Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I rise in support of my legislation, H.R. 6893, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Advancement for Training, Education, Restoration, and Science, the WATERS Act. The Chesapeake Bay is a natural treasure and a critical resource for the millions of Americans who live within its watershed, including my constituents in Hampton Roads. The Chesapeake Bay's fisheries sustain the region's centuries-old fisheries and seafood industry, which generates about $8 billion in economic activity every year. The bay's unparalleled recreational opportunities not only support tens of thousands of jobs and generate more than $14 billion annually, but are also critical to the well-being and happiness of all that live throughout the watershed. The Federal Government has helped our efforts to restore and protect the bay by devoting the resources and staff of multiple departments and agencies, including NOAA's Chesapeake Bay Office. This office provides scientific and technical support to government, industry, and nonprofits with the goal of advancing strategies that improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay. This is an effort that has been going on for decades. We are making slow but steady progress. Among its many responsibilities, NOAA's Chesapeake Bay Office manages the Chesapeake Bay Interpretive Buoy System that provides researchers and watermen with near real-time data on weather and water quality conditions. The Chesapeake Bay Office also oversees the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Education and Training, or B-WET, program. This competitive grant program supports environmental education opportunities throughout the watershed that not only teach students about the bay but also connect them to it through experiential programming. The Chesapeake Bay Waters Act reauthorizes NOAA's Chesapeake Bay Office. This ensures the agency can continue supporting the goals of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement and restoring the Chesapeake Bay. My bill also authorizes the Chesapeake B-WET program for the first time in its history, ensuring that future generations can continue to engage with the Chesapeake Bay. I thank my fellow co-leads, Virginia Representatives Wittman and Kiggans and Maryland Representative Elfreth, for their support of this legislation. I thank Chairman Westerman and Ranking Member Huffman for their leadership in getting this bill to the House floor. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today, we find ourselves here, again, purportedly to address anti-Semitism in American higher education. While we should be able to agree that there is no place in higher education for anti- Semitism, the fact is my colleagues on the other side have been curiously quiet, or selectively quiet, about addressing anti-Semitism when it actually does occur. Recall when President Trump declared that there were fine people on both sides when a bunch of White supremacists and their Unite the Right rally marched on the University of Virginia's campus chanting: ``Jews will not replace us.'' My colleagues on the other side were also silent as numerous reports regarding chapters of the College Republicans openly promoted their hated of Jewish people among other groups. All the while this has been going on, my colleagues have not told the President to stop firing lawyers at the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education, the agency responsible for investigating claims of anti-Semitism in education. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are certainly mum about how this administration is dismissing Title VI disparate impact analysis, the very tool necessary to address practices and policies that may appear facially neutral but, in fact, discriminate against protected classes under the law. I have not heard them comment on the whistleblower allegations, and many investigations into anti-Semitism on college campuses, led by the Department of Justice's Anti-Semitism Task Force, were based not on fact patterns or legal analysis but political priorities. With that said, we have the bill before us, the so-called Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act, which would amend the Higher Education Act by imposing new conditions on colleges and universities that receive higher education funding. Under the bill, institutions receiving Title IV Federal student aid would be legally required to certify that they are not engaged in a nonexpressive commercial boycott of Israel. I will begin with an important distinction: there is a difference between actions, or views of students, or even recognized student organizations and the official policy of the colleges and universities they attend. Students have the right to express their political views, but that does not mean that their university has adopted those views, such as the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, or BDS, movement. We have yet to see a single college or university in the United States adopt the BDS movement or institutional boycott policies contemplated in the bill. Simply put, the bill does not address any ongoing or existing higher education policy boycotting Israel. Nonetheless, this would create new Federal requirements intended to prevent institutions from adopting such policies in the future. Moreover, as we examine the bill, Members should be careful to consider how these Federal requirements would operate in practice, the potential of negative effect on institutions receiving Federal funds, and whether the bill is misusing the power that we have from the Constitution's Spending Clause to illegally sanction First Amendment- protected speech, particularly those of students. As written, the bill presents serious First Amendment problems and improperly limits academic freedom. I had hoped these problems could have been resolved before we got to the floor, but they weren't, so I will be opposing the bill. For these reasons, I ask Members to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for the purpose of closing. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement from J Street, which says in part: ``This means infringing on constitutionally protected free speech and academic freedom by penalizing institutions (and thereby unrelated research) for participation in certain boycott or divestment efforts targeted at Israel or Israeli settlements. There is a fundamental distinction between the State of Israel and the territory that it occupies over the Green Line, and penalizing universities for expressing their opposition to activities that further annexation sets a dangerous precedent.'' [From J Street, Aug. 31, 2026] J Street Statement Opposing H.R. 4795 Washington, DC--J Street opposes the Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2025 (H.R. 4795), which would condition federal funding on a university's choices regarding investments, procurement, partnerships, and other institutional activities in Israel and the West Bank. While we oppose the Global BDS Movement and strongly support academic engagement between American and Israeli institutions, we believe this legislation takes the wrong approach to these issues. Specifically, the legislation would penalize any institution that chooses to engage in a nonexpressive commercial boycott against Israel and ``an entity licensed or regulated by, or organized under the laws of,'' Israel, which would include Israeli settlements in the West Bank. This means infringing on constitutionally protected free speech and academic freedom by penalizing institutions (and thereby unrelated research) for participation in certain boycott or divestment efforts targeted at Israel or Israeli settlements. There is a fundamental distinction between the State of Israel and the territory that it occupies over the Green Line, and penalizing universities for expressing their opposition to activities that further annexation sets a dangerous precedent. Furthermore, this bill does not keep American Jewish students on campus safe, nor does it address the lived experience of antisemitism that American Jewish students encounter. Instead, by changing US code to to exceptionalize the treatment of Israel at American universities, this bill runs the risk of inflaming antisemitism. J Street believes the most effective way to counter antisemitism on college campuses is through open debate, education, and renewed efforts to achieve a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict--not through punitive legislation aimed to curb the freedom to boycott. We urge Members of Congress to vote against this bill and instead cosponsor the Antisemitism Response and Prevention Act (H.R. 6806). This bill would implement a whole-of- government approach to fighting antisemitism by funding the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education and mandating the designation of a Title VI coordinator on every college campus in order to provide students with additional resources in hopes of preventing antisemitism and other hate on campus.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record a statement from the American Federation of Teachers which says in part: ``The AFT has long fought for academic freedom, the safety and dignity of all students and educators, and policies that keep higher education accessible. H.R. 4795 undermines those goals rather than advancing them.''

