Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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 yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2616, the so-called Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act, because the name bears little resemblance to what the bill actually does. What it does is require schools to obtain parental consent before changing a student's gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form or changing a student's sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms, and that is for all students in middle school or elementary school. This bill would prohibit the use of Federal funds to teach so-called gender ideology, whatever that is. Specifically, it bars any discussion of transgender people or topics in the classroom, banning books with transgender characters or that even discuss the existence of transgender people. It is well established in statute that the States and districts determine their curriculum without interference from the Federal Government. This bill takes away State and local control of curriculum in education, the very thing that the current administration claims they are giving back to States by illegally dismantling the Department of Education. Parental involvement is important, and I support that. It works in virtually all cases, but this bill is not about involvement. It is about Federal coercion forcing schools into situations where they may have to disclose sensitive information about a student, even when they know it could put that child's safety at risk. It goes beyond theory. It creates absurd situations. For example, my name is Robert. I go by Bobby. Under this bill, my middle school coach would need parental permission before listing me as Bobby on the sports roster. What if they write ``Rob'' instead? Would they have to go back and get parental consent? This bill fails to clarify key questions, such as whether both parents must be notified and give permission. Who will oversee these requirements if this administration continues illegally dismantling the Department of Education? What it does make clear is that if the school gets it wrong, then they risk losing Federal funding. That is not protecting kids. It won't make trans students disappear. It is just micromanaging schools and wasting everybody's time. This bill does nothing to improve literacy, improve teacher shortages, promote safe learning environments, support student mental health, or otherwise improve education. The bill is unnecessary, overbroad, and potentially harmful. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Grijalva).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Arizona.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Vermont (Ms. Balint).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frost).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter opposing the bill from PFLAG. They say that this harmful bill would strip schools of Federal funds for even acknowledging the existence of transgender people and would make schools less safe for all students by putting barriers between vulnerable students, their teachers, counselors, and other trusted adults. PFLAG National, Washington, DC, May 20, 2026. House Democratic Members C/O: House Democratic Legislative Directors and Education Staff RE Vote NO on H.R. 2616. To whom it may concern: PFLAG National, the nation's largest organization dedicated to supporting, educating, and advocating for LGBTQ+ people and those who love them, urges all Representatives to vote NO on H.R. 2616. This harmful bill would strip schools of federal funds for even acknowledging the existence of transgender people and would make school less safe for all students by putting barriers between vulnerable students, their teachers, counselors and other trusted adults. America is a country of freedom of speech and freedom of ideas. Those freedoms end when politicians start banning books and censoring curriculum simply because some people find them uncomfortable. Children deserve an honest and accurate education that enables them to learn about diverse identities and experiences to help create a better future. A public-school education helps students prepare for their future by encouraging curiosity and critical thinking through math and science, art and music, history and literature. But H.R. 2616 would force schools to purge books from their libraries that merely acknowledge that transgender people exist. It sets a dangerous precedent when politicians simply start censoring school content and books they don't like. The politicians and groups behind these bills want to use our laws to control what students can and cannot read, what they can and cannot learn, and--most troublingly--who they can and cannot be. Our schools should protect all students-- including LGBTQ students--so they can learn and thrive in a safe environment where they can see themselves reflected in the books they read. H.R. 2616 also forces school counselors, teachers, and other staff to out transgender children to their parents, regardless of the child's wishes and well-being. What this bill does is tell every student, LGBTQ+ or not, that they cannot trust the adults at school. Kids who have one trusted adult in their life are more likely to reach out for help when they need it and less likely to engage in harmful or self-harming behaviors. For LGBTQ+ youth, the process of coming out is deeply personal and involves risk--because 4 in 5 LGBTQ+ youth face stigma, discrimination and harm at school and 2 in 5 youth who are homeless are LGBTQ+ kids whose parents rejected them. Having a trained, trusted adult who can help a student navigate the coming out process safely, including helping them develop a safety plan to bring in their parents, is vital to an LGBTQ+ youth's safety. H.R. 2616 yanks their safety net away. Please OPPOSE H.R. 2616 and get back to work ensuring ALL students can get a quality public education. Sincerely, Brian K. Bond, CEO, PFLAG National.