Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Vargas), a co-chair of the Congressional Sustainable Investment Caucus.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Magaziner).

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing. Mr. Speaker, during this debate, we have heard a lot about ESG investing. It is clear there is a difference of opinion on it, but whether Members of Congress see things the same way is not the point. What matters is that the Biden-Harris rule puts the decisionmaking when it comes to considering ESG factors where it belongs, in the hands of retirement plan fiduciaries who are best positioned and bound by law, which has not changed, to act prudently on behalf of plan participants. That is where the decisionmaking should stay. They, not Members of Congress, know what is in the best interests of their plan participants, and they are bound by their fiduciary responsibilities to do the right thing. Now, when supporters say that a fiduciary should not consider nonpecuniary factors, they ignore the fact that ESG factors can, in fact, be pecuniary, because often ESG factors, such as sea level rise, can have a profound effect on the value of the investment. Those who recognize this should be able to make reasonable investments based on that knowledge. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record several letters from organizations opposed to H.J. Res. 30. Eighty-three percent of institutions that submitted comments were in favor of the underlying rule. These organizations, who are opposed to H.J. Res. 30, include the AFL-CIO, Americans for Financial Reform, Public Citizen, SEIU, Environmental Defense Fund, League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Union of Concerned Scientists, and others.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, these organizations have diverse missions, but they all agree that H.J. Res. 30 should be rejected. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two letters from financial services firms who submitted supportive comments on the underlying rule. These firms are BNY Melon Investment Management and Lazard Asset Management, who have trillions of dollars in assets under management. BNY Mellon, December 13, 2021. Office of Regulations and Interpretations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC. On behalf of BNY Mellon Investment Management, thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking entitled ``Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights'' (the ``Proposal'') published by the U.S. Department of Labor (the ``Department''). We strongly support the Department's efforts to clarify the regulatory treatment of environmental, social, and governance (``ESG'') factors under Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (``ERISA'') following the publication of ``Financial Factors in Selecting Plan Investments'' and ``Fiduciary Duties Regarding Proxy Voting and Shareholder Rights'' (together, the ``Current Rules''). To continue the Department's efforts to add clarity to the use of ESG factors by fiduciaries we suggest the Department add clarification in the rule or preamble that a fiduciary can use a screen to consider ESG factors based on the fiduciary's determination that a particular ESG factor will impact investment value consistent with Section 2550.404a-1(c)(2) of the Proposal. BNY Mellon Investment Management is a division of BNY Mellon, one of the world's largest financial services groups. With a presence in 35 countries, BNY Mellon looks to connect investors with opportunities across every major asset class. BNY Mellon Investment Management encompasses BNY Mellon's affiliated investment firms and global distribution companies, constituting over $2.3 trillion in AUM (as of September 30, 2021). BNY Mellon Investment Management follows a multi-boutique investment management model that weds the specialist expertise from its investment firms offering solutions across every major asset class, backed by the strength, stewardship, and global presence of BNY Mellon. Each investment firm has its own unique culture, investment philosophy, and proprietary investment processes, and provides a global perspective. Our seven majority owned investment firms, are as follows (all AUM figures as of September 30, 2021): Alcentra ($41.0B), ARX ($7.0B), Dreyfus Cash Investment Strategies ($342.7B), Insight Investment ($1,100.0B), Mellon ($448.6B), Newton Investment Management ($139.1B), and Walter Scott ($99.9B). At BNY Mellon Investment Management our Responsible Investment (RI) approach varies across our investment firms, but the effective stewardship of our clients' assets is common to all and core to our own purpose. Many products or solutions offered by BNY Mellon Investment Management examine ESG factors in their investment processes and decision-making to better manage risk and generate sustainable long-term returns. Six of our investment firms--Alcentra, ARX, Insight, Mellon, Newton, and Walter Scott--are signatories of the Principles for Responsible Investment (``PRI''). As we have noted in a previous comment letter, over the past decades, fiduciaries and investment managers have come to appreciate the materiality that ESG factors can have on investment value. We welcome the Department's clarifications to the Current Rules regarding the use of ESG factors and the exercise of shareholder rights. The acknowledgement by the Department that climate risks and other ESG factors can be and often are material to investment risk and returns will better allow fiduciaries to mitigate risk and enhance returns based on evaluating ESG factors. Within the last decade, a deep body of research has been produced that demonstrates the material influence of ESG factors on the profitability of an enterprise and the performance of its securities. For example, weak control of environmental activities such as pollution, over-consumption of raw materials or lack of recycling of waste materials readily leads to volatile or lower achieved margins or financial penalties that reduce investor returns. Similarly with social issues: high staff turnover, high strike rates or absenteeism or death or injury rates have all been linked to lower productivity and poor quality control. Regarding governance, we know from years of empirical observation that poorly managed issuers can seriously damage investor returns. To ignore the entire category of information and analysis that comprise ESG factors, therefore, could be deemed an abrogation of a fiduciary's responsibility to consider all material information when assessing the risk and return of any investment