of their job description,'' says the Supreme Court decision in 2007. A sense of Congress provision in this bill will not override the Constitution. I would remind my colleagues that religious freedom means not only are students, teachers, and school administrators able to exercise their right to religion, but also that the students should be able to attend public schools free of unwarranted proselytization and coercion in the participation of religious activities. The First Amendment is reflective of that balance. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. In closing, Mr. Chairman, it is a great sense of Congress on the free exercise, but it ignores the Establishment Clause. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, just to remind people that students ought to be able to attend their public schools, free from unwarranted proselytization or coercion. We have the Establishment Clause, as well as the Free Exercise Clause, and as public employees exercise their rights, they should not violate a person's right to go to school and not be faced with a phalanx of people all coercing him into joining in prayer. The teachers and administrators ought not be guiding the prayer and suggesting that the State has a particular religion. We have an Establishment Clause, as well as a Free Exercise Clause. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams), a former college professor and now a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, could you advise how much time is available to both parties?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a former mayor.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5, a bill to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, a landmark civil rights law enacted under President Lyndon B. Johnson. As we approach the 50-year anniversary of its enactment, we cannot take lightly ESEA's mission, goals, and achievements over the course of five decades. It is by that yardstick of history that we must judge H.R. 5 today and determine if it will move our education system closer to meeting the challenges of the 21st century and prepare our students for the global economy. We all know too well that quality education is even more vital today than it was generations ago. In our rapidly changing economy, our Nation's continued success depends on a well-educated workforce. A competitive and educated workforce strengthens the very social fabric of America: people with higher levels of education are less likely to be unemployed, less likely to need public assistance, less likely to become a teen parent, and less likely to get caught up in the criminal justice system. Over the course of ESEA's history, we have recognized that for many politically disconnected populations, equitable access to an education has not been a reality. It was necessary for the Federal Government to fill in the gaps of funding our public school systems. Inequality was inevitable when most school systems are funded by real estate taxes, and further by virtue of the fact that in our democratic society, we respond to political pressure. For 50 years, Congress has recognized that low-income students were not getting their fair share of the pie and that supplemental resources were absolutely necessary to ensure that all children had access to quality public education. As a result, Congress has a longstanding policy to target our limited Federal funding to schools and students who get left behind in an unequal system. Mr. Chairman, one of this bill's most troubling provisions, which strikes at the heart of ESEA's long history of targeting resources to our neediest students, is the so-called portability provision. Now, present law gives greater weight to funding in areas of high concentration of poverty. Under H.R. 5, portability, a State agency could use all of its title I funds to districts based solely on the percentage of poor children, regardless of the concentration of poor people in a district. As a result, much of the title I support intended towards those areas of concentration of poverty would be reallocated to those wealthier areas. In other words, the low-income areas would get less, and the wealthy areas would get more. I ask: If that is the solution, then I wonder what you think the problem was? Analysis from a number of organizations, including the Department of Education, demonstrates title I portability will take money from the poorer schools and school districts and give more to affluent districts. This disproportionately affects students of color, and this is just simply wrong. Data shows that H.R. 5 would provide the largest 33 school districts with the highest concentration of Black and Hispanic students over $3 billion less in Federal funding than the President's budget over the next 6 years. Furthermore, the Center for American Progress found in its review of portability that districts with high concentrations of poverty could lose an average of $85 per student, while the more affluent areas would gain more than $290 per student. There is an overwhelming body of research that shows that targeting resources to schools and districts with the highest concentrations of poverty is an effective way to mitigate the effects of poverty. Current law reflects this evidence and targets funding to schools where there are greater concentrations of poverty, and this bill rolls the clock back and reverses that. To add insult to injury, H.R. 5 eliminates what is called maintenance of effort, a requirement of ESEA that States maintain their effort and that the Federal money will supplement what they are doing. As a result of this bill, States could use their education funds to fund tax cuts or other noneducation initiatives, thus turning ESEA into a glorified slush fund where politics would drive funding allocations. And we know who is going to lose when politics are at play--our children. There are other flaws with H.R. 5. This bill sets no standards for college or career readiness and allows students with disabilities to be taught with lesser standards. It limits our investment in education over the next 6 years because there are no adjustments for inflation. It block grants important programs, diluting the purpose and the outcome. Taken as a whole, these policies will have a disproportionate impact on students of color, students with disabilities, and our English language learners. It is no wonder that business groups, labor groups, civil rights, disabilities, and education groups have all expressed deep concerns about this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong opposition to H.R. 5, as it will turn the clock back on American public education. In its current form, the bill abandons the fundamental principles of equity and accountability in our education system, it eviscerates education funding, it fails to support our educators, and it leaves our children ill-prepared for success in the classroom and beyond. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.