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record a letter from Advocates for Trans Equality, which says, in part, the bill would harm transgender and nonbinary students in kindergarten through 8th grade by erecting barriers to best-practice student supports, such as recognizing a student's name, pronouns, and providing access to appropriate sex-based facilities. The bill would also impose broad unconstitutional limits on the speech and academic freedom of students and educators alike, while prohibiting any discussion of ``gender ideology,'' a term coined by anti-trans activists to dehumanize trans people. Advocates for Trans Equality, May 20, 2026. Dear Members of Congress: On behalf of your transgender constituents and their allies, Advocates for Trans Equality urges Members of Congress to vote NO on H.R. 2616. This bill would harm transgender and nonbinary students in grades Kindergarten through 8th grade by erecting barriers to best- practice student supports, such as recognizing a student's name and pronouns and providing access to appropriate sex- based facilities. The bill would also impose broad unconstitutional limits on the speech and academic freedom of students and educators alike by prohibiting any discussion of ``gender ideology,'' a term coined by anti-trans activists to dehumanize trans people. Trans students are being driven out of traditional school settings by pervasive harassment and discrimination. Survey data has found that 71 percent of trans and nonbinary students have felt unsafe at school due to their LGBTQI+ identity and that 7 percent of LGBTQI+ students have changed schools due to concerns about safety and comfort. This bill will make it harder for educators to provide trans students support in the form of respecting a student's pronouns and name, which data shows produces better mental health outcomes for trans youth. Moreover, the bill could force schools to prohibit trans students who cannot obtain parental consent from using the appropriate facilities, exposing transgender students to higher risk of sexual assault. This, in turn, results in a less safe educational environment for all. Trans students must have access to the support and protection necessary for them to enjoy a quality public education. The bill goes further by censoring any discussion of transgender identity at any K-12 school--an unprecedented attack on the free speech and academic freedom of students and educators. No school curriculum can be complete without some acknowledgement of transgender people, who have always been a part of North American history, predating the arrival of European colonists. Transgender children will exist regardless of whether their schools acknowledge them. This bill would further stigmatize and isolate them by all but erasing them from their very own classrooms. This is a patently unconstitutional, un-American restriction of free speech that will profoundly harm vulnerable children if passed. Advocates for Trans Equality urges every Member of Congress to defend civil liberties and the right of every student to a safe learning environment and a quality education by voting NO on H.R. 2616. Sincerely, Advocates for Trans Equality.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, we should be asking who this bill actually helps. It is not needed for most situations where you can involve parents in constructive dialogue about a student, but it does not help students who confide in a trusted teacher because they feel unsafe at home. It does not help educators trying to create a supportive learning environment. It does not help students already stretched thin and trying to meet students' real needs. What it does is impose a rigid Federal mandate that ignores context, disregards student safety, and prioritizes politics over people. We can support parents without putting children at risk. We can respect local control without Federal overreach. We should be focused on legislation that improves students' lives, not bills that create new problems. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my Chief of Staff, David Dailey, who has dedicated his career to serving the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia and this institution with distinction. David is a native of Norfolk, Virginia, and first came to my office as an intern in 2004 while pursuing his bachelor's degree at American University. After quickly proving himself through the quality of his work and his commitment to public service, we asked him to stay on as a Legislative Correspondent. From there, he steadily rose through the ranks, serving as a Legislative Assistant, Senior Legislative Assistant, Legislative Director, and ultimately Chief of Staff, a position he has held since 2017. At one point, I even had him pulling double duty as my Press Secretary. During his tenure as Chief of Staff, David helped lead my office through the unprecedented challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic and provided invaluable counsel during my service as both Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Education and Labor. His energy, attention to detail, and deep understanding of policy were instrumental during some of the most consequential debates before Congress. I have known David through many chapters of his life and career, and I can say with certainty that he is a person of passion, conviction, and integrity. He approaches public service thoughtfully and seriously, with a genuine interest in the law and the policy challenges facing our Nation. On the most complicated issues before this body, I consistently relied on his counsel and expertise. While serving as full time staff in Congress, David also earned his law degree from The Catholic University Columbus School of Law, an accomplishment that reflects both his discipline and determination. Although that legal training proved invaluable in his legislative work, he will now have the opportunity to put it to use in a new chapter of his career as he begins practicing law in the private sector. I know I speak for both past and present members of Team Scott when I say that David will be deeply missed. Our office will not be the same without him. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank David for his 22 years of dedicated service to the House of Representatives, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the Nation. I wish him, his wife, Mary, and their children, Eleanor and Charlie, all the best in this next chapter.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the budget. For years, my Republican colleagues have sanctimoniously spoken about the need to reduce the deficit but continuously vote for spending bills that add trillions of dollars to the Federal deficit. The CBO estimates that last year's big, ugly bill will add $3.4 trillion to the deficit by 2034. This bill is not even serious. They didn't even bring it to committee. They just brought it to the floor. It continues the pattern of Presidential administrations, every Republican administration since Nixon has left for the Democrats a worse deficit than they inherited. By the way, every Democratic administration since Kennedy has left for the Republicans a better deficit than they inherited, all without exceptions. Now they are back here with misguided budget priorities. This does nothing to lower costs and make life better for the American people. It does give $70 billion to ICE after they violated the Constitution, killed Americans, and refused to agree to Democratic demands that they conform to the same standards as other law enforcement officers, like get a warrant before you go into somebody's house, don't use unconstitutional excessive force, don't deport citizens. We should be investing in education, healthcare, childcare, and job creation. This bill doesn't do it, and that is why we ought to vote ``no.''