opportunity. The Proposal appropriately balances the materiality that ESG factors can have on investment value with the Department's longstanding principles that a fiduciary's duties of prudence and loyalty require the fiduciary to consider factors that are material to investment value. In particular, a fiduciary should not subordinate the interests of plan participants and beneficiaries to other objectives, nor sacrifice investment return or take on additional investment risk to promote goals unrelated to the plan and its participants and beneficiaries. We specifically believe that the proposed removal of the definition of ``pecuniary factors'' and the revision to the Current Rules providing that a fiduciary's evaluation of an investment or investment course of action should be based on factors that ``are material to investment value'' both clarifies the rule and ensures that the rule reflects the analysis performed by fiduciaries when making investment decisions. We also support the removal of the special rule prohibiting certain investment alternatives from being considered qualified default investment alternatives (QDIA) because the investment references ESG factors. The QDIA restrictions in the Current Rules add uncertainty and would be difficult to apply. We agree with the Department that there is not a reason to prohibit fiduciaries from prudently selecting a fund that meets the QDIA requirements and includes the consideration of ESG factors. We support the Department's efforts to reduce the uncertainty in the market caused by the Current Rules and we suggest additional clarification regarding the use of screens. We believe this clarification could further reduce uncertainty that might otherwise prevent fiduciaries from considering ESG factors which are expected to enhance investment value and performance or improve investment portfolio resilience against the potential financial risks. As noted above, we support the removal of ``pecuniary factors'' and that a fiduciary's evaluation of an investment or investment course of action should be based on factors that ``are material to investment value''. We think that the Department could add additional clarity to the rule or preamble by clarifying that the proposed rule does not per se prohibit a fiduciary from using a screen on investments based in whole or in part on ESG factors. A common method used by investment managers to incorporate ESG factors into the assessment of investment risks and returns is the use of screens. As described in the Proposal, ``negative screening refers to the exclusion of certain sectors, companies, or practices from a fund or portfolio based on ESG criteria.'' The Proposal's discussion of the benefits that can occur from the use of ESG factors in the assessment of investment risks and returns relies on sources that studied the impact of investment managers using screens based on ESG factors. However, the Current Rules and some past guidance regarding the use of ESG factors could be read to preclude the use of screens based on ESG factors. We suggest that the Department clarify in the final rule or its preamble that the investment prudence duties and the investment loyalty duties under Sections 2550.404a-1(b) and 2550.404a-1(c), respectively, do not per se prohibit the use of screens. For example, it should be permissible for a plan fiduciary to select investment managers and funds that use screens to the extent that doing so would otherwise be consistent with its duties. It should similarly be permissible for any such investment manager to select an ``investment course of action'' that uses a screen to the extent that the resulting investment strategy would otherwise be consistent with its duties. Such a clarification would provide certainty to fiduciaries seeking to use ESG factors in the assessment of investment risks and returns in accordance with their prudence and loyalty duties. It would further ensure that plan participants realize the full benefits of fiduciaries using ESG factors as described in the Proposal. We strongly support the Department's efforts to bring clarity to the use of ESG factors and the exercise of shareholder rights by plan fiduciaries. We believe the Proposal and the changes suggested here will promote retirement income security and further retirement savings by allowing fiduciaries to better manage risks and improve investment returns. Sincerely, Hanneke Smits, Chief Executive Officer, BNY Mellon Investment Management.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this is just a small sample of the financial industry's support for the underlying rule. We should not overturn the rule with this resolution. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I oppose H.J. Res. 30, I encourage all Members to do the same, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the Scripps Howard School of Journalism and Communications at Hampton University on its 20th Anniversary. The Scripps Howard School of Journalism and Communications was established in September 2002 to train students to become expert journalists and communicators and increase diversity within the industry. Hampton University is one of the nation's top Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and the Scripps Howard School continues the legacy of innovative higher education that is found at Hampton University. The Scripps Howard School of Journalism and Communications hosts a wide variety of experiences to prepare students for their future journalistic pursuits. Housed in a 36,000 square foot building, the school offers students the ability to work in a broadcast studio, a radio station, and a television station with state-of-the-art editing equipment. Alumni of the school enter the workforce as talented journalists, holding positions at local and national news organizations. The Scripps Howard School of Journalism and Communications embodies the Hampton University motto: ``The Standard for Excellence, An Education for Life.'' I want to thank Julia A. Wilson, the current Dean of the Scripps Howard School of Journalism and Communications, for her dedication to the students of Hampton University. I also want to thank the prior deans Christopher Campbell, Tony Brown, Rosalynne Whitaker-Heck, Brett A. Pulley, and B. DaVida Plummer for their years of service. Mr. Speaker, as the Hampton University community gathers this Friday to celebrate this momentous anniversary, I want to congratulate the students, faculty and alumni of the Scripps Howard School of Journalism and Communications on 20 years of excellence and wish them many more years of success.