Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, we received a letter, that I read from previously, from the Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Interfaith Alliance, which says, in part, relevant to this provision: ``We oppose the `Equal Campus Access' provision of the bill because it would sanction discrimination by religious student groups at public colleges and universities.'' I would say that the amendment doesn't really cure the problem of the provision in the underlying bill, as I am speaking both against the underlying bill as well as the amendment. ``To ensure that all students can participate, colleges and universities often have nondiscrimination policies, frequently called `accept-all-comers' policies, that require officially recognized student groups to allow any student to join, participate in, and seek leadership in those groups. These policies are important because they prevent student groups from discriminating. And because funding for student groups often comes from mandatory student-activity fees, accept-all-comers' policies also ensure that universities don't subsidize discrimination and guarantee that all students aren't forced to fund a group that would reject them as members. ``The Equal Campus Access provision, however, would prohibit public colleges and universities from enforcing accept-all-comers' policies.'' ``Critically, this provision is not required by the First Amendment. Any student club can become a recognized group and access funds if it adheres to its school's nondiscrimination policy. And if a club decides it wants to impose requirements for membership and leadership that conflict with the school policy, it will not be silenced or driven off campus; instead, it, like any other club, simply will not be eligible for official recognition.'' I would hope that, Mr. Chair, that we would reject the amendment and the underlying bill on this provision because it would allow discrimination in violation of the policies, the accept-all-comers' policies, that many colleges elect to have. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his amendment, which restates what most of us think is present law, that violence is not protected by the First Amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose H.R. 3724, what my Republican colleagues call the End Woke Higher Education Act. H.R. 3724 seeks to circumvent the First Amendment to establish a whole new scheme to regulate speech and association rights on campus outside of established precedents and practices. The First Amendment protects some of our most deeply cherished rights as Americans. Any student currently who believes their First Amendment rights are being violated can bring a Federal case against their public college or university. In doing so, they have over 200 years of precedent and case law that carefully define and determine what those rights are under the First Amendment. This includes precedents that specifically address the unique nature of colleges and universities as public entities that both must uphold constitutional rights and must provide students with safe learning environments. With today's bill, the majority would have us throw out all of the centuries of case law and replace it with a hastily drafted substitute that claims to remove barriers that limit constitutional rights. What the bill actually does is make public colleges and universities, who could be acting in good faith attempting to protect the safety and security of everyone present on their campus, subject to monetary judgments and possible loss of title IV student aid, counter to Supreme Court precedent. In so doing, my colleagues, who purport to favor limited government, are micromanaging how colleges and universities must handle their internal governance processes. Another one of the harmful, misguided policies contained in the bill creates a license for religious student organizations at public institutions to discriminate against LGBTQ+ and other students by allowing these organizations to avoid nondiscrimination requirements that apply to all other student clubs funded by student activity fees. Student groups are an essential part of the college experience, but if this bill becomes law, minority students would be forced to subsidize student groups that discriminate against them. In addition to micromanaging how college campuses dispute the First Amendment cases, this bill would undermine the legitimacy of the college accreditation process. For decades, federally recognized accreditors have served as one-third of the oversight triad of the U.S. higher education system, along with States and the Federal Government. Accreditation is meant to be the gold standard for college quality and performance. After all, accreditation is the gateway to billions of dollars of Federal student aid each year. I recognize that the accreditation systems need improvement, but, unfortunately, H.R. 3724 does not make constructive reforms. Rather, it is a baseless attempt to inject culture wars into an ever-important accreditation process. For example, the ``prohibition on litmus tests'' invites additional Federal oversight into the accreditation process. Under this bill, accreditors may not assess a school's ``commitment to any ideology, belief, or viewpoint.'' The majority complains that this will prevent a school from losing accreditation if they do not have a diversity, equity, and inclusion office. The reality is that there is no evidence that that is happening. There are, conversely, several examples of State officials pressuring schools not to teach certain classes or hold subjects that they believe cross the line between academic pursuit and ideological beliefs. That is why the bill is so dangerous. For example, under this bill, the Department of Education could potentially revoke an accreditor's recognition if that accreditor required science programs to teach evolution. If the accreditor said, no, if it is science, you have got to teach evolution, the Department could potentially revoke the accreditation, suggesting that such standards were an attempt to force a university to commit to a specific partisan, political, or ideological viewpoint or belief. Well, I think if you are going to teach a science course, that the accreditors ought to have the option of requiring the fundamental basis be science. H.R. 3724 represents a solution in search of a problem, fundamentally seeks to undermine students' First Amendment rights and their right to be able to join a student organization free of discrimination, and it undermines our accreditation system. Mr. Chair, I oppose the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman).

