Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 7892, the so-called No Aid for Ghost Students Act. Let me say at the outset that protecting taxpayer dollars and preventing fraud in our student Federal aid program is always a good idea. As stewards of public funds, we should all agree that fraud should be identified, investigated, and stopped, but this bill is not about a thoughtful, evidence-based solution as its supporters claim. The bill would direct the Department of Education to create an identity fraud detection system within the Free Application for Federal Student Aid process and authorize the Department to open accelerated program reviews against colleges. Mr. Speaker, I have got to point out that the Department of Education just recently, this past April, launched a new identity fraud detection system as part of the FAFSA process. That system is still being tested, and Congress has not seen any meaningful evidence about its effectiveness or its impact upon students. Yet, this legislation would rush to codify requirements and penalties before we know whether the Department's current efforts are even working. Federal student aid helps nearly 13 million students every year who are pursuing higher education and economic opportunity. However, the bill's creation of vague enforcement standards and punitive mandates, without clear guidance for students and institutions, risk making it harder for legitimate students to access the aid they need to attend colleges. For example, we don't have evaluations on the effect this bill may have on legitimate students who are incorrectly flagged as suspicious. The bill prohibits colleges from distributing funds to those students until the suspicion is cleared up. These students could face hardships obtaining housing, transportation, or even buying books for who knows how long. Mr. Speaker, we should allow the Department's new antifraud system to operate and wait for the Department to evaluate the results. The Department should work with colleges, financial aid administrators, and fraud experts to determine what additional tools and guardrails may be necessary. Codifying this new system without assessing its effectiveness just doesn't make any sense. Moreover, H.R. 7892 could reasonably be viewed as part of a broader strategy to weaponize student aid. The Trump administration has issued numerous threats and made efforts to withhold title IV funding as a weapon to enforce ideological control over educational institutions. Already, this administration has rewritten the accreditation handbook, threatened funding to select institutions that violate its legally dubious executive orders, and embedded ideological conditions into annual participation agreements. The bill would give the administration another tool to further target colleges by allowing the Department to initiate and conduct program reviews based on little evidence. In fact, during the committee's debate on the bill, the committee Democrats sought to have a clear definition of what ``reasonable suspicion of identity fraud'' actually means in the legislation. Regrettably, the bill has made its way to the floor without addressing this concern. As a result, the vague language in the bill would enable the Trump administration and future administrations to weaponize fraud investigations to target certain colleges or States. Fraud prevention and student access to affordable college education are not competing goals. We can achieve both. Unfortunately, this bill does not strike that balance. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter in opposition to the bill from the American Federation of Teachers.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. It says, in part: ``H.R. 7892, the No Aid for Ghost Students Act, is seemingly about cracking down on the real concern about fraud in the Federal financial aid system. However, according to the Secretary of Education's own recent congressional testimony, that fraud is already being successfully addressed with existing tools at the Department of Education's disposal. The main impact of this bill would be to provide the Secretary with a wide- ranging authority to subject colleges to additional review for failing to meet vague and ill-defined metrics around `suspected fraud.' '' Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a link to another article titled: ``The Hidden Power Grab in `Fraud Prevention'--and the Students Who Will Pay,'' from the Alliance for Higher Education and The Hope Center: https://hope.temple.edu/newsroom/hope-blog/hidden-power-grab- fraud- prevention-students-who-will-pay. It says, in part, ``The bill's operative trigger . . . `reasonable suspicion of identify fraud,' is a broad legalistic term with little history in Federal financial aid policy. This term has typically been used only when referring potential matters to the Department's inspector general, where facts and evidence could be carefully gathered by career employees with experience in fraud investigations. This bill radically expands the agency's powers to make the Secretary the judge, jury, and executioner.'' It goes on further to say that the reasonable suspicion standard ``should require articulable, credible grounds to believe fraud has occurred, not an unexamined `hunch.' It is also critical that such powers cannot be weaponized against perceived political enemies-- perhaps a State or college that isn't politically aligned with the administration.'' Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record another article that is titled: ``Stop Fraud, Not Students: A Balancing Act for Financial Aid Offices and Administrators,'' from the Institute for College Access and Success. [April 27, 2026] Stop Fraud, Not Students: A Balancing Act for Financial Aid Offices and Administrators (Author: Emmanuel Rodriguez) AI-driven application fraud is rising fast, but without adequate staffing and resources, prevention efforts risk blocking the very students aid is meant to serve. Applying for financial aid is one of the most critical actions a low-income student can take to make their postsecondary education a reality. Completing the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) unlocks federal, state, and institutional resources that can bring the coAts of college within reach. Each year, the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) selects millions of student applications for a taxpayer safeguard and compliance process known as verification. Financial aid verification is split into three main categories--V1, V4, and V5--all of which are used to confirm that the income, household size, and identity information reported by a student on their FAFSA is accurate. This process can involve submitting tax records, identification documents, or other materials to resolve potential discrepancies. While the goal is to ensure that limited financial aid resources are distributed appropriately, verification creates a real tension: trying to safeguard public taxpayer dollars without introducing delays, confusion, or additional barriers that disproportionately impact the students who can least afford them, and potentially pushing them out of the educational pipeline. Across the nation, college and financial aid administrators have warned that the rate of financial aid fraud has surpassed anything they've seen in the past, with ``ghost students'' emerging as a major concern. These bad actors are using stolen or synthetic identities to apply for aid and enroll in colleges with no intent to attend, instead seeking to collect financial aid and then disappear. Community colleges, which often have more open-access admissions and higher volumes of aid applicants, have been disproportionately affected by this trend. While this problem has long existed, the use of advancing technology to scale fraudulent aid applications has surged as it facilitates mass enrollment and can even generate coursework that can appear legitimate. This is not isolated to one or even a few states. In Minnesota, colleges flagged more than 7,000 fraudulent or suspicious applications in a single year. In Nevada, one college reported over $7 million lost in a single semester due to fraudulent enrollments. And nationally, federal investigators have examined more than $350 million in ghost student fraud cases over the past five years. Unfortunately, the most staggering numbers are coming out of California, where colleges have reported roughly 900,000 fraudulent college applications in 2024 and more than $11 million lost in aid. While the total money lost remains very small compared to total aid, the rise in this activity is swamping limited aid administration capacity and can undermine trust in the program for key stakeholders, including policymakers who allocate the funds for aid. In response, both states and institutions are acting. Colleges are deploying AI-powered detection tools, implementing stricter identity verification, or front-loading identity verification through their application process, amongst other measures. At the federal level, the Department is reinstating fraud detection protocols, including identity screenings and cross-agency data checks. Even Congress has begun to respond through the recent introduction of the Student Aid Fraud Oversight and Accountability Act of 2026 (H.R. 7891), the No Aid for Ghost Students Act of 2026 (H.R. 7892), and the FAFSA Verification Efficiency Act (H.R. 7893). Taken together, these efforts signal a growing recognition that fraud prevention must be strengthened. But how it's done matters for students. A lot. The California Case Study For the past few years, the California Community Colleges (CCC) have been fighting an uphill battle against ghost students who are getting their hands on federal, state, and even institutional aid by taking advantage of the community college mission to provide open access to all students no matter when they start their educational journey. TICAS has learned from financial aid administrators that the AI tools they are using to combat this problem are getting better and increasing detection. Online verification platforms and methods have replaced paper-based systems, allowing students to more easily submit required documents rather than coming in person. And staff at many colleges are proactive in their student outreach to offer support in navigating this process, even with limited resources. Compliance and protective measures taken by California's colleges, no matter how thoughtfully designed and implemented, are just one side of this equation. On the other side, we need to track and center the experiences of students with the processes--especially as the Department is stepping in by expanding V4/V5 verification rates. For undocumented students, students from mixed-status families, formerly incarcerated students, foster youth, and others who already navigate institutions with caution, being told ``show me your ID'' or ``come into the office to prove you're real and that you are as poor as you reported'' can feel threatening. Without careful communication, these processes can feel punitive, invasive, and in today's reality, connected to immigration enforcement or federal data sharing that students fear. This fear is not hypothetical, and addressing it will take time, intentionality, and both fiscal and human resources. Yet, across California, financial aid offices are being asked to do more with less. Adding identity verification on top of their normal duties of helping students file a FAFSA or CADAA or navigate processes like Satisfactory Academic Progress and professional judgement requests are heavy lifts. The CCC system and its financial aid administrators cannot sufficiently carry out increased, more complex, and student- centered verification practices along with their other work without sufficient resources. If California wants to protect taxpayer dollars as well as students' access to an affordable education, the state must adequately fund financial aid offices to do both well and in an equitable way. Widely supported budget requests reflect this reality, such as an existing ask for an additional $10 million ongoing CA Proposition 98 funds to support the Student Financial Aid Administration (SFAA), which many advocates support and the Chancellor's Office has uplifted. Alternatively, California could implement a reoccurring cost- of-living adjustment to the SFAA base or