Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, in that case, the individual child will be identified and will be, essentially, outed, and that is even worse than the underlying language. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Chair, in closing, despite our colleagues' claims, the politics over parents act would only further politicize our children's classrooms while doing nothing to meaningfully improve partnerships between parents and educators. It will lead to censoring books. Last night at the Rules Committee, a significant amount of time was taken to identify books that ought to be banned, and although the bill does not technically, directly censor books, the reporting requirements will allow national groups to find books all over the country that they don't like, and they could threaten each of those schools--wherever they find the book, they can threaten lawsuits unless the book is actually banned. House Democrats tried several times to ensure that this legislation would actually address real challenges facing students, parents, and educators, and increase parental involvement. For example, Democrats offered amendments to prevent this bill from banning books or censoring the curriculum. Moreover, in committee, we offered 25 amendments to actually improve student success, such as improving access to teacher training, fully fund parent engagement centers, and ensure students have access to mental health resources, among others. Unfortunately, they were struck down. Madam Chair, Democrats are dedicated to improving parental engagement and ensuring that every child receives a well-funded and accurate education. This legislation does nothing to achieve that goal and would only advance an extreme education agenda at the expense of students and parents. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 5, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, as with most of the underlying bill, this is yet another unfunded mandate placed on our schools requiring them to issue yet another report as a condition of receiving much-needed title I funds. The majority would prefer to impose additional burdens to already understaffed schools rather than do what they were trained to do, and that is teach and work with parents. I would agree with the gentleman's comments about the need for counselors. He is absolutely right. We need more counselors. However, this amendment does not increase the number of counselors. It just reports the number they have. It doesn't improve students' mental health. So for those reasons, Madam Chair, since it doesn't improve mental health or increase the number of counselors, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, this is another effort to turn classrooms into the epicenter of a culture war. The politics over parents act doesn't do anything to actually help students succeed and seeks to scare parents into thinking that schools do not have their best interests at heart. Children benefit when their parents and teachers work together, but the politics over parents act would not take any meaningful steps to increase that parental cooperation. The bill would create necessary and burdensome reporting requirements on schools. It would divert essential resources and personnel from their jobs, meeting the family's real needs into reporting and everything else in the bill, and it would open the door to dictating what students can and cannot read or learn. The underlying bill distracts from what our public schools really need. Similarly, the manager's amendment does nothing to provide the families with real parental engagement as some of the amendments would have done that were rejected. The bill, for example, gives a so-called Federal right of action to address the school board. We know that many school boards in recent years needed police protection to conduct their meetings because of credible threats of violence. These are elected officials. They don't need a Federal law to instruct them to be polite. The voters can take care of that. There is no right that is being given. We already have the right. Now, one thing that is a little concerning is that I had an amendment to allow this right to take place with reasonable limitations. If 100 people show up at a school board meeting, does the school board have to listen to each and every one as long as they want to speak without any limitation? Each one has a Federal right of action where they can bring a lawsuit to compel the school board to sit up and listen to each and every one without limitation. If they have heard from 10 or 15 or 20 people on one side of the argument or one side of a debate and nobody on the other side, then do they have to listen to the other 80? I don't know. That is what the bill suggests. I don't know any jurisdiction where you don't have the right to address the school board in a reasonable way, and that is what this bill does and that is what the manager's amendment does. Madam Chair, I ask Members to defeat the manager's amendment and the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, did the gentlewoman yield back her time?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, as I said, the NCAA is working on this, and I just assume rather than disparage trans youth, let them work it out. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, all school systems are members of athletic leagues. They are dealing with this controversy. They don't need a Federal law to apply all over the country. In higher education, the NCAA is dealing with this. We don't need a Federal law to tell local school divisions what to do in all cases. Local school divisions are dealing with this. This is controversial, and I think we would do well just to let them work this out. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I don't think we need a Federal law to help schools tell students which bathroom to use. In Loudoun County, that situation is under investigation, including criminal charges. I think it is time we stop disparaging trans youth. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I think the amendment speaks for itself. If a hundred parents show up at a school board meeting, and each demands to be heard for as long as they want to speak, this bill will give them a private right of action in Federal court to enforce their right to speak to the school board. My local school board limits people to 3 minutes. I think that is a reasonable limitation, but when the amendment to allow reasonable limitations was defeated, you have the bill that they have--everybody has a right, each and every one of the hundred people who show up, no matter how repetitive or irrelevant it may be. I think people need to know what is in the amendment and can judge it for themselves. People have said that some parents have been arrested by the police for showing up at the school board. Let me tell you, that can only happen if the police believe that a crime is being committed. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I think I would prefer that we fixed all of the schools so that all students are provided with an opportunity of a high-quality education and a safe and healthy environment. All this amendment does is give people the right to scurry around and try to find the best schools. Those that are the best at identifying the best schools may end up there, but frankly, all this is going to do is cause confusion because when word gets around as to which are the best schools, everybody will want to go to that school. Then what? The majority has offered the amendment in committee to let parents know that if they can work the system, they may get their child into a good school but all the rest end up in a school that is dilapidated, unaccredited, or otherwise undesirable. We need to work to improve all of the schools, not just figure out a scheme where some can figure out how to get their child into a good school and leave everyone else behind. Madam Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I support the amendment because the GAO report will actually expose the legislation for what it is. It is a waste of money, will provide no meaningful rights, and it will adversely affect the education of the children. Madam Chair, I support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the House Republican majority's effort to override President Biden's veto of H.J. Res. 30. This resolution sought to nullify a popular and sensible rule that enabled retirement plan managers to make fully informed investment decisions. I commend the President for his veto. Workers should be able to invest their retirement savings in a way that reflects their values, such as combating climate change, without sacrificing investment returns. That is why the Biden-Harris administration issued a rule to clarify that retirement plan managers may consider the economic effects of climate change and other environmental, social, and governance factors, or ESG factors, when they make investment decisions for participants in retirement plans. Simply put, this rule is not an ESG mandate. It just allows participants to make those decisions. Additionally, the rule does not change the fiduciary standard to which the professionals who make the investment decisions for retirement plans are bound. They must still prioritize the interests of retirement plan participants and cannot sacrifice investment returns to pursue ESG goals. Today's debate is not a referendum on the administration's rule or even ESG in general. We had that debate last month. The debate is about two things. First, it is about arithmetic. As my colleagues know, overriding the President's veto requires support of two-thirds, or 290 Members of the House. H.J. Res. 30 passed the House with 216 votes, nearly all of which came from the Republican Caucus. Anyone who can count knows that the Republican majority will not have the votes to override the President's veto; and everyone should be asking why are we going through the motions. Second, the debate is a window into the Republican majority's agenda. Unfortunately, they would rather spend precious time on the floor on a doomed effort instead of advancing legislation that would help put people over politics. While we are considering the veto override, we could have been considering ensuring women received equal pay for equal work; ending workplace discrimination; strengthening a worker's ability to join a union and negotiate for better working conditions; help people balance work and family by providing paid sick leave and family and medical leave; or raising the minimum wage. House Democrats and the Biden administration are focused on these priorities and remain committed to lowering costs for our constituents, creating better-paying jobs, and making our communities safer. Madam Speaker, before I reserve the balance of my time, I will ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record President Biden's veto message of H.J. Res. 30. It says, in part: ``There is extensive evidence showing that environmental, social, and governance factors can have a material impact on markets, industries, and businesses. But the Republican-led resolution would force retirement managers to ignore these relevant risk factors, disregarding the principles of free markets and jeopardizing the life savings of working families and retirees. In fact, this resolution would prevent retirement plan fiduciaries from taking into account factors, such as the physical risks of climate change and poor corporate governance, that could affect investment returns.'' Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the complete veto message be entered into the Record.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Today, we have heard a lot about ESG and other topics, but nobody made a convincing case that there are the votes to override the President's veto, and that is because a convincing case cannot be made. The Republican majority may think this futile attempt to override the President's veto is an appropriate use of the House's time and resources, but we disagree. The first quarter of this year is nearly over, and there is so much the Republican majority has failed do to improve the lives of Americans. In contrast, under Democratic leadership during the last Congress, the House made significant progress to deliver for the American people. We took action to create millions of jobs, reduce unemployment to near- record lows, to save workers' pensions, to deliver historic funding for education, to improve child nutrition, and to bring the number of uninsured Americans down to the lowest level ever. By that standard, this current majority has a long way to go. However, at the very least, we should agree that we can't afford to waste time on futile efforts that we know won't go anywhere. I urge my colleagues to quickly join me in rejecting the veto override, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment exposes a problem with the underlying bill. You should not be able to ban books for other parents' children. In fact, this amendment exposes the bill as actually doing exactly that. That is why this amendment is appropriate, and I would hope that it would be adopted. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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