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, we have received a letter from the American Council on Education, which says, in part, rather than respecting the First Amendment and what has been done to apply its principles across a wide range of higher education institutions, the provisions of title II of H.R. 3724 would undermine campus efforts to foster free speech and ensure student safety. We are particularly concerned with the impact this legislation would have on campuses' ability to prevent discrimination and hateful incidents at a time of widespread national attention. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter from the American Council on Education. American Council on Education, September 17, 2024. Hon. Mike Johnson, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington DC. Hon. Hakeem Jeffries, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington DC. Dear Speaker Johnson and Minority Leader Jeffries: On behalf of the undersigned higher education associations, we write regarding H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act, which will be considered by the U.S. House of Representatives this week. Title II of H.R. 3724 incorporates the provisions of H.R. 7683, the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act. We opposed the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act during its consideration by the Committee on Education and the Workforce. We now ask you to remove Title II from H.R. 3724 as it would undermine efforts to protect free speech on campus and provide safe learning environments free from discrimination. If Title II is not removed from the underlying bill, we would urge you and your members to oppose the bill if it is considered on the floor. Colleges and universities are strongly committed to fostering open, intellectually engaging debate enriched by a diverse set of voices and perspectives. Freedom of speech, free inquiry, and academic freedom are fundamental to the quest for knowledge and to the educational mission of higher education institutions. Institutions take seriously their obligations to uphold the laws protecting these freedoms, which, for public institutions, include the First Amendment. Consistent with these obligations, institutions must also provide safe learning environments that are free from discrimination and harassment and in compliance with applicable federal and state laws, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Any proposed federal legislation in this area must reflect these twin institutional obligations. Despite Title II's purported aims of ensuring that public institutions uphold First Amendment protections and provide clarity regarding campus speech policies, Title II would instead create new counterproductive federal mandates, undermining the goals it seeks to advance. Title II would impose a rigid, highly prescriptive, and costly regulatory and enforcement framework on nearly 1,900 public colleges and universities. Already subject to the protections afforded by the First Amendment, public institutions would have to implement a new campus-wide compliance scheme on top of existing policies and practices. As an example of the difficult and costly mandates that the legislation would impose, it would require institutions to develop ``objective, content- and view-point neutral and exhaustive standards'' in allocating funds to student organizations, which are extraordinarily varied. This could create a regulatory quagmire. Under Title II's enforcement provisions, failure to comply with even minor reporting or disclosure requirements could result in loss of Title IV funding for an entire award year and often significantly longer. Penalizing students with a loss of financial aid does nothing to further the goals of this legislation and is disproportional to the underlying violation. While the bill exempts private institutions from some of its most onerous requirements, the legislation would nonetheless create a dangerous precedent that encourages further governmental intrusions into matters of academic freedom and institutional autonomy, which would undoubtedly have a chilling effect on private institutions as well. In addition to the needlessly harsh penalty of loss of Title IV aid, the legislation would also spawn costly and time-consuming litigation by creating a new federal cause of action allowing individuals to sue a public institution for damages for any violation of Title II's requirements. Adding this new cause of action on top of existing legal remedies is unnecessary, duplicative, and would harmfully drain institutional resources away from efforts to protect students and campus free speech. Further, the bill would take the unprecedented and troubling step of waiving a public institution's sovereign immunity rights under the 11th Amendment based on its receipt of Title IV funding. Given the recent focus of the Education and the Workforce Committee and other House Committees on incidents of antisemitism and the need for campuses to provide safe, discrimination-free environments for all students, we are mystified by Title II's inclusion of provisions that would tie the hands of campus administrators to address these issues, likely making campuses less safe. For example, the bill would mandate that any publicly