ensure they earmark a portion of any Student Support Block Grant investments for this purpose. Regardless of the approach, California has the opportunity to create a national model for balancing program integrity with student access. To do so, it must begin with a sustained state investment in financial aid offices to augment resources that support vital counseling and advising, clear communication, and secure technology. Looking Ahead As policymakers and institutions respond across the country, it's critical that they all intentionally balance program integrity with student access. TICAS offers the following high-level principles to help guide decision-makers grappling with how to address this issue: Ensure all verification processes are clear, transparent, and student-centered, with strong communication to all affected parties about why verification is happening. Center the experiences of students--particularly those from vulnerable populations--who may experience verification as confusing, intimidating, or even unsafe. Prepare multilingual outreach materials for students and families whom English is a second language to clearly explain the reasons for verification, next steps, and other supports. Avoid unnecessarily expanding verification requirements beyond the student applying for aid--especially towards dependents or family members. Protect student privacy and data security, especially as new technologies like AI are introduced and used to mine or filter sensitive data. Provide adequate funding and staffing so financial aid offices can have training to understand these processes and implement them effectively. If colleges choose to build systems that front-load documentation and identity verification through their applications, invest in that infrastructure early and test it thoroughly to ensure it is as simple and easy as possible to complete.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. It says, in part: ``While the goal is to ensure that limited financial aid resources are distributed appropriately, verification creates a real tension: trying to safeguard public taxpayer dollars without introducing delays, confusion, or additional barriers that disproportionately impact the students who can least afford them, and potentially pushing them out of the educational pipeline.'' Mr. Speaker, finally, I include in the Record an article from StateScoop with a letter from Al Sharpton of the National Action Network, outlining many issues involved in identity verification done by artificial intelligence. [From STATESCOOP, Aug. 1, 2024] New York lawmaker questions state's use of identity-verification vendor (By Keely Quinlan) In a letter to the state chief information officer, New York state Sen. Jeremy Cooney raises concerns with the state's use of AI-powered software from the identity- verification firm Socure. The company says many of the claims are false. In a letter penned this month to Dru Rai, New York state's chief information officer, state Sen. Jeremy Cooney raised concerns regarding Socure, a fraud prevention and identity verification firm used by the state, citing the vendor's data practices and how it uses artificial intelligence. The letter from Cooney, dated July 10, asks Rai how the state's Office of Information Technology Services has vetted Socure, which in addition to more than 20 state government agencies and multiple federal agencies, provides New York state with identity verification services. In an interview with StateScoop, though, Socure executives said many of Cooney's claims are simply false and that he misunderstands how the company's technology works. Socure's technology relies on AI and machine learning to analyze several thousand data points to predict fraudulent identity activity. For governments, it predicts fraud for resident services, such as by scanning benefits applications. Fraud is a growing concern for state agencies, which since the COVID-19 pandemic have seen heightened levels of fraud across many government functions. Cooney, who also chairs the Senate Procurement and Contracts Committee, said how Socure obtains and uses those data points--many of which would be considered personally identifiable data--is concerning. Referring to the company as a data broker, Cooney said the company ``collects, purchases and stores billions of data points, including sensitive personal identifiable information, on New Yorkers without their consent to confirm their identities.'' While noting that identity verification ``is critical for ensuring equitable access to public services,'' Cooney said that the potential risks associated with using AI include preventing people from accessing critical government services. ``Innovation should never come at the cost of good governance and transparency,'' Cooney wrote in an email to StateScoop. ``Given the widespread concerns around Socure's business practices and the growing recognition of AI's risks, it is important to scrutinize any work they are doing for New York state agencies. I deeply appreciate the hard work and ongoing efforts of the State CIO's office to make sure our state's digital systems grant every New Yorker secure, equitable access to state services and uphold personal privacy.'' In the letter, Cooney also asked Rai whether the state requires that Socure include a human review of algorithmic output to ensure it's accurate and not discriminatory, and whether the state has tested Socure's fraud prediction models for bias. ``Has the state confirmed whether Socure's practices fully comply with NY state privacy law, specifically related to its mass collection of sensitive PII, partnership with data brokers, and use of social media data?'' Cooney asked in the letter. `we are not a data broker' Jordan Burris, vice president of public sector strategy for Socure and the former chief of staff in the White House's Office of the Federal CIO, told StateScoop that portions of the letter fundamentally misunderstand what the company does, noting that Socure is not a data broker. Additionally, New York state has yet to pass a comprehensive data privacy law that would legally define within the state what constitutes a data broker. Its data privacy act is still in committee for the second year in a row. ``We do not sell data to third parties, we do not use it for marketing. We do not use it to run a marketplace, offering online discounts for e-commerce, like other companies in the space,'' Burris told StateScoop. ``We are only focused on verifying identity and rooting out fraud, and ultimately, under looking at what is exactly New York State law today, we are not a data broker, and to suggest otherwise is simply false.'' Cooney's letter follows at least two other instances this year in which New York state leaders have levied concerns regarding Socure and its data practices. Rep. Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y., in February wrote a letter to Socure CEO Johnny Ayers over concerns that his company's digital identity verification software might lead to discrimination. ``You claim your product, `fuses personal identifiable information (PID validated by thousands of data sources' in order to prevent fraud,'' Torres' letter read. ``Companies' abuse of private data can also lead to the unwanted tracking and sale of people's sensitive health data, genetic information, religious participation, and location. Given the lack of transparency around your services, constituents in my district have expressed legitimate privacy concerns and demand to know how you source their data, how it is used, and whether it is equitable for all American communities.'' While Cooney's recent letter claims Torres' letter went unanswered, Socure told StateScoop it met with Torres' office to review some of its complaints. StateScoop contacted Torres' office for comment, but did not hear back before publication. data sources In March, Rev. Al Sharpton of the National Action Network, wrote a letter to New York State Attorney General Letitia James citing concerns with Socure's lack of transparency regarding the types of data it uses to perform identity verification. ``Socure also collects data from thousands of data sources, including personally identifiable information (PII), without providing any meaningful transparency regarding how that data is acquired, stored, and used,'' Sharpton's letter read. ``Socure scrapes social media, utilizes geolocation technology, and deploys artificial intelligence technology to conduct its business. They have no help line, and people have no recourse should their identity be denied mistakenly. These practices have historically and consistently hurt marginalized communities.'' When asked how Socure obtains data to perform identity verification, Burris said the company buys and otherwise obtains data from a variety of public and private sources to ``bring in house.'' These sources include public records, mobile network operators--like Verizon and AT&T--and higher education institutions, Burris said. He added that Socure's data scientists evaluate the ``authoritativeness of that data.'' ``I'm not looking to buy data for data's sake. I'm looking at data for the purpose of what we can do with it,'' Burris said. ``The only purpose for us having it is to help with identity verification in particular. . . . And then we even have a proprietary database that we've built of known fraudulent identity identities that we've identified over our 12-year existence.'' `pressure testing' As far as concerns of effects on marginalized communities, Burris said the company is ``pressure testing'' its AI models by testing for bias across demographics like age, race, gender and other protected classes. On the topic of human review in the identity verification process, Burris said ``humans are involved all throughout the process.'' ``The question of are human reviewers evaluating every identity decision fundamentally misunderstands the challenges that exist with verifying identity today,'' Burris said. ``We are going backwards if we heavily rely on human reviews to verify identity. The cost is long wait times, backlogs and good people who ultimately will continue to be underserved.'' In an email, a spokesperson for the New York Office of Information Technology Services said: ``We take our responsibility to protect the privacy of every single resident accessing state programs or services very seriously, and have implemented the strongest possible security measures to ensure it.''

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

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this debate is not about whether or not fraud should be stopped. Everybody agrees with that, like when Trump University paid $25 million to settle their fraud investigation. We shouldn't be debating whether or not fraud should be stopped. We should be debating the provisions of the bill, not the merits of the title. The question before us is not whether or not we should try to reduce fraud, but whether or not Congress should codify into law a process that has barely begun to operate and whose effectiveness has not been evaluated, especially as it affects students who are incorrectly flagged under the bill. It doesn't add anything to what is already being done. It only codifies what is being done before the program can be evaluated. We should not substitute politics for due diligence. We should wait for that evaluation. As I said in committee, I was willing to work in good faith to improve the legislation. Regrettably, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle chose not to consider the fixes needed to support students and colleges while also addressing the responsibility to defer fraud. This bill circumvents deliberative processes, imposes new punitive requirements before we have the facts, and risks creating new barriers for students seeking an education. We should pursue smart enforcement, be flexible when honest mistakes occur, and be informed by evidence rather than assumptions. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Hampton Alumnae Chapter of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated, as it celebrates 75 years of service to the Hampton Roads community. Chartered in 1951 and tracing its roots to the Beta Kappa Chapter established in 1937, the Hampton Alumnae Chapter has built a proud legacy of sisterhood, scholarship, service, and social action that continues to strengthen our communities today. Throughout its history, the chapter has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to improving the lives of others. Its members have supported educational opportunities through scholarships and youth mentoring programs, helped address food insecurity through partnerships with the Virginia Peninsula Foodbank, and invested in communities both locally and abroad through projects ranging from Habitat for Humanity homes to water wells in Haiti and Kenya. The chapter's work reflects a deep commitment to service and to expanding opportunity for all. The Hampton Alumnae Chapter has also been a leader in promoting health and wellness, economic empowerment, and civic engagement. Through voter registration efforts, public forums, financial literacy programs, wellness initiatives, and youth leadership development, the chapter has helped residents become more informed, engaged, and empowered members of their communities. Mr. Speaker, I commend the Hampton Alumnae Chapter of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated, for 75 years of dedicated service and community leadership. I congratulate its members, past and present, on this milestone anniversary and thank them for the lasting impact they have made on Hampton Roads and beyond.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 7726 because we know that childcare is not a luxury. It is a necessity for millions of American families. Yet, many communities struggle with skyrocketing childcare costs if they can find any childcare at all. Our economy already loses an estimated $122 billion every year due to childcare shortages, and that is a policy failure. The bill before us does nothing to reduce childcare costs, increase supply, or improve conditions for providers, and it doesn't even reduce fraud. Instead, it creates uncertainty and red tape for States and providers. While the supporters will be discussing the title of the bill, they are not going to be discussing the substance. I support efforts to reduce fraud in government programs, but this bill doesn't do that. States are already required to report error rates and undergo compliance reviews of the Child Care and Development Block Grant every 3 years. This bill would require States to triple their reporting obligations, diverting CCDBG dollars away from families by increasing administrative costs. More reporting does not reduce fraud. H.R. 7726 is also extremely vague. It would allow the Health and Human Services Secretary to designate States as high risk and subject them to additional monitoring without defining what additional monitoring or high risk means, and it provides no additional funding to support these new responsibilities. Furthermore, it expands situations where the State may be in noncompliance, opening the door for this legislation to be weaponized to withhold funding from an entire State that the Trump administration wants to punish. The bill also mandates permanent disbarment of providers found guilty of fraud regardless of mitigating circumstances, and it is unclear who gets debarred. Is it the individual who was involved, or could it be the entire franchise operating in multiple States? In many communities, permanently removing even one provider could leave families without options for childcare. Furthermore, debarment from the childcare program requires debarment from the Child and Adult Care Food Program, so innocent families could lose access to food as well as childcare. This legislation fails to stop fraud. Instead, it imposes needless red tape and bureaucracy on communities that are already strapped for resources. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I oppose the bill and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from public health and anti-hunger organizations, a couple of dozen of them, that says in part that the provisions of H.R. 7723 which are now in this bill ``would use existing Serious Deficiency process to trigger disbarment, which is problematic because it is a tool that is inconsistently applied and is often triggered by minor errors rather than fraud or misconduct.'' May 18, 2026. Re H.R. 7723 and Its Impact on CACFP Participation Dear Members of the House of Representatives: We, the undersigned organizations, write to oppose H.R. 7723, Safeguarding Taxpayer Dollars in Child Care Act, which could bar child care providers from participating in the child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) and the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) for unintentional or inadvertent errors. CACFP is a federal program that provides reimbursements for nutritious meals and snacks to eligible providers in rural, suburban, and urban areas in communities across the country, and is proven to improve children's health, family economic stability, and child care quality. This program ensures that children in every state have access to healthy meals and snacks at participating child care centers, family child care homes, Head Start programs, afterschool programs, and emergency shelters. H.R. 7723 seeks to bar providers from receiving federal funds if they commit fraud, but states are already administering CACFP with strong oversight systems specifically designed to detect and prevent integrity concerns. These systems are built from U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) guidance and technica1 assistance. H.R. 7723 would use the existing Serious Deficiency (SD) process to trigger disbarment, which is problematic because it is a tool that is inconsistently applied and is often triggered by minor errors rather than fraud or misconduct. In May 2024, USDA began the rulemaking process to update and improve the SD process, with hundreds of stakeholders urging USDA to clearly define fraud and provide more technical assistance. These identified improvements must be included in a Final Rule to ensure due process and that children and families do not lose access to quality and community-based child care due to minor or inadvertent errors. ``We are also concerned about the chilling effect this bill may have on child care providers.'' Fear of losing CCDBG funding over inadvertent CACFP errors could push providers to