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment introduced by my friend and colleague, the gentlelady from Virginia. Virginia is blessed with beautiful coastlines. The Atlantic Coast and Chesapeake Bay provide critical habitat to marine life and offer numerous recreational opportunities to locals and tourists. Virginia's coasts are also home to a growing source of clean, affordable, and domestic energy thanks to ideal windspeeds, shallow waters, shipping lanes free of overhead obstruction, and a talented workforce. Located 27 miles off the coast, the first two turbines in federal waters are not visible from shore. The benefits they generate, however, are increasingly being felt on shore as emissions are lowered and good, family-sustaining jobs are created. These exciting developments are in sharp contrast to what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have planned for our coastal communities--an expansion of offshore drilling. We ought to learn from the tragic mistakes of our past: Exxon Valdez in the Prince William Sound, Santa Barbara off the coast of Southern California, and Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico. Throughout my career, I have opposed attempts to open Virginia's coastline to offshore drilling along with local communities, small businesses, scientists, beachgoers, environmentalists, seafood lovers, and people of faith. The Virginia Beach Restaurant Association, the Virginia Beach Hotel Association, and the Virginia Restaurant, Lodging and Travel Association all oppose offshore drilling along with Oceana, the Sierra Club, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Surfrider Foundation, Virginia Interfaith Power & Light and so many others. National security experts also warn that offshore drilling is incompatible with military training in the region, not to mention the incredible harm a spill would do to military facilities. As sea levels in Norfolk and around the world continue to rise, any expansion of highly polluting fossil fuel infrastructure is simply a bad idea. Virginians are simply not willing to sacrifice the health of our climate, marine life, local economies, or coastal ecosystems to expand offshore drilling. The growth of offshore wind in the region further underscores the false choice being presented by my Republican colleagues. Virginians are already enhancing our energy security by harnessing the power of the wind. Thanks to the investments in the Inflation Reduction Act-- including provisions I introduced with Representatives Pascrell, Norcross, Luria, and the late Congressman McEachin--the future of offshore wind and domestic offshore wind manufacturing is bright. Virginians have repeatedly stood together to protect our coasts and, as this amendment demonstrates, we will continue to do so. I urge my colleagues to protect Virginia's coasts by supporting this amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote yes on the end- of-year funding bill. However, I object to a provision added by the Senate to the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). The PWFA ensures that pregnant workers who work for employers with 15 or more employees have access to reasonable accommodations in the workplace for pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. Pregnant workers are just as capable as their colleagues, but if they are denied reasonable accommodations, such as water or rest breaks, some workers face increased health risks including premature births, pregnancy complications, and even miscarriage. The purpose of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) is to ensure that pregnant workers do not have to make the difficult choice between financial security and a safe and healthy pregnancy. Despite the purpose of the bill--which is to expand the accommodations for pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions--language was added by the Senate that may undermine the bill's purpose. When the Senate finally considered the PWFA on December 8, 2022, it was after languishing in that chamber for over one and one-half years. It should be noted that PWFA passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 315 to 101, on May 14, 2021, with over 230 organizations ranging from the business community to religious organizations and other groups. Not a single one of these organizations demanded language to exempt employers from providing accommodations to pregnant and other workers with related conditions on the basis of the religious views of the employers. Moreover, when the Senate debated to take up the PWFA by unanimous consent consideration on December 8, 2022, the text of the bill did not contain the religious exemption language. Confidently, Senator Casey of Pennsylvania declared that the bill ``when it comes to a final vote, will have at least 60 votes in the Senate, if not more. I think it will be more than that.'' During the debate, Senator Tillis of North Carolina objected to the unanimous consent consideration of PWFA because it ``would give Federal bureaucrats at the EEOC authority to mandate that employers nationwide provide accommodations such as leave to obtain abortions on demand under the guise of a pregnancy-related condition.'' Senator Cassidy of Louisiana rejected to that characterization of the bill and noted the support of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Senator Cassidy read into the record the position of the Catholic Bishops: ``We believe that [this] version of the bill, read in light of existing liberty protections, helps advance the [U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops'] goal of ensuring that no woman ever feels forced to choose between her future and the life of her child while protecting the conscience rights and religious freedoms of employers.'' Senator Cassidy went on to say that ``the pro-life position is to make an accommodation for that woman who has those needs so she can safely carry the baby to term.'' He further added that the PWFA passed the House with a bipartisan vote 315 and was adopted by the Senate HELP Committee with a bipartisan vote of 19-2, with the endorsement of the Chambers of Commerce and March of Dimes, among others. When Senator Tillis pressed for language regarding the religious entity exemption from section 702 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), Senator Cassidy stressed that the Conference of Catholic Bishops endorsed this bill because the Title VII exemption was untouched by the PWFA. Senator Cassidy made clear that the bill does not touch Title VII's exemptions which allows, ``employers [pastors and ministers and Rabbis] to make employment decisions