Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have some concern with some of the terms in the amendment, like what constitutes a major cyberattack or who determines whether an attack has been made, or if notice is required if it may have compromised information and exactly what is concerned there. Generally speaking, if information is exposed during a cyberattack, people expect to be notified so that they can take appropriate action to protect themselves. These schools should be no exception. I support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, in the first part of the bill, it says nothing is actually to be construed to oppose any requirements of non-public elementary and secondary schools. I am unaware of anything the bill does to impose requirements on non-public elementary or secondary schools, so it seems to me to be unnecessary. Second, it is the sense of Congress that says local agencies do not have the authority to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over curriculum or program of instruction of non-public elementary and secondary schools. Again, I am unaware of local school boards' authority to exercise such supervision, direction, or control, so that seems also to be unnecessary. I am not sure what the amendment speaks to that is relevant, so I oppose the amendment. Mr. Chair, 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, whenever we encounter an attempt to dismantle the Department of Education, it is clear that we are undermining public education. Yet, even the Founders of our great Nation were committed to education. Moreover, without a Federal role in education, when States were left to their own devices, we lacked a common set of standards for high- quality education, high-quality teachers, and high expectations for student outcomes. Many students were left behind, such as racial minorities, low income, those with disabilities, those with English as a second language. The Federal role in education ensures a level playing field for all of our students and especially provides funding to help the most needy students. Moreover, the Federal role in education is still striving to live up to the promise of Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 decision. In that decision, the Supreme Court said that education is a right, which must be made available to all on equal terms, and further, that racially segregated so-called separate but equal education was inherently unequal. The GAO first revealed in 2016 that public schools, unfortunately, are still segregated--as a matter of fact, more segregated now than the late 1960s. In July 2022, GAO found that more than one in three public K-12 students attend essentially racially segregated schools, so we still have work to do in that area. We still have work to do to fulfill the promise of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. We are not fulfilling that promise. So we still have a lot of work to do on the Federal level. There is a Federal role for education. The Department of Education is working on fulfilling that responsibility. For these reasons, I oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this is not a complicated amendment. It just asks whether you want a Department of Education. I think we should have a Department of Education, therefore, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, 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, parents already have the right to address their local school board. It should be done, unfortunately, within reason, but a reasonable amendment was rejected in committee. You don't need a Federal law to instruct school board members who are elected to be polite to the public. The voters can take care of that. This bill grants a Federal right of action to each and every person who shows up for the school board, no matter how obnoxious, extreme, irrelevant, or repetitive that person may be. This amendment is unnecessary because it doesn't do anything to the underlying bill. The underlying bill gives you that so-called right, but we have heard that some parents have been arrested. As I have said before, they were arrested because the police believed they were committing a crime. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, 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, I am having a little trouble understanding the amendment. As I understand it, a student couldn't participate in a non-curriculum-based activity, event, or initiative unless the parents have affirmatively opted in. Otherwise, the students would be prevented from participating in that event. If that is my understanding, if the parents don't get the paperwork in, the students can't participate in the event. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I am advised that in some Montgomery County, Maryland schools, they have a celebration on Halloween with a costume parade and a Valentine's Day with a class party. If the parents didn't get the paperwork in on time, the children can't participate. I don't know if recess is a non-curriculum-based initiative, but my guess is, until you get your paperwork in, you can't go out and play in recess. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think we understand that now we need a Federal law to determine how schools will handle recess and Halloween or Valentine's Day parties. We need a Federal law to tell them how to handle it. I don't think so. I hope we oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, 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. Speaker, this amendment, you actually would assume that this was part of the bill to begin with. Since it is a bad bill, making sure that this is in it is just another bad idea. For example, it brings in the provision that you have to notify the parents in advance of all the speakers that may be participating, so if you are in a career in technical education and you have a Career Day, you have got to identify all the speakers that are coming to Career Day so the parents--if you can get that list, all of them--they have to be notified. It would limit the use of employers as speakers because you would have to know exactly which one is going to show up, and that would limit the students' ability to learn the high-wage, in-demand jobs available at a Career Day. Basically, this just makes sure that the career and technical education is part of the bill, and insofar it is a bad bill, I would hope the amendment would be rejected. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly not what I said. There is nothing wrong with carpenters or other careers. It said that if you have a Career Day you may not be able to have the Career Day unless you can get all the speakers lined up well in advance and notify all of the parents in advance who they are going to be. If you have a plumbing firm wanting to participate, you have to figure out which plumber is going to actually show up so you can notify the parents of the right one. This adds too much confusion to it. You may not even be able to have a Career Day. To suggest that I am not in favor of career and technical education is ridiculous. If you want a reasonable program, you have to allow for the participation of people to come in and speak, talk about the high-wage, in-demand jobs that are available. Forcing the school to outline each and every speaker, know each and every person that is going to show up at a Career Day, before the Career Day, in time to notify the parents is absurd. Mr. Chairman, 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. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Virginia, the Honorable Jennifer L. McClellan, be permitted to take the oath of office today. Her certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to her election.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the dean of the Virginia congressional delegation, who you see in the well, to introduce and welcome to Congress the newest Representative from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Jennifer McClellan. Representative McClellan was born in Petersburg, Virginia, and is the daughter of educators at Virginia State University, an HBCU in Virginia's Fourth Congressional District, which she now represents. She is a graduate of the University of Richmond and received her law degree from the University of Virginia. A dedicated public servant, Representative McClellan has represented the Richmond area in the House of Delegates and the Senate of Virginia for the last 17 years. Through her time in the Virginia General Assembly, she has been a committed and principled legislator working to expand access to voting rights, reproductive rights, and environmental protections in the Commonwealth of Virginia. She has successfully sponsored more than 350 pieces of legislation during her tenure in the Virginia General Assembly. She lives in Richmond with her husband, David Mills, and their two children, Jackson and Samantha. With her victory in last month's special election, she made history as the first Black woman ever elected to Congress from Virginia. I know she will continue making history with her steadfast commitment to the Fourth Congressional District, fighting for their voices to be heard in this Chamber, and I know she will also carry on the legacy of her predecessor, our dear late friend, the Congressman from the Fourth District, Donald McEachin. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to now yield to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. McClellan).

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.J. Res. 30, a Congressional Review Act joint resolution of disapproval to nullify a popular and sensible rule issued by the Biden-Harris administration last year. 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 fiduciaries 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. Now, to be clear, this rule is not an ESG mandate. Additionally, the rule does not change the fiduciary standard to which professionals who make 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. Let's be clear. Consideration of ESG factors is not at odds with making a profit. In fact, workers' profit is still central, but if a company has negative externalities, such as carbon-intensive business practices, vulnerability to sea level rise, high liability risks, or a record of mistreating workers who may go on strike, its stock could suffer in the long term. Workers often contribute to their retirement for decades before drawing down on their savings, so it makes sense that retirement plan beneficiaries must consider the long-term time horizon when making investment decisions. Finally, there is widespread support for the Biden-Harris administration's rule. Of the comment letters submitted on the proposed rule, 83 percent of the letters submitted by institutions like corporations, financial firms, and labor organizations supported the rule. Over 97 percent of the letters submitted by individuals supported the rule. Simply put, the Biden-Harris rule reflects the best interests of the American people and our economy. We should not get rid of this popular and reasonable rule by this resolution. The rule just simply allows retirement plan fiduciaries to appropriately consider ESG factors. Retirement fiduciaries, not House Republicans, are best positioned and bound by law to make prudent investment decisions on behalf of retirement savers. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.