Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the 100th birthday of Dr. Andrew Billingsley. As the representative of Virginia's 3rd Congressional District, I have the honor of representing Dr. Billingsley's alma mater, Hampton University, known in his time as the Hampton Institute. After serving in the Army during World War II, Dr. Billingsley began his academic journey at Hampton where he served on student council. Ultimately, he transferred to Grinnell College, where he earned his bachelor's degree in political science. He went on to earn master's degrees in social services and sociology from Boston University and the University of Michigan, respectively, and a doctoral degree in social policy and research from Brandeis University in 1964. Dr. Billingsley then brought his expertise to higher education, serving at the University of California, Berkeley, and Howard University, and later as the eighth president of Morgan State University. Over the course of his distinguished career, he authored and co-authored numerous books, research papers, and academic publications. Even after retirement, he continued to mentor and teach, earning many awards and honors in recognition of his contributions. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Billingsley has dedicated his life's work as a sociologist to advocating for Black families. On the occasion of his 100th birthday, it is only fitting that we celebrate his extraordinary legacy and years of service.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let's talk about that Clinton budget. Clinton's budget passed when the deficit was $290 billion. The Republicans fought it tooth and nail, and didn't deliver a single vote on that budget. When it finally got down to about $10 billion, the Republicans jumped on the bandwagon just before it was going to balance, whether they agreed to it or not. They were prancing around like peacocks, like it was their idea all the while. They could get credit for ten of the $290 billion of Clinton's deficit reduction. For years, Republicans have been talking about reducing the deficit and doing nothing about it. If you look at what they did last year, they added trillions of dollars to the debt in that big, ugly bill. In fact, every Republican administration since Nixon has made the deficit worse and delivered a worse deficit to their Democratic successors and every Democrat since Kennedy has produced a better deficit. The reason we have a deficit today is because the Democrats haven't been able to clean up the mess as quick as the Republicans can make it. Now they come up with a so-called balanced budget amendment. It doesn't produce a balanced budget. In fact, it will make it more difficult to produce a balanced budget. It requires a two-thirds vote to pass the budget. Let's get serious. You are not going to balance the budget cold turkey in 1 year without tax increases. We are talking about a two- thirds vote. Which is more likely: Balancing the budget cold turkey or having a two-thirds vote without any limit to how bad the deficit gets? I think people have been around here long enough to know that it is going to be the two-thirds vote, and it is going to be a horrendous deficit. Republicans have used their time to enact massive tax cuts for big corporations and the top 1 percent. They have exploded the deficit in the process. To balance the budget, Congress has to make the tough decisions to actually balance the budget. It is not going to balance itself. Mr. Speaker, this amendment will actually make it more difficult to do, and that is why we need to defeat this amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, as dean of the Virginia congressional delegation and Representative of Norfolk, Virginia, we are gathered here today with my colleagues across the Commonwealth with a heavy heart as we honor the victims of the recent shooting at Old Dominion University. This was an act of terrorism, and like all mass shootings, this has become far too commonplace. On Thursday, as students and faculty gathered for their classes, just like every other day, tragedy struck Old Dominion's campus when a gunman opened fire on Constant Hall, targeting an ROTC class. The gunman took the life of Lieutenant Colonel Brandon Shah and injured two others before he was stopped by a brave group of students. Brandon Shah graduated from ODU in 2007 and returned a few years ago to oversee the Army ROTC Monarch Battalion. As we reflect on his extraordinary life of service, our hearts are with his family and loved ones, as well as the two injured students, and we pray for their swift recovery. Our hearts are also with the entire Old Dominion community. Today, we are all Monarch strong. Mr. Speaker, let us take a moment of silence to mourn the loss and honor the life and service of Lieutenant Colonel Shah and demonstrate support for the entire Old Dominion University community.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6472, which would amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide for in-State tuition rates for certain residents of Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, the American Samoa, and the United States Virgin Islands. I support this initiative in principle because we cannot ignore the needs of these States. However, we also should not ignore that States and public colleges set their own tuition rates based on State budgets and priorities. When this bill was marked up in committee, Democrats proposed an amendment to require the Federal Government to foot the bill for these costs instead of the public colleges themselves. This approach has a similar goal to the District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Grant, the DCTAG program, which provides Federal funding for D.C. residents to help pay the difference between the higher out-of-State tuition and the lower in-State tuition at public universities across the country. The DCTAG program was established because Washington, D.C., does not have an adequate number of public universities. The territories involved in this bill face a similar challenge. Most of the territories do not have a robust public university system that offers a variety of majors for students to choose from. Regrettably, the full committee did not agree to this amendment to provide Federal funding. Mr. Speaker, while I support the bill because we must ensure that all students have access to low-tuition college education, I still have concerns about the funding mechanism. It is the Federal Government's responsibility to bear the cost of this mandate rather than shift it to the States, which are already facing financial strain. Further, while I appreciate my colleagues' interest in expanding college access and affordability for students from these territories, I would be remiss if I overlooked the fact that congressional Republicans