based on firmly held religious beliefs. This bill does not change this.'' And yet, just days before the funding of the government runs out, the Senate inserted a ``Rule of Construction'' which incorporates the religious entity exemption from Title VII, countering the very points made just days earlier. The lack of legal analysis and evaluation of this Rule of Construction has given me pause and there is concern that this ``Rule of Construction'', may be interpreted to allow certain employers to deny pregnant workers reasonable accommodations based on the employers' religious beliefs. I object to adding this religious exemption to this bill for a number of reasons. First, this exemption is in direct contradiction with, and undermines the purpose of, the bill--by opening the door to discrimination against the very people we are trying to protect. When the House Education and Labor Committee marked up this bill on March 24, 2021, a similar amendment was offered by Mr. Fulcher of Idaho to exempt religious organizations from coverage under the bill. The amendment, which would have allowed religious organizations to deny workers reasonable accommodations under the law, was defeated by a vote of 20 Yeas and 27 Nays. Specifically, it was the position of the Committee that this very language would open the door to employers seeking religious exemption. A witness testifying before the House Committee on Education and Labor, Dina Bakst, Co-Founder & Co-President from A Better Balance: The Work & Family Legal Center, testified that her organization had conducted a legal analysis of nearly 1,000 court cases invoking the Title VII religious exemption involving an employer objecting to providing pregnancy accommodations. Ms. Bakst said, ``from a legal standpoint, inserting an exemption for religious employers is simply extraneous and unnecessary.'' Further, Ms. Bakst testified that not only is the exemption ``already unnecessary'' but also that ``ample escape hatches already exist for religious employers.'' She added that ``I would hope that most employers, especially those that are religious, would be amenable to providing such simple measures to their employees to safeguard their well-being.'' Second, I object to adding this exemption because it is unnecessary. Religious employers are already afforded significant protections to exercise their religious beliefs under Supreme Court precedent and various federal laws including, for example, the ministerial exception, which provides certain religious employers a constitutionally recognized exemption to federal antidiscrimination laws and applies to employees who preach and teach the employer's religious tenets. Religious employers can also invoke the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which requires that government action that substantially infringes on a person's exercise of religion serve a compelling government interest and be the least restrictive means to achieve that interest. Third, because the religious exemption language was hastily included in this bill by the Senate, there has not been any analysis for the record that examines the meaning and the long-term impact of its inclusion. For example, the ``Rule of Construction'' uses the term ``religious employment,'' but this term is not defined in the bill nor is it included in the text of Section 702 of Title VII, which means that it may be interpreted in multiple ways by religious employers and the courts regardless of intent. Additionally, while the existing Title VII religious exemption is reserved for religious discrimination and the hiring of ``co-religionists,'' the Rule of Construction provision now applies the Title VII exemption to PWFA's requirements. It is unclear what the inclusion of such language pertaining to hiring means in a bill that is meant to require pregnancy-related accommodations. I am deeply concerned that it could mean that employers who qualify for the exemption are not required to accommodate pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, thereby authorizing a blanket exemption for religious employers. For example, would an employer now be able to use their religious viewpoint against a pregnant worker's single parent status, ``mixed-race'' relationship, ``mixed-religion'' union, IVF treatment, or same-sex relationship, etc.? My concern about the expansion of religious exemption to protective workplace discrimination and accommodation laws was underscored by the Supreme Court decision in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Inc. case. In that decision, the Court concluded that a for-profit corporation could be considered a ``person'' under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and therefore assert a religious objection to providing contraception coverage for their employees. In contrast, the religious exemption for qualifying employer under Title VII is narrow, afforded only to a ``religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society,'' and no court has ever upheld a for-profit organization to qualify for the exemption. Yet, in 2020, the Trump Administration finalized a rule for the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs opening the door to the religious exemption to some for-profits. Further, the EEOC under the Trump Administration approved, an updated Compliance Manual on Religious Discrimination attempts to stretch the exemption to some for-profits, noting that ``Title VII case law has not definitely addressed whether a for-profit corporation that satisfies the other factors can constitute a religious corporation under Title VII.'' By including the Rule of Construction in PWFA, we have injected uncertainty instead of affirming unequivocal protections for pregnant workers. It is also unclear how the religious exemption will be interpreted when read in conjunction with Section 7 of the bill, which provides that PWFA does not invalidate or limit state or local laws that provide equal or greater protection for pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Adding the religious exemption could undermine this principle and result in these workers having less protections under relevant state or local laws. The fourth and final reason I object to this language is because just a year and a half ago, the House passed the PWFA, with a strong bipartisan vote of 315 Yeas to 101 Nays, without a religious exemption. The inclusion of this language by the Senate is unfortunate and, the repercussions may befelt by vulnerable workers we are supposed to protecting. Put plainly, the continued expansion of religious exemption turns the purpose of the law on its