withdraw from CACFP entirely, reducing children's access to healthy meals at a critical time for their health and development. We strongly support holding providers who commit fraud accountable. However, inaccurate or exaggerated claims about alleged fraud should not be the basis for jeopardizing children's access to nutritious food and access to quality and locally-based child care. We urge you to oppose this bill. Thank you for your consideration to ensure access to high quality and community-based child nutrition and child care. We welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns further. Sincerely, National Organizations: American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); CACFP Roundtable; Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP); Common Threads; Food Research & Action Center (FRAC); First Focus Campaign for Children; National Association for Family Child Care; National CACFP Association; National CACFP Forum; National Farm to School Network; ZERO TO THREE. State and Local Organizations: Alpha & Omega Nutrition Program, Inc. (Tennessee); Child Nutrition Services (Nebraska); Children's Hunger Alliance (Ohio); CocoKids Inc (California); Genesee County Interagency Council (New York); Giving Youth A Chance (Tennessee); Hawaii Children's Action Network Speaks!; Indy Hunger Network (Indiana); Lucia Mar USD (California); Marathon County Child Development Agency (Wisconsin); Marshmallow Home Daycare LLC (California); Missouri State Center for Ozarks Poverty Research; Northwest Harvest (Washington); Oppenheim Consulting, LLC; San Francisco--Marin Food Bank (California); Second Harvest Food Bank of Orange County (California); Tiny Tots and Little Tykes, Inc. (Minnesota).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record a letter from AFSCME, Education Healthcare Public Services, and SEIU that says in part: ``This bill would enable the administration to withdraw Federal childcare funds abruptly without cause, making childcare less affordable and reliable for working families.'' June 2, 2026. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: On behalf of the 5 million members of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and Service Employees International Union (SEIU), we write collectively in opposition to Stop Child Care Scams Act (H.R. 7726), which purports to address allegations of fraud in child care programs. ``This bill would enable the administration to withdraw federal childcare funds abruptly without cause, making childcare less affordable and reliable for working families.'' This legislation would also make it even more difficult for struggling childcare providers to keep their doors open. We urge you to vote no on H.R. 7726. Our unions represent family childcare providers, childcare centers, programs and services, and preschool employees. Some of these programs span traditional working hours and others operate well beyond the traditional work day to accommodate parents who are healthcare workers on 12-hour shifts, service members working on bases that operate 24/7, construction workers who are onsite by 7:00 a.m., and other working parents who work outside the once traditional 9 to 5. Many providers already operate on razor-thin margins, working long hours, overseeing staff and making personal financial sacrifices, like delaying their own pay, to keep their doors open and meet payroll. Constant funding disruptions to childcare will force many providers to reduce services or close altogether. They deserve better and more timely pay rather than additional delays and uncertainty. This vital component of our workforce needs certainty and steady funding to provide the care needed for America's working families. Earlier this year, the Trump administration, abruptly and without justification, illegally withheld funding for more than 300,000 children in more than 44,000 childcare programs in five states funded by the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG). Another 200,000 children who do not receive childcare assistance but rely on programs that do, may have also been affected. Unions and other allies swiftly challenged these actions in court. Multiple courts ordered the administration to reverse course. Now, H.R. 7726 would amend current law to allow these politically motivated, baseless and deeply harmful funding freezes to resume. CCDBG is a critically important program for infants and toddlers, preschoolers, school-aged children, and a crucial workforce support. Reliable, consistent childcare funding from the federal government is essential to ensure that parents can work while their children are wellcared for and gain critical skills for continued education and success. CCDBG also supports school-aged children in before and after care. Further, childcare programs, both centers and family childcare, need the assurance of stable, consistent funding so that their work can continue. CCDBG has enjoyed bipartisan support with champions from both parties because the investments pay off and the program is run well. CCDBG is one of the most closely monitored human services programs with states required to submit detailed plans to the federal government, track eligibility, conduct regular provider inspections and report spending to the federal government. The most recent report from the Administration for Children and Families' Office of Child Care's National Center on Subsidy Innovation and Accountability showed that CCDBG had lower rates of improper payments than other programs. As a reminder, improper payments include errors that cannot be solely classified as fraud, such as inadvertent error. H.R. 7726 further empowers the administration in its attempts to weaponize the distribution of congressionally appropriated funds. Instead, Congress should ensure that enacted funding is distributed lawfully and without delays due to political motivations. We urge you to oppose H.R. 7726 and focus on ways to make childcare more affordable for millions of working families. Sincerely, Elizabeth S. Watson, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). Kristor Cowan, American Federation of Teachers (AFT). John Gray, Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath.)