accessible area of the campus be designated as a ``public forum,'' open to anyone-- even if they are not a student, staff, or faculty member-- making it more difficult for institutions to secure their campuses against outside agitators like the kind seen in some recent protests over the Israel-Hamas war. Further, Title II would prohibit institutions from factoring in potential student and public reactions when determining security fees for events, limiting their ability to safely manage controversial speakers and events which necessarily entail far greater security costs. Rather than respecting the First Amendment and what has been done to apply its principles across a wide range of higher education institutions, the provisions in Title II of H.R. 3724 would undermine campus efforts to foster free speech and ensure student safety. We are particularly concerned with the impact this legislation would have on campuses' ability to prevent discrimination and hateful incidents at a time of widespread national tension. We urge the House to remove Title II from H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act, or vote against the broader bill if it reaches the floor with Title II included. Sincerely, Ted Mitchell, President. On behalf of: American Association of Community Colleges, American Association of State Colleges and Universities, American Council on Education, Association of American Universities, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we received another letter from the Association of American Universities which says, in part, ``On behalf of America's leading research universities, I urge you to oppose H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act. Title II (`Respecting the First Amendment on Campus') of this misguided legislation would dangerously undermine public universities' ability to implement crucial time, place, and manner policies for campus expression, jeopardizing their ability to protect student safety--particularly for vulnerable groups such as Jewish students--and disrupting the educational environment.'' Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the Association of American Universities. Association of American Universities, Washington, DC, September 16, 2024. Hon. Mike Johnson Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Hakeem Jeffries, House Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington,

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I received another letter from the American Federation of Teachers which says, in part, ``Academic freedom and the right to peacefully protest on our college campuses are hallmarks of a functioning democracy and a thriving economy. Unfortunately, the bill before you today does not respect the vital and dynamic role that higher education plays in promoting knowledge, pluralism, and democracy. The bill would limit the ability of campuses to stand up against hate and bigotry, which runs counter to the very core of higher education's fundamental purpose.''

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, could you advise how much time remains on this side?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Chairman, we also received a letter from the Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Interfaith Alliance that says, in part, that ``we oppose the provision on `political litmus tests' in accreditation, because it is unnecessary and unwise. ``The provision seems aimed, in part, to allow religious colleges to ignore accreditation standards and still maintain accreditation. Current law and regulations, though, already require accreditors to give significant deference to religious schools.'' ``This bill seeks to go further, though, by requiring accrediting agencies to permit religious schools to discriminate against all students and employees. The bill would allow religious schools to require adherence to a statement of faith or religious code of conduct, which could be written so broadly as to allow religious schools to discriminate against people because of sex, disability, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Every single student, employee, and contractor, including janitors, IT administrators, nurses, and more, could face discrimination--and for students, perhaps even on the basis of their parents' relationship or frequency of church attendance. ``Moreover, this goes beyond what title VII allows religious colleges to do in employment. Religious employers may favor religion--and only religion--in their employment practices. Title VII `does not confer upon religious organizations a license to make those [employment] decisions' on the basis of race, national origin, or sex. Decades of case law makes clear that religious employers do not get a license to discriminate on other grounds, even when such discrimination is motivated by religion or carried out under a `code of conduct.' '' Mr. Chairman, what we have heard today from the other side are attempts to micromanage and insert themselves into the colleges and universities under the thin guise of protecting students. In reality, this bill is one of many culture war bills that would strip America's educational institutions of their freedoms to explore the subjects that make up a comprehensive and rigorous academic experience. For a coalition that claims to support limited government, they are using valuable title IV funds as a weapon to beat colleges and universities into submission. This stops us from having the necessary discussions on difficult issues about race, gender, and inequity that would help us improve our higher education system. Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, we must reject the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I think any implication that the right to protest is an act of violence in and of itself would fly in the face of hundreds of years of First Amendment precedent. Those protests which, in fact, are violent are not protected. I am not sure that the amendment is necessary, but I am obviously not opposed to it. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York seeks to add religion to the definition of political tests, which already includes COVID categories of race, color, or national origin. I fear this may cause confusion. As drafted, the language in the underlying bill's definition conforms with classes protected under title VI of the Civil Rights Act which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin in educational programs receiving Federal financial assistance. There were a lot of debates when the law was written as to whether or not to include religion, and just like as it is now, it was not covered in the underlying bill. I think we are going to confuse the matter by trying to stick it in now. Further, while religion is included in title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which covers employment discrimination, title VII protects discrimination also on the basis of sex. Notably, ``sex'' is not included in either definition of the political tests in the bill or by the amendment, which suggests supporters of the bill do not feel that the political tests that discriminate on the basis of sex need to be outlawed. Mr. Chair, I just think that the inclusion of religion here would just confuse the matter of title VI or title VII. You would have another provision here with a cause of action where religion is in some, not in others, and for no apparent good reason other than a last- minute thought. Mr. Chair, I would hope we would not accept the amendment, and 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. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Saints Constantine and Helen Greek Orthodox Church of Newport News, Virginia, on its 75th Anniversary. The church was established in 1949 and moved to its current location in 1982, with a mission to keep, practice, and proclaim the Orthodox Christian Faith. The church facilitates a number of ministries and organizations that offer engaging programs, philanthropic activities, educational initiatives, and community gatherings including the popular Newport News Greek Festival. This also includes the Daughters of Penelope, an organization that encourages civic engagement and offers scholarship opportunities. Importantly, the church has prioritized serving the disadvantaged in our local community through mission and donation, including support for the homeless, Habitat for Humanity, and the Virginia Peninsula Foodbank. I also want to acknowledge the leadership of Father George Chioros. Father George was assigned to the Saints Constantine and Helen Greek Orthodox Church in August of 1999 where he continues to diligently lead the large Orthodox Christian community on the Peninsula. He has actively served the community as a parish priest and as a member of many community boards. He has also participated in many charity organizations throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. Father George and the clergy have continued growing the parish community, and they have enhanced numerous church ministries to address the needs of the Peninsula. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to congratulate Saints Constantine and Helen Greek Orthodox Church on its 75th anniversary and thank its members and leaders for all they have done for our community. I wish them many more years of success.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5339, the so-called Protecting Americans' Investments from Woke Policies Act. This bill packages four separate bills that the Committee on Education and the Workforce reported on party line votes. H.R. 5339 relates to what is known as environmental, social, and governance or ESG investing. Many of us believe that workers should be able to invest in a way that reflects their values, whether combating climate change or promoting health and labor standards, without sacrificing investment returns. To be clear, this kind of investing is not at odds with making a profit. In fact, it makes good financial sense to carefully consider investments that account for a company's exposure to such liabilities as high liability risks, fossil-fuel-dependent business practices, or vulnerability to sea level rise, like whether or not an asset is going to be underwater in 15 years. It would be nice to know that, but you shouldn't be prohibited from even considering it. These are among the factors that could cause a stock to suffer over the long-term horizon. Considering that workers often contribute to their retirement accounts for decades before drawing down their savings, it makes perfectly