head. Instead of the law protecting employees from discrimination and the lack of accommodations, these religious exemptions are being used as to protect the employer's right to discriminate and deny basic accommodation. For these reasons, I strongly object to including a religious exemption under Section 7B, the Rule of Construction, in Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. Moreover, I am disappointed that numerous proposals that I have long- championed--including the Child Abuse and Prevention and Treatment Act reauthorization, the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act reauthorization, the National Apprenticeship Act reauthorization, and a comprehensive Child Nutrition Reauthorization--have been left on the chopping block yet again. These proposals are among the many advanced under my leadership on the Education and Labor Committee that respond to the needs of America's students, workers, and families. To omit these proposals and others from the omnibus appropriations bill is a disservice to the American people.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise to thank Richard Miller and honor his public service as the Director of Labor Policy for the Committee on Education and Labor. When people describe Richard, the sentiments range from ``true and tireless champion of working people'', ``an expert on any topic relating to workers'', to ``unparalleled knowledge of the issues impacting workers''. Folks have called him charismatic, meticulous, dedicated, committed. Prior to working for Congress, he helped workers organize for labor rights and battle union busting campaigns from coast to coast and from north to south. Through his work for the Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, and its successor Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers Union, he led advocacy efforts to enact an occupational illness compensation program for defense nuclear workers (Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program ACt (EEOICPA); protect union rights and pension security; fund hazardous waste worker training programs; enact a defense nuclear worker ``conversion'' and medical screening law; secure a moratorium on the sale of radioactively contaminated metals into unrestricted commerce; and authorize and secure funding for U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigations Board (CSB). Since its enactment in 2000, EEOICP A has provided benefits to approximately 100,000 nuclear weapons complex workers (or their survivors) for diseases arising from exposure to radiation, beryllium and silica. As the Representative of the 3rd Congressional District of Virginia, which is home to the Nation's largest private shipyard, the Committee pressed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to expand a proposed beryllium rule to include protections for shipyard workers-particularly those around abrasive blasting. Richard led the Committee's effort, in conjunction with the Steelworkers union, to ultimately secure enforceable protections for our nation's maritime workers from exposure to this ultra-toxic element. Beginning in 2007, Richard joined on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, investigating regulatory gaps in energy futures and derivatives markets; the Department of Energy's (DOE) program to reprocess spent nuclear fuel; price manipulation schemes in propane markets; crude oil pipeline safety; and DOE's sole-source contracting and nuclear non-proliferation programs. In 2009, Richard came to the Committee on Education and Labor under then Chairman George Miller (no relation) and worked under my leadership for nearly eight years. Richard conducted investigations on the Upper Big Branch coal mine disaster; the performance of the Chemical Safety Board's investigations; contested case backlogs before the Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission; mismanaged state OSHA programs; the Department of Labor's Whistleblower Protection Program and Black Lung Benefits program, and administration proposals to cut federal workers' compensation benefits. Richard maintained a focus on international labor rights by supporting the Speaker's Congressional Monitoring Group on the U.S.- Colombia Labor Action Plan and the bi-cameral working group on safety and labor rights in Bangladesh. Fallowing the repeated fires and industrial disasters killing workers in that country's garment industry, and a government largely unresponsive to labor rights violations, Richard led Committee efforts to enact funding for global labor rights programs and to elevate labor rights as a priority for U.S. diplomacy with Bangladesh, while assisting Bangladeshi labor rights advocates in communicating their concerns to Congress. As part of his work for the Committee, he has drafted bills to strengthen the Occupational Safety & Health Act, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act, the Black Lung Benefits Act, the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA). As a corollary, he led efforts to beat back three-efforts over six years to cut FECA benefit levels. As part of the American Rescue Plan Act, Richard led Committee efforts to ensure front-line workers in VA hospitals, airports, post offices, law enforcement and meat plant inspectors were able to secure workers' compensation for COVID-19 without having to meet an insurmountable burden of proof. He has worked to stabilize the black lung benefits program by extending the black lung excise tax, reducing backlogs in adjudicating claims, driving reforms in coal operator self-insurance, and rebuilding the black lung clinics program to ensure miners receive pulmonary rehabilitation and claims assistance they need. Richard even managed to convince me to go several thousand feet underground to visit a coal mine and assess its safety features. And in typical fashion, Richard was quick to ensure the invitation of one of my Republican colleagues to join in this venture. The Committee on Education & Labor will miss his wealth of knowledge and his enthusiasm for finding ways to improve the life of those workers who lack a voice but need one. We can always count on him to offer what he would call ``an observation, not a criticism.'' In conclusion, Richard has led his professional life doing the ``good trouble, necessary trouble'' that Congressman John Lewis has called us to do. I know that I speak for the Committee in thanking him for his service to this House and the American People and wish him well in his retirement.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I regrettably missed rollcall votes 507, 508, 509, 510, and 511 today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on these bills.