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I will close by returning to the central point: that we must distinguish between student or faculty expression in university policy. A student organization or individual faculty member supporting BDS is not the same thing as the university administration adopting BDS as policy. A faculty member expressing a political opinion is not the same thing as the institution imposing a boycott. Importantly, we have yet to see a single American college or university adopting BDS in the way the bill suggests. Furthermore, we know the bill is intended to target the BDS movement. Yet it is not clear whether a school that even joined the BDS movement would be covered by the text of the bill. The bill implicates ``nonexpressive boycotts'' as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro) just pointed out. If it is expressive, it is protected by the First Amendment. BDS by its very nature is designed to express disapproval of the actions of the State of Israel. If a college or university came out and publicly said it was joining BDS, most people would agree that that announcement and any activity that flowed from it would clearly be expressive, and therefore, out of the scope of the bill. As an expressive activity, the statement would be protected under the First Amendment, and therefore, the First Amendment would protect the funding from being removed. But, again, no college or university has embraced the BDS movement anyway. We should combat anti-Semitism wherever it occurs, but we should not do so by punishing protected speech or conflating students' views with university policies. For those reasons I urge a ``no'' vote, 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 in recognition of Filipino American National Historical Society (FANHS) leaders Dorothy Laigo Cordova, Dr. Allan Bergano, and Edwina Bergano. Known as the ``Mother'' of the Filipino American National Historical Society and the Filipino American civil rights movement, Dorothy Laigo Cordova co-founded FANHS with her late husband, Fred Cordova, in 1982 as a nonprofit dedicated to preserving and sharing Filipino American history. For seven decades, she has worked to combat racism and ensure that the Filipino American story is recognized as an integral part of the American experience. FANHS was born out of frustration with the lack of accurate representation of Filipino Americans in mainstream history and has since grown to more than 40 chapters across the United States, including one in Hampton Roads. Dorothy's tireless efforts were instrumental in establishing Filipino American History Month, observed every October and recognized by President Obama in 2012. Dr. Allan Bergano and Edwina Bergano founded the Hampton Roads Chapter of FANHS in 1990. They are taking a much-deserved retirement after nearly 40 years of service and a shared commitment to intergenerational community leadership. The Hampton Roads Chapter is the oldest on the East Coast and focuses on preserving, documenting, and sharing the history and culture of Filipino Americans in the region. As the only present Member of Congress with Filipino ancestry, I have the privilege of representing this rich and vibrant Filipino American community in Hampton Roads while serving as co-chair of the U.S.- Philippines Friendship Caucus. The region is home to the largest Filipino American population on the East Coast and several U.S. military bases. Many Filipinos immigrated to the area through service in the U.S. Navy or by working in the health professions. In closing, I thank Dorothy Laigo Cordova, Dr. Allan Bergano, and Edwina Bergano for the sacrifices they have made and the bridges they have built for the Filipino American community.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, prices are already too high for groceries, housing, healthcare, childcare, and other everyday expenses. However, instead of focusing on lowering costs for working families, the Trump administration and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are presenting this resolution which will continue policies which have actually made things worse. With the passage of their big, ugly bill, they cut healthcare, food assistance, and education funding all while adding $4.7 trillion to the national debt, and now they want to add another $95 billion to the debt to continue waging an endless war. We have a choice. We can invest in working families and ensure that people have access to food, Medicare, Medicaid, daycare, and education, but my colleagues instead are choosing an endless war. That is the wrong choice. Mr. Chair, we should, therefore, oppose this resolution.