good sense for those managing the workers' accounts to consider long-term impacts when making investment decisions. ESG investment is a sound, profit-centered, risk mitigation strategy, and the financial services industry recognizes it. For example, State Street Global Advisors, one of the largest asset managers, noted that, as a fiduciary, they have ``a duty to act prudently and in the best interest of our clients, which increasingly includes consideration of environmental, social, and governance factors relevant to the performance of the companies in which our clients invest.'' The Trump administration issued a rule that imposed needless barriers and onerous requirements related to ESG investing. Fortunately, the Biden-Harris administration reversed course and finalized a sensible rule clarifying that a plan's fiduciaries may consider ESG factors when they make decisions for retirement plan participants. Let's be clear, the rule is not a mandate. H.R. 5339 codifies the Trump-era ESG rule. It also codifies the Trump-era rule that would disenfranchise plan fiduciaries from exercising their shareholder rights on behalf of workers. The bill also undermines efforts to increase diversity among asset managers. This is a worthwhile endeavor, as the GAO noted a few years ago that only 1 percent of the $7 trillion in global assets under management are managed by firms owned by women or people of color. There is also research to suggest that nondiverse firms do not outperform diverse firms across all asset classes. In sum, H.R. 5339 takes us backwards and undercuts retirement professionals who are legally bound to make prudent decisions for workers and retirees. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the bill and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate a remarkable individual and a significant milestone. Today, we celebrate Bill Massey, the President & CEO of the Peninsula Agency on Aging, on his 40th anniversary with the organization. For 4 decades, Mr. Massey has shown his commitment and compassion for older adults in Hampton Roads, and his work has empowered both older adults and their caregivers. Mr. Massey has been a cornerstone in the Hampton Roads community, working tirelessly to ensure the Peninsula Agency on Aging fulfills its mission to promote healthy aging by offering a wide range of services to seniors tailored to their specific needs. The Peninsula Agency on Aging offers older generations the opportunity to foster greater independence, security, and an improved quality of life. The organization specifically implements several vital programs authorized under the Older Americans Act--the country's preeminent law that supports our nation's seniors. The Peninsula Agency on Aging also provides seniors with information regarding Medicare and Medicaid, as well as other supports for families and caregivers. In 2022, under his leadership, the Peninsula Agency on Aging served over 10,200 clients and provided 183,000 home delivered meals to senior citizens as well as transportation for non-emergency medical appointments. Simply put, Mr. Massey and his organization have helped Virginians stay healthy and safe. Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate Bill Massey's 40 years of service with the Peninsula Agency on Aging, I want to express my gratitude for all of his hard work and dedication to supporting seniors, understanding the obstacles they face. His dedication has made a lasting impact.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and sacrifice of Mess Attendant 3rd Class David Walker. David Walker was raised in Portsmouth, Virginia, where he attended I.C. Norcom High School, one of the first Black high schools in Virginia. Before graduating, he decided to leave school to join the Navy. At the time, the Navy offered few jobs to African Americans, so Mr. Walker enlisted as a mess attendant. On December 7, 1941, David Walker was serving aboard the USS California at Naval Station Pearl Harbor when the base was attacked by Japanese forces. The USS California sank during the attack, and Mr. Walker sadly perished along with 102 other sailors aboard the ship. The remains of many fallen sailors were identified in the years following the attack, but Mr. Walker's remains were not accounted for at the time and were reburied in the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific in Honolulu, Hawaii. With advances in identification technology, the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency decided in 2018 to exhume unknown remains from the national cemetery in hopes of identifying unaccounted sailors. After nearly 82 years following the attack on Pearl Harbor, David Walker's remains were identified earlier this year and were interred in Arlington National Cemetery on September 5, 2024. Honoring those who have fallen in the line of duty is one of the most sacred responsibilities of our government. Many like David Walker still wait to be identified decades after sacrificing their lives for their country. I want to thank the staff at the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency for their work towards finding David Walker and all other servicemembers still lost. We must continue to support this work, so these fallen Americans may receive the recognition they deserve.