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate my colleague's interest in ensuring children in childcare have access to healthy and fresh foods whenever possible, this amendment, unfortunately, as written, could wind up doing more harm than good. Childcare has been underfunded for decades, leading to an inadequate supply of programs, high costs to families, and low wages for providers. According to the Department of Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, only 15 percent of federally eligible children currently receive subsidies under the childcare and development fund, and many more don't even qualify for the fund who actually need the assistance. That is why I introduced, with the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Lee) the Childcare for Working Families Act which would make historic investments in childcare to raise the pay and improve access to families. This amendment submitted by the gentlewoman from Washington requires the Secretaries of Health and Human Services and Agriculture to ``update relevant nutrition and food safety and preparation regulations and guidelines'' that are related to nutrition and food safety preparation in childcare facilities. This amendment provides broad discretion for the Secretaries to usurp State and local food safety guidelines. If States don't conform their childcare regulations to whatever the Secretaries deem appropriate, they could lose funding which, as I indicated, is already inadequate. There are no real guardrails to the scope of the changes that the Secretaries could propose under the amendment. States could be punished if they do not adopt the same standards as mandated by the Secretaries. This amendment, therefore, is too broad, allows too much discretion to an administration which has already shown its willingness to cancel or freeze funding for social service programs in Democratic States. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Other than to say that that assumes that the Federal regulations that they come up with will be better than what they have already come up with. This could be worse, could be better. The problem is, if you don't actually comply, you could lose your funding. I think that would be a step backward, so I would hope we would oppose the amendment as it is written. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the assumption is that regulations that these Secretaries will get together and provide will be better than what is already there. We don't know what they are going to come up with. We do know, however, that if the State, if the local people don't comply exactly with those regulations, they are going to lose funding. There is broad discretion on the Secretaries, and as I have said, these Secretaries have been known to cancel programs in Democratic States. I don't think that broad discretion is appropriate. I would hope we would defeat the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4624, the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act. This bill amends the Federal law governing safety, transparency, and integrity in professional boxing, the only professional sport that is federally regulated. The original law regulating boxing was enacted to end corrupt promoters' abilities to corner the market by locking up top talent and requiring any would-be challengers to surrender their promotional rights or agree to new representation chosen by the promoter. Some particularly powerful promoters allegedly even threatened or bribed sanctioning organizations to manipulate their rankings. Thanks to current law, those days are over. As a result of that law, boxers at the top of the sport take home approximately 80 percent of the revenue associated with a match. The bill we are voting on today is the result of bipartisan work that went into improving it. Specifically, Chairman Walberg, Workforce Protections Subcommittee Ranking Member Omar, Representative Stevens, and I came together, identified key issues, and made meaningful fixes to strengthen the legislation. These changes were significant, and the bill we are considering is much better than the version that was introduced. For example, we improved health and safety protections for fighters, particularly when it comes to brain health, which is an important priority, by adding additional neurological testing. The bill now ensures that qualified ringside physicians are available, strengthens emergency preparedness by requiring onsite medical personnel, and expands pre-bout medical testing. We also enhanced boxers' economic security. We increased minimum insurance coverage for injuries, added accidental death coverage, and raised the minimum compensation per round. We also took steps to protect the integrity of the sport. The bill now incorporates consistent antidoping standards, increases drug testing, and begins to address the problem of too many championship titles diluting competition. We added protections for fighters under contract by limiting contract length, ensuring opportunities to compete will be compensated, and giving boxers a fair chance to pursue other opportunities. These practical, bipartisan improvements are a significant win for boxers' health and well-being, as well as their economic futures. As the bill moves forward in the legislative process, the Senate can and should build on the progress we have made in the House and continue to improve this legislation before it becomes law. For example, the Senate could ensure enforceability of the Boxing Act's rights by prohibiting any contract between a boxer and a UBO or boxing service provider, including clauses that bar class action proceedings or mandates to bring disputes to private arbitration. Mr. Speaker, I support the bill and thank the authors, Representative Sharice Davids of Kansas and Brian Jack of Georgia, for their work on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), a senior member of the Committee on Education and Workforce.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. McGarvey).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this bill is far better today because of the bipartisan work that went into it. Together, we have improved safety standards, strengthened financial protections, and added important safeguards for fighters. These changes will help ensure that boxers are better protected both in and out of the ring and that the sport moves forward with greater integrity and accountability. As all the speakers on this side have mentioned, there is more work that could be done to strengthen the bill, especially as it pertains to private right of action and binding arbitration. This bill has come a long way and is significantly improved from its introduced version. I support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.