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, once again, while working families struggle with high costs caused by this administration, Republicans' only focus is on spending more money on their lawless immigration enforcement agenda, even as ICE continues to abuse its authority and without any assurance that they will begin obeying the law by obtaining warrants before they go into people's homes, stop deporting citizens, and stop using excessive force. While Americans face increased costs, the President seems only interested in building his ballroom, rewarding violent insurrectionists, and putting his face on passports and $250 bills. This reconciliation bill does nothing to block these initiatives. It also does nothing to reduce gas prices, improve healthcare, preserve the Department of Education, or create jobs. Let's not forget, this bill also increases the deficit after the first bill last year increased the deficit by trillions of dollars. That is not a surprise because every Democratic administration since Kennedy has left for the Republicans a better deficit than they inherited, and every Republican administration since Nixon has left for the Democrats a worse deficit situation, all without exception. We need to be focused on a fiscally responsible solution that will actually do something to bring down costs for American families. This bill doesn't do that. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5408, the Faster Labor Contracts Act, which ensures that workers can quickly and efficiently reach a first contract between a union and their employer. It is also one of the many important provisions of the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, or the PRO Act, which critically bolsters working people's ability to organize and form a union while holding union-busting employers accountable. This bill would amend the National Labor Relations Act to require employers to begin negotiations with a newly certified union within 10 days. This bill further provides that if no agreement is reached after 90 days, either party may request mediation from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. If mediation fails after 30 days, the dispute will be referred to an arbitration panel selected by the union and employer to secure an initial contract. For too many workers, the hard work doesn't end when they vote to form a union. It just begins. Reaching a first contract to form a union can take months, even years. In some cases, it never happens at all. It is not unusual for workers to sit through endless delays and other dilatory tactics by employers, including shifting proposals and stalled negotiations. Workers endure all of this while trying to balance their jobs, their families, and their livelihoods. When workers choose to organize, they are choosing a unified voice to negotiate for their rights with management. Without a first contract, that voice can be effectively silenced. Dragging out negotiations gives corporations a long chance to break up a union. The Faster Labor Contracts Act brings accountability to this process. It sets up reasonable timelines and ensures that both sides engage in serious, good-faith negotiations. It helps prevent delay tactics and keeps the focus where it belongs--on reaching an agreement that works for everyone. This bill is about making the right to organize real, not theoretical. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Norcross for his leadership on this issue, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).

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

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. The letter says, in part: ``For this reason, we call on all Members of the House to vote for the bipartisan Faster Labor Contracts Act. It is far from being a complete set of labor reforms, but it is an incredibly important step in the right direction.'' The letter goes on to say: ``Under current law, for far too many workers, including many who seek to join the AFT, organizing a union is marked by employer anti-union campaigns that include pressure tactics and a refusal to negotiate a first contract after workers have voted to unionize.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle).

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Casar), the vice ranking member of the Committee on Education and Workforce.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, could you say that again.

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

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

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, when workers vote to form a union, they don't want their first contract to come in years after endless stalling by an employer negotiating in bad faith. They want a voice in the workplace. The Faster Labor Contracts Act helps prevent these delay tactics and smooths the transition to an organized workplace. As the saying goes, forming a union should be a right, not a fight. This legislation is an important first step toward ensuring that workers can more easily form a union and negotiate for higher wages, better benefits, and safer workplaces. Unions are critical to leveling the playing field and addressing rising economic inequality. This bill will help achieve these goals, but we cannot stop here. We must also pass the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, the PRO Act, to comprehensively advance workers' rights. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.