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Child Care for Every Family Network. The Child Care for Every Family, June 1, 2026. Dear Members of Congress: We, the undersigned organizations, led by the Child Care for Every Family Network with the support of the National Association for the Education of Young Children, National Women's Law Center, the Center for Law and Social Policy, and the National Association of Family Child Care, strongly urge you to reject a package of child care bills--or the ``Stop Child Care Scams Act of 2026''--amending the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act (CCDBG) and the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). These bills give the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services unprecedented authority to withhold all Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) funding from states without cause or due process, bar child care providers for non-fraudulent activity, and burden states with costly activities that don't improve program integrity. There is no evidence of significant or widespread fraud in the federal child care program. These bills will be detrimental to child care access as they will result in fewer families receiving child care assistance from CCDF, fewer child care providers willing to serve families with child care subsidies, and further destabilize America's child care sector, which is already stretched too thin. The latest annual survey report from the National Association for Family Child Care reveals an unsustainable situation: 35 percent reported earning less than $10 an hour despite 71 percent working 50 or more hours per week, and 48 percent reported working 60 or more hours per week. A recent survey of providers by the National Association for the Education of Young Children makes clear that insufficient public investment threatens parents' ability to afford and access child care. In short, these bills deny support to children and families while doing absolutely nothing to strengthen our child care system or help the millions of families that are struggling to find and afford the child care they need. Lawmakers must reject this effort that will destabilize our child care system and harm the families that rely on it. The House of Representatives will soon consider legislation that ignores the real child care crisis and create a constellation of policies that exacerbate this crisis, undermining and weakening our current system and doing nothing to help the millions of families that urgently need help affording child care. We urge lawmakers to reject the ``Stop Child Care Scams Act of 2026,'' which includes the following bills: H.R. 7720 Child Care Payment Integrity and Fraud Accountability Act: This bill treats all states as high-risk by annual error rate reviews instead of every three years, despite no evidence of significant or widespread fraud in the CCDF program. These time-consuming, burdensome, and costly reviews will mean states have less funding for child care assistance, while doing nothing to reduce fraud. H.R. 7721 Combating Regulatory Abuse, Closing Known Deficiencies, and Overseeing Waste Nationwide Act (CRACKDOWN Act): This bill would give the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) new power to freeze 100 percent of a state's child care funds for state administrative errors. Uses an arbitrary, low-risk threshold standard that isn't about fraud and eliminates state due process. This doesn't reduce fraud and would needlessly punish thousands of families who rely on federal child care assistance and destabilize a state's child care sector. H.R. 7723 Safeguarding Taxpayer Dollars in Child Care Act: This bill requires HHS and USDA to penalize providers unfairly, including permanently barring child care providers from receiving federal child care funds and participation in the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). This puts providers who haven't committed fraud at risk of losing their business and could make them less willing to serve families with CCDF subsidies. This could have a chilling effect on providers serving families with subsidies, making it harder for these families to find the care they need. It also means that more child care programs could close altogether and more families--including those who don't use subsidies--will have a harder time finding and affording child care. Regarding CACFP, the bill would further undermine the existing and deeply flawed Serious Deficiency (SD) process to trigger disbarment from the entire program. CACFP ensures that the participating child care centers, family child care homes, Head Start programs, afterschool programs, and emergency shelters serve healthy meals and snacks. States currently administer CACFP with strong oversight systems created by USDA, designed to detect and prevent integrity concerns. SD is inconsistently applied and often triggered by minor errors--not fraud or misconduct--and should not result in termination from either CACFP or CCDF. H.R. 7726 No Funds for Repeat Child Care Violations Act: This bill would require HHS to permanently bar child care providers from receiving federal funds for non-fraudulent actions, such as incomplete paperwork, like missing signatures. This puts providers who haven't committed fraud at risk of losing their business if they serve families paying with CCDF subsidies. It could have a chilling effect on providers serving families with subsidies, making it harder for those families to find the care they need. It also means that more child care programs could close altogether, and more families including those who don't pay with subsidies--will have a harder time finding and affording child care. H.R. 7724 No Waivers for Fraud Act: This bill would eliminate HHS's ability to waive a sanction it has placed on a state. This flexibility is rarely, if ever, used but would be important to preserve for instances of capricious sanctioning of states without proof of fraud and more generally for unforeseen situations in which the Secretary and state agree that withdrawing a sanction is appropriate. We urge lawmakers to vote NO on any package that includes these bills and instead focus on the real child care crisis facing our country. Signed, National Organizations Child Care for Every Family Network Center for Law and Social Policy National Association for Family Child Care National Women's Law Center MomsRising National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) All Our Kin American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Americans for Democratic Action (ADA)