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in support of the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Reauthorization Act. The Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program is authorized through the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act, what we call MIOTCRA, legislation that I was proud to work on nearly 20 years ago as the then-ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee of Judiciary Committee. This legislation has proven to successfully connect State and local governments with necessary resources to plan and implement initiatives designed to increase public safety, save tax dollars on ineffective or even counterproductive incarceration, and improve the lives of people with mental illness and their families. These grants for States and localities allow for the development of programming that connects those with mental illness and substance use issues with evidence-based and comprehensive treatment within the criminal justice system. Each year there are about 2 million people with serious mental illnesses admitted to jails across the country. In fact, according to the National Alliance of Mental Illness, 44 percent of those in jail and 37 percent of those in prisons have a history of mental illness. Furthermore, once incarcerated, individuals with mental illness tend to stay in jail longer, and upon release are more likely to return to incarceration than those without mental illnesses. These grants encourage collaboration between law enforcement and healthcare providers. The reforms to this program included in this reauthorization are centered on reducing suicide, increasing access to case management services, bolstering the roles of co-responder and crisis intervention teams, and continuing the strong support of mental health courts. This bill recognizes that prevention is the best investment in the criminal justice system for long-term success and cost savings. This legislation is the result of the hard work of many, including State government organizations, mental health organizations, and law enforcement organizations. I thank all of those and my colleagues who have led this effort with me, including Representatives Chabot, Jackson Lee, and Emmer; the chairman of the committee, Mr. Nadler; as well as Senators Cornyn, Klobuchar, Moran, Durbin, Grassley, Whitehouse, Tillis, and Cortez Masto. Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting the reauthorization of this legislation so we can get it to the President's desk before the end of the year.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, as dean of the Virginia congressional delegation, I am joined by Members of the delegation from the House and Senate. It is with a heavy heart that I announce to the House the passing of our colleague, Congressman A. Donald McEachin. Throughout his life of public service, Donald was a relentless champion for all Virginians, serving in the House of Delegates, the Senate of Virginia, and then here in the House of Representatives. He was the son of an Army veteran and a public schoolteacher. Donald graduated from American University, earned his law degree from the University of Virginia, and received his Master of Divinity from the Virginia Union University. As many in this Chamber know, Donald was a thoughtful and principled legislator respected by Members on both sides of the aisle. He was also a trailblazing figure in Virginia politics. He was the first African- American nominee of a major party for Virginia Attorney General and only the third African American elected to Congress from the Commonwealth of Virginia. Donald was resolute in pushing Virginia to lead the way in climate policy. He recognized the climate crisis as a moral issue and was a champion for environmental justice, using his skills as a trial lawyer to fight to ensure that the voices of our most vulnerable communities were heard and heeded. May we all seek to honor Donald's life and legacy by working to build a future in which everyone has access to clean air, water, and soil. Madam Speaker, this body has lost one of its most dedicated public servants and fiercest advocates for justice and equality, and he will be deeply missed. I want to offer my deepest condolences to his wife, Colette, their three children, his beloved grandchildren, his friends, his staff, and the countless individuals positively impacted by his life of service. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a living icon, Missy Elliott, for her groundbreaking music career and her contributions to the Hampton Roads community. To pay tribute to her remarkable accomplishments, her hometown of Portsmouth, Virginia will dedicate ``Missy Elliott Boulevard'' in her honor on Monday, October 17, 2022. As a student at Manor High School, previously known as Woodrow Wilson High School, in Portsmouth, Virginia, Missy excelled in academics and developed an affinity for music. While a student at Manor, she formed an all-female rhythm and blues group, ``Sista,'' with three fellow Portsmouth natives and her childhood friend, Timbaland. Even in the early stages of her career, Missy was a trailblazer. Instead of signing with a major record label, as was common with recording artists in that era, she retained her creative independence by founding her own record label, The Goldmind, Inc. Her music career quickly skyrocketed because of her exceptional songwriting and signature production style alongside her frequent collaborator, Timbaland. Missy became a cultural phenomenon because of the artistry of her music videos. The creativity she displayed in the iconic videos ``SUPA DUPA Fly'' and ``Work It'' revolutionized how artists expressed themselves. Missy has also been an advocate for female empowerment in the music industry, and she is credited for being a pioneer in championing body positivity. Over the course of her career, Missy Elliott has earned a plethora of accolades, including four GRAMMY Awards, six studio albums that are Recording Industry Association of America platinum-certified, and countless numbers of BET, NAACP and Soul Train awards. In 2019, Missy became the first female hip hop artist to receive the MTV Video Music Award's Michael Jackson Video Vanguard Award; she was the first female hip hop artist to be inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame, and she was the first hip hop artist to earn an honorary Doctor of Music from the prestigious Berklee College of Music. Missy's impact continues to be felt in today's popular music. She has been credited as an influence on other superstar artists, such as Beyonce, Ciara, Pharrell, and the late Aaliyah. Despite becoming a global superstar, Missy Elliott has never forgotten her Virginia roots. She has contributed to the education of students in Hampton Roads by donating to her high school alma mater, and through a Hampton University scholarship fund from her foundation. The latter donation supports the Atlanta Chapter of the National Hampton Alumni Association and funds scholarships, as well as tuition and fees for students at Hampton University. Madam Speaker, as Missy's family, friends, fans, and supporters gather for the dedication of ``Missy Elliott Boulevard,'' I join them in congratulating Missy Elliott and thank her for all she has done for the City of Portsmouth, Hampton Roads, and music fans across the globe.