Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, there are many challenges we have in higher education that demand our attention: the rising costs of higher education, the student debt crisis, the eroded value of the Pell grant, and mental health issues. The list goes on. Instead of addressing these challenges, we are trying to force through a resolution that hurts tens of millions of student borrowers and their families, an average of almost 100,000 in each of our districts. Many of my colleagues on the other side have justified this resolution by arguing that we can't afford it, but it is just a matter of priorities. Congressional Republicans are willing to charge taxpayers more than twice as much for a tax package where 80 percent of the benefits were scheduled to go to the top 1 percent and corporations, but now they are unwilling to invest half that amount to help student borrowers pay for their education. We should be passing proposals that meaningfully support borrowers and make college more affordable for current and future borrowers. The bottom line is that it is our responsibility to strengthen the support for those seeking a college degree because those who want a college degree should be able to access that opportunity. That opportunity should not be reserved for just the wealthy few. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 45, 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 oppose the reckless default on our debt act. Unfortunately, those on the other side of the aisle have taken the full faith and credit of the United States hostage and have offered a terrible deal for the American people. Either they will inflict cruel cuts on vital programs for working families or they will destroy the economy. Earlier this week, as has been pointed out, this plan was evaluated by Moody's Analytics, and they confirmed that almost 800,000 jobs will be lost. When they say the cuts aren't that bad, tell that to 200,000 children who will lose access to Head Start, 100,000 parents who will lose access to childcare, the 26 million students who are in title I schools who will get cuts in funding, or 6.6 million students who will lose money in Pell grants, or the tens of millions who will lose the funding for the student debt relief that has been promised. These spending cuts are necessary, frankly, to pay for the Republican tax cuts that weren't paid for at the time. Eighty percent of the Trump tax cuts were scheduled to go to the top 1 percent and corporations, and now we are going to pay for them with cuts to education, healthcare, veterans' programs, and others. I get tired of being lectured by the Republicans when it comes to fiscal responsibility because we know that every Republican Presidential administration since Nixon has left office with a worse deficit situation than they inherited, and every Democratic administration since Kennedy has left office with a better deficit situation than they inherited. Democrats are ready to act to prevent a devastating economic default, just as we did three times under the Trump administration with little fanfare. President Biden and Democrats have already significantly cut the deficit, and we are willing to do more, but we want to do it in a way that is responsible and helps families. This bill hurts families, and we need to oppose the bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, this bill is a mean-spirited attack on transgender women's and girls' participation in sports. It essentially requires women and girls to prove their gender. In Kansas, where a similar bill was passed, students could be forced to have invasive inspections of their body parts. The bottom line is, we should let parents, doctors, and sports organizations do their jobs to protect student athletes. For example, the NCAA supports a sport-by-sport approach to transgender student participation, and high school leagues are also dealing with the issue. We should focus our time on ensuring that children in America reach their full potential through high-quality public education. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 734.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the South Hampton Roads Bar Association on its 100th Anniversary. The South Hampton Roads Bar Association, initially called the Tidewater Bar Association, was formed in October 1923 to empower African American attorneys in the Hampton Roads region of Virginia. Members of the association promoted the advancement of African Americans in the Commonwealth of Virginia and fought against the unjust practices of segregation and racial discrimination. As one of the oldest African American bar associations in the nation, the South Hampton Roads Bar Association remains active and supports racial equality within the legal community in the Hampton Roads area. It is comprised of members that have distinguished themselves as devoted Commonwealth Attorneys, state and federal judges, members of the Virginia General Assembly and city councils. Through their present work, they are continuing the legacy of the founding members to strive towards racial equality and to build a community focused on opportunities for all. I want to thank Attorney W. Marcus Scriven, the current President of the South Hampton Roads Bar Association, for his leadership and dedication to the organization's mission. I also want to thank all prior presidents and the many African American legal professionals who laid the foundation for this association to thrive for so long. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to congratulate the member of the South Hampton Roads Bar Association on the many hard-fought battles won since their inception 100 years ago and wish them many more years of success.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this is a fairly simple amendment. It would just sabotage public education by transferring money in the public school system to the private school system. It would open up funds to children in public schools to those already in private school. A lot of money would be diverted that way, and it includes homeschooling. Who is going to audit the money that the parents get for homeschooling their children? Furthermore, how are you going to figure out how much money each child gets? Title I is based on a formula that involves poverty. If it is a low- income child, will they get more money to go to a private school than a higher-income person who the formula did not recognize as far as getting money? Those are just complications. Basically, it is a private school voucher program where those already in private school can take public money out of the public system and reduce the amount of money available for public schools. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a well-worn debate. I think people are familiar with what happens when you take public school money and put it into private schools. I thank the gentleman for making the amendment as simple and straightforward as he has. This would decimate rural districts where there are few school options. People in rural districts would take money out of the rural community and plop it into urban areas. I would just like to know how much money a family could get if they took two children out of public school and just kept them at home under the guise of homeschooling? How much money could they get from the public school system to do that? Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, as I said, we don't know how much money a family could get. If they are financially strapped, how much money would they get for pulling their children out of public schools and using the money for the allowable uses, which includes extracurricular activities? That could be a vacation to Disneyland. I don't know what they could use the money for, but they would significantly benefit financially by taking their children out of school. Rural districts will benefit, those already in private school will benefit, and the ones that will be disadvantaged will be the school systems that are struggling to provide an education for low-income students today. Mr. Chair, I hope we defeat the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this would eliminate all of the targeted resources under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act consolidated into one view. If you just take Title I, that money is targeted toward low-income areas. There are targets to rural areas, to migrants. Generally speaking, the mainstream education can be well done with the local and State funding. There are areas where there are troubles, English as a Second Language, migrants, low income, where the Federal Government comes in and targets money because, generally speaking, within the political give-and-take, these are the ones that are left out. Those who are generally left out and supported by ESEA are the exact ones that would be disadvantaged under this. When you fund education with the real estate tax, as we do in the United States today, you almost guarantee inequity in education because the more wealthy areas can do better. ESEA, primarily under Title I, goes into areas that are low income, have less resources, and they can get help from the Federal Government. That would be decimated by this amendment. I would hope we would defeat it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, this would concentrate funding where there are a high concentration of students, not where there is a high concentration of poverty, as the present formula gives. It would remove targeted money for teachers, and, incredibly, it would remove targeted funding for family engagement. I thought that is why we were here. This amendment would remove money targeted for family engagement. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill has a lot of ambiguity about things like what is an injury? What is violent activity? Does there have to be an injury? If there has to be an injury, then a shooting where the bullet misses and there is no injury would not be covered. But somebody pushes somebody and they slip and get a bloody nose, that would be an injury and that would be violent activity. It is very poorly defined. Second is, aware of a video recording. Does that include fellow students' cell phones and other things? Does it include a monitoring of the school system monitoring? It doesn't say anything about numerous rights and laws, rights of privacy, and what to do after you find out, what can you do about it. That is a little unclear. It doesn't say what rights you have to the video or anything like that. I think it causes more questions than answers, and I hope we would defeat the amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, this is another unfunded mandate placed on school systems that they have to do as a condition to receive Title I funds. Then, look at what is involved if the class is eliminated because there is no teacher for that class or no student interest. For example, if no one signs up for a particular foreign language and the course is dropped, we have to now notify all the parents as a condition of getting Title I funds. If the only teacher who taught that language decides to retire and that course is not taught, you have to notify everyone as a condition of getting Title I funds. This amendment does nothing to improve parent engagement. It just adds another Federal law. Along with the bathroom bills that we have heard, attacks on LGBTQ individuals, attacks on trans youth, now we have another report that has to be made. Mr. Chair, I hope we defeat the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. We have heard a lot about people who can't speak at school board meetings because they are being arrested. I reiterate, the only ones being arrested at school board meetings are those the police believe are committing crimes. I would point out that this is another Federal law, along with the bathroom bill that is in the bill that attacks LGBTQ and trans youth, but there is nothing in this amendment to increase parental say over which courses are being offered. Some courses are deleted, like African-American studies and AP African-American studies in Florida. There is no money for new courses. There is no money for school construction in this legislation. There is no after-school program funding. There is no money for teacher salaries. There is no money for counselors or psychologists. It is just a list of things that most parents can do anyway. There is no money for actual parental involvement. Those amendments were defeated. Mr. Chair, I hope that this additional requirement, as a condition of receiving Title I funding, will not be adopted and that the entire bill will be defeated. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5, the politics over parents act. First, let me be clear. House Democrats believe parental engagement is central to student success. Parental engagement in schools is closely linked to better student behavior, higher academic achievement, and enhanced social skills. Unfortunately, the politics over parents act does not take meaningful steps to increase or support parental engagement. In fact, it lists so- called rights and then declares that this allows the parents to control what is taught. Let's be clear: There is nothing in the bill to give parents the right to dictate what their children are taught. Instead, this bill is one of many attempts by Republican politicians to give a vocal minority the power to try to impose their beliefs on all parents and students. This extreme education agenda has real consequences for students and educators. According to PEN America, over 2,500 books were banned in schools during the school year 2021-2022, and nearly 140 additional book bans have taken effect since July 2022. Let me just list some of the books that Republican politicians have gotten banned under the guise of parental rights: ``Diary of a Young Girl,'' the stories of a Holocaust survivor, by Anne Frank; ``The Kite Runner,'' a novel on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, by Khaled Hosseini; ``Beloved,'' a novel about slaves during the Civil War, by Toni Morrison; and on and on. Books like that have been banned because of efforts like what we have before us today. Let's be clear. These books are taught at age-appropriate levels. If you have a problem with it, you should call the librarian. Yet, Republican politicians are actually having them removed from classrooms and school libraries. Simply put, the politics over parents act is an educational gag order across the Nation which will prevent students from learning and prevent teachers from teaching. These efforts seek to score political points and scare parents into thinking that schools do not have their best interests at heart. Instead, we should be talking about the support that schools and families actually need to improve parent-teacher engagement. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the politics over parents act and join House Democrats in an amendment in the nature of a substitute to deliver real solutions to build partnerships between schools and families. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the Democratic leader.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wilson), the ranking member on the Higher Education and Workforce Development Subcommittee.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), the ranking member of the Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction of the bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.