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. The letter says in part: ``These bills give the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services unprecedented authority to withhold all Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) funding from States without cause or due process, bar child care providers for non-fraudulent activity, and burden States with costly activities that don't improve program integrity.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a link to an article printed in the MinnPost, the headline of which says: ``Here's what's really happening with childcare fraud in Minnesota. Evidence is nowhere near the epidemic levels a viral YouTube video would suggest--but it hasn't stopped a crackdown on child care funding. Here's the fact check.'' https://www.minnpost.com/state-government/ 2026/01/heres-whats-really-happening-with-child-care-fraud-in- minnesota-explained/?gad_source=1&gad _campaignid=9109082086. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Child Care Aware of America that says, in part, ``several provisions in the bill would duplicate existing requirements, create unclear mandates, and ultimately undermine families' access to childcare'' and that the bill ``would impose new sanctions, restrict flexibility, and potentially reduce childcare funding to States.'' ChildCare Aware of America, June 2, 2026. Dear Representative: We write to share concerns about the Stop Child Care Scams Act of 2026 (H.R. 7726) that previously advanced out of the House Education and Workforce Committee as a package of eight bills. Child Care Aware of America (CCAoA) supports swift and thorough action when credible allegations of fraud arise. But any effort to strengthen current safeguards should do so without causing economic harm to families, communitIes, or the child care system. Unfortunately, several provisions in the bill would duplicate existing requirements, create unclear mandates, and ultimately undermine families' access to child care. At a time when child care prices remain extremely high for families, additional administration burden and cost may cause providers to reduce enrollment, withdraw from subsidy programs, or close altogether, further straining access for families who need care. We urge you to vote no on the Stop Child Care Scams Act of 2026 (H.R. 7726). There are already robust program integrity processes in place within the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG), with dearly defined roles for both federal and state agencies. Federal law and regulation require states to conduct eligibility verification, establish monitoring and enforcement procedures, review payments, investigate suspected fraud, and implement corrective action plans where needed. States must submit detailed plans outlining program integrity strategies, and they are subject to federal oversight. In addition, states already report extensive data on payment accuracy and program integrity. Under federal regulation, states must report the error rate, the percentage of cases with an improper payment, the percentage of improper payments, the average amount of improper payment, and the estimated annual amount of improper payments (45 CFR 98.100(b)). States are also required to outline procedures to investigate and recover fraudulent payments, which are different than improper payments or errors, and to impose sanctions on clients or providers in response to fraud. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has clear oversight authority, including reviewing state compliance, requiring corrective actions, and imposing penalties when necessary. The Stop Child Care Scams Act of 2026 (H.R. 7726) would impose new sanctions, restrict flexibility, and potentially reduce child care funding to states. While accountability is important, reducing funding limits states' ability to operate the child care subsidy systems that millions of families rely on. These resources support access to child care, workforce stability, and the state administrative capacity needed to maintain strong program oversight. Excessive sanctions and rigid penalties may discourage child care providers from participating in the subsidy system, or related programs such as the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). The result could be a smaller supply of child care for families. The bill's administrative requirements would also be costly to implement. Expanded reporting, monitoring, technology upgrades, and compliance obligations require significant staff time and system changes. Because these expenses are typically covered by Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) dollars, increased administrative costs leave fewer resources available for direct services. As a result, states may need to serve fewer children, adjust reimbursement rates for child care providers, or scale back quality initiatives. Increased compliance risk and reduced flexibility may further accelerate program closures, making it harder for families to access care. Our concerns apply to several of the sections of the Stop Child Care Scams Act of 2026. Section 5, Improper Payment Rate Requiring Corrective Action Plan; Conditional Ineligibility, and Section 10, Fraudulent Payments, focus on reducing improper payments without making a necessary distinction between administrative errors and intentional fraud. That conflation requires states to adopt overly restrictive payment practices that destabilize child care provider operations, particularly for small businesses operating on thin margins. Section IO, Fraudulent Payments, would add new reporting and compliance requirements that increase administrative costs and divert funds from direct services for families and children. Section 6, Cyclical Monitoring of State Performance, duplicates existing federal monitoring and review requirements. Section 2, Strengthening the Authority to Withhold Funds for Fraud, imposes funding penalties that ultimately reduce resources available to serve families. Similarly, Section 4, Preventing Fraud in the Child Care and Development Block Grant Program, would limit flexibility that states currently use to manage complex program operations, potentially reducing child care supply. CCAoA supports thoughtful, targeted efforts to strengthen program integrity and prevent fraud. However, these efforts should build on existing systems, preserve clarity in federal and state roles, distinguish administrative errors and improper payments from fraud, and most importantly not punish children and families by destabilizing or defunding the child care system. As a result, we urge the Representative to oppose the Stop Child Care Scams Act of 2026 (H.R. 7726). We welcome the opportunity to work with you on balanced solutions that ensure families maintain access to safe, affordable child care. Sincerely, Susan Gale Perry, Chief Executive Officer, Child Care Aware of America.

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

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, millions of families rely on safe, stable childcare in their communities. Unfortunately, the cost of childcare often rivals the cost of housing. Many communities lack adequate childcare altogether. H.R. 7726 fails to meaningfully improve America's broken childcare system, but it does add unnecessary bureaucratic burdens to States and providers, many of whom are already struggling. Fraud must be addressed, but in substance, not by discussing the merits of the title of the bill. Smart accountability means strong enforcement paired with practical flexibility. Requiring extra reports and punishing States and providers for minor, inadvertent mistakes does not protect children and doesn't even reduce fraud. It does put programs that families depend on at risk and allows the Trump administration to weaponize this legislation by withholding funding from States that didn't vote for him. I oppose H.R. 7726, which fails to reduce fraud and prioritizes inflexible mandates over the real-world needs of working families. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.