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the cost estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office for H.R. 7780, the Mental Health Matters Act. The cost estimate was not available at the time of the filing of the Committee report. U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, September 26, 2022. Hon. Robert C. (Bobby) Scott, Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 7780, the Mental Health Matters Act. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jessica Hale. Sincerely, Phillip L. Swagel, Director. Enclosure. H.R. 7780 would expand resources to address the mental health of K-12 students and staff members. The bill would authorize several grant programs to support school-based mental health services and providers. It would require postsecondary institutions that receive federal financial assistance to develop policies to identify and provide special accommodations to individuals with disabilities. Finally, it would prohibit mandatory arbitration clauses, class action waivers, and representation waivers in employer- sponsored benefit plans under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. CBO estimates that the bill would have no effect on direct spending and would increase revenues over the 2022-2032 period. The bill contains provisions that would increase spending subject to appropriation, but CBO has not completed an estimate of those costs.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of the Mental Health Matters Act, led by the gentleman from California, Mr. DeSaulnier. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the mental health crisis among students, workers, and families. In 2021, over 44 percent of students experienced persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness; almost 20 percent seriously considered suicide; and 9 percent actually attempted suicide. Regrettably, 80 percent of youth in need of mental health services do not have access in their communities. As a result, educators have been forced to play an outsized role in supporting and responding to students' mental health needs, leading to increased depression and trauma among educators. However, our schools do not have the specialized staff necessary to respond to the increased prevalence and complexity of students' mental health needs. According to a 2019 ACLU study, no state met the student-to-social worker ratio of one social worker to every 250 students, as recommended by the National Association of Social Workers. Furthermore, the national ratio of school psychologists per students during the 2020- 2022 school years was one psychologist per every 1,100 students--more than double the ratio recommended by the National Association of School Psychologists. The rise in mental health challenges is not isolated to students and educators. Nearly half of the U.S. workforce now suffers from mental health issues since the COVID-19 pandemic began. Yet, many workers are denied the mental health and substance abuse disorder benefits they are legally entitled to receive under their employer-sponsored health plan. In a recent report to Congress, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury found widespread violations of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act by group health plans and insurers who are failing to maintain parity between mental health and substance abuse disorder benefits and physical health benefits. Further, the report recommended that Congress enhance the Secretary of Labor's capacity to enforce the parity law, including providing the authority to impose civil monetary penalties for violations. Notably, this same recommendation was made by former President Trump's Commission on Combatting the Opioid Crisis, which was led by then- Governor Chris Christie. In response to these violations and the national mental health crisis, the Chair of the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions, Mr. DeSaulnier, introduced the Mental Health Matters Act, which includes proposals championed by several Committee Members. This legislation: Helps Head Start agencies implement evidence-based interventions to improve the behavioral health of children and staff wellness; Improves trauma-informed services in schools by developing innovative initiatives to link schools and local educational agencies with local trauma-informed support and mental health systems; Requires colleges and universities to accept existing documentation of disability and provide reasonable accommodations so that disabled students can achieve success in higher education; Provides the Department of Labor with enhanced authority to ensure that private, employer-sponsored group health plans and insurers fulfill their responsibility to provide mental health and substance abuse disorder benefits; Strengthens protections to ensure workers receive behavioral health care and other benefits they have earned under their job-based plans; and, finally, Directs the Department of Education to award grants to build a pipeline of school-based mental health services providers and increase the number of mental health professionals serving in elementary and secondary schools in high-need areas. Simply put, the Mental Health Matters Act delivers the resources that students, workers, and families need to improve their well-being. I want to thank the gentleman from California, Mr. DeSaulnier, for championing the bill. I also want to thank those that had sponsored bills that were included in this legislation: the gentle lady from California, Ms. Chu, the gentlelady from Massachusetts, Assistant Speaker Clark, the gentle lady from Connecticut, Ms. Hayes, the gentle lady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney, and the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Norcross, for their leadership in helping to put together this legislation. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the following letters in support. National Education Association, Washington, DC, May 17, 2022. Education and Labor Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Representative: On behalf of our 3 million members and the 50 million students they serve, we urge you to address the pressing need to modernize America's public school facilities and address the mental health crisis among students. Specifically, during the May 18 markup session, we urge you to support the: Reopen and Rebuild America's Schools Act (H.R. 604)--This bill would create a $100 billion grant program and $30 billion tax-credit bond program targeting high-poverty schools whose facilities pose health and safety risks to students and educators. It would also provide the means for such schools to operate safely in accordance with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, including heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. America spends more on public school facilities than any part of our infrastructure except roads and highways, yet many of our 100,000 public school buildings are poorly equipped or in poor physical condition-so poor it undermines student learning. The federal government, however, remains noticeably absent from any meaningful investment in this area. Enhancing Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Through Campus Planning Act (H.R. 5407)--This bill would promote positive mental health among college students and encourage comprehensive planning on college campuses to prevent suicide and other mental health crises. Campus Prevention and Recovery Services for Students Act (H.R. 6493)--This bill would promote evidence-based prevention and intervention strategies on college campuses. It would also encourage integration and collaboration among campus-based health services to address substance use and mental health. Mental Health Matters Act (H.R. 7780)--This bill would promote the use of evidence-based mental health, social- emotional, and behavioral health interventions for young children enrolled in early education programs like Head Start. It would also create a grant program to increase the number of school-based mental health services providers. Please support this vitally important legislation. Sincerely, Marc Egan, Director of Government Relations, National Education Association.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of myself and Ranking Member Virginia Foxx to recognize the retirement of David Lewis and honor his public service to the American people as the Assistant Director in the Office of Congressional Relations at the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). As Chair and Ranking Member of the Committee on Education and Labor, we would like to recognize an outstanding public servant, Mr. Lewis, who has dedicated his career to strengthening accountability within the federal government. Mr. Lewis will retire on September 30, 2022, after a distinguished, 38-year career in public service at the GAO. Mr. Lewis has been an invaluable asset to us, Members of the Committee, and Members across Congress. Mr. Lewis built a considerable body of work in multiple issue areas, but we are most appreciative of the work he helped shepherd for our Committee. Mr. Lewis helped strengthen GAO's relationship with Congress and upheld GAO's values on some of the most sensitive matters facing our nation in a bipartisan manner. As a Legislative Advisor, Mr. Lewis served as a mentor for countless GAO staff at every level of the agency. He provided teams with measured guidance and valuable insight on Congress. He could be relied on to help provide practical, diplomatic solutions. Further, he excelled at helping GAO meet Congress' needs, and helped Congress better utilize GAO's expertise. As a result of Mr. Lewis' efforts, GAO has strengthened relationships with key congressional committees including the House Education and Labor Committee. We commend his long and effective career as a public servant and note that he will be missed by this Committee and many others. Madam Speaker, we join our colleagues and the staff on the Committee on Education and Labor in thanking Mr. Lewis for his service to the American people and wish him well in his retirement.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1361, I call up the bill (S. 1098) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to authorize borrowers to separate joint consolidation loans and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on S. 1098.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the bipartisan, bicameral Joint Consolidation Loan Separation Act, led in the Senate by my colleague from Virginia, Senator Mark Warner, and led in the House by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price). Student loans should provide a pathway to opportunity, not saddle borrowers with a lifetime of burdensome debt, especially if the loans don't even belong to them. Regrettably, many borrowers' financial well-being has been made worse by student loans jointly held by their spouse or former spouse. The Joint Consolidation Loan Separation Act would provide much-needed relief for individuals who previously consolidated their student loans with their spouse. Although Congress eliminated the joint consolidation loan program in 2006, it did not provide a way for borrowers to sever existing loans, even in the event of domestic violence, domestic abuse, or unresponsiveness from a former spouse after a divorce. As a result, according to the most recent data from the Department of Education, there are at least 13,500 borrowers with federally held joint consolidation loans. The Joint Consolidation Loan Separation Act would allow borrowers to submit an application to the Department of Education to split the joint consolidation loan into two separate Federal direct loans. The two new Federal direct loans would be split proportionally based on the original unpaid principal and have the same interest rates as the joint consolidation loan, ensuring borrowers are not saddled with a higher interest rate. Importantly, the bill provides a pathway for an individual to apply to separate a loan from a spouse, a current spouse or former spouse, including in the event of an absentee or unresponsive spouse, for an act of violence or economic abuse. Mr. Speaker, we can all agree that no borrower should be forced to pay a debt that isn't theirs, especially the debt of an abusive former spouse. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), the House sponsor of the legislation.