made it harder for these same students to afford colleges. That is because of cuts to the Pell Grant Program, changes to loan limits, and elimination of affordable loan repayment plans enacted in their big ugly law. Nevertheless, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, 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 today in support of H.R. 4307, the Enhancing Detection of Human Trafficking Act. This bipartisan bill is led by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg) and the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath). It directs the Secretary of the Department of Labor to develop and implement effective training to ensure that the Department of Labor enforcement personnel continue to be educated on identifying and responding to human trafficking. It also ensures that Department of Labor employees are aware of how to refer potential cases of human trafficking to the Department of Justice and other appropriate authorities. It requires a new annual report to Congress on the Department of Labor's trafficking prevention efforts, which will help guide the committee's future oversight efforts. The Department of Labor's worker protection agencies play an essential role in enforcing Federal labor standards, ensuring workers are paid what they have been promised by their employers, and protecting health and safety in the workplace. Adequate training ensures that investigators are equipped to recognize red flags, such as confiscated identification documents, withheld wages, restricted movements, threats, coercion, and other indicators of forced labor. These efforts should be appropriately funded, and the Department of Labor must continue to play a key role in fighting human trafficking. Wage and Hour investigators are often on the front lines and may be the only Federal officials in a position to encounter workers trapped in exploitative conditions. Unfortunately, President Trump's fiscal 2026 budget request proposed cutting funding for the Wage and Hour Division by nearly 10 percent and reducing staffing by roughly 250 employees for non-H-1B activities. Over the course of the past decade, the number of Wage and Hour staff has fallen from a little over 1,400 in fiscal year 2017 to just under 1,200 in fiscal year `25, an 18 percent decline, even as the Wage and Hour Division has tracked a 150-percent increase in child labor violations over the same period. It is critical to follow up this authorization with additional funding because, without the additional funding, this bill could result in even fewer resources available for the Department to carry out their core missions because it imposes additional burdens on agency staff. Additional funding could allow the Department to continue its core functions and fulfill the responsibilities outlined in the bill. No one should be forced to work under threats, abuse, or intimidation. This legislation recognizes the essential role the Department of Labor and worker protection agencies play in protecting vulnerable workers and holding traffickers accountable. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan proposal, and 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. 6392, the Home School Graduation Recognition Act. The bill reinstates and clarifies present law to make clear that homeschooled students are eligible for Federal student aid so that they can pursue higher education. Under the Higher Education Act, students who complete a home school program recognized under their State's law qualify for title IV aid, including Pell grants and Federal student loans. Each State sets its own requirements for the education of homeschooled students. The HEA confirms that homeschoolers must meet their State's eligibility requirements to receive Federal student aid if educated at home according to those State rules. HEA does allow schools to set their admission standards for students, including those educated at home, but no homeschooled student should be denied Federal higher education assistance just because they do not technically have a regular high school diploma. This bill clarifies that eligibility if they have qualified under their State laws. Mr. Speaker, I do urge my colleagues to support the bill in its efforts to clarify the laws to ensure students access to higher education. Of course, that being said, the bill may clarify some students' right to Federal student aid, but the action does not go far enough to mitigate the damage done since the Trump administration came in about 1 year ago. By illegally dismantling much of the Department of Education, firing critical Federal financial aid staff, and limiting access to Federal aid in the big, ugly law, the Trump administration has only put higher education further out of reach for many. 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, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6392 because the bill makes it clear that homeschooled graduates have access to higher education. By further clarifying the intent of the Higher Education Act, this bill would ensure that students who complete a home school program recognized under their State's law can continue to qualify for title IV aid, including Pell grants and Federal student loans. Fortunately, this bill will help ensure that these students can access an affordable, high-quality degree while this action taken by this body is reducing and denying aid to others. Mr. Speaker, I ask that we pass the bill, and 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 opposition to H.R. 6359, the Pregnant Students' Rights Act. This bill requires schools to provide pregnant students with information about on campus and community resources and accommodations to assist them in carrying a baby to term while they pursue an education. Unfortunately, instead of sharing unbiased and comprehensive information, this bill requires schools to distribute only partial information about a student's rights under Title IX and selective information and resources that solely encourage students to carry a pregnancy to term. It provides no information about rights and accommodations for students who may find themselves in a medical situation that requires an abortion. Now, repeating the idea that comprehensive information must be provided does not make it true. Title IX entitles the students to the information, but this bill only requires some of that information to be provided. Now while the bill's proponents continue to assert that students are unaware of their rights, they provide no justification or evidence that students are any more or less aware of their rights or accommodations specific to carrying a child to term. If we are concerned about students who do not have a full understanding of their rights, then we should provide all of the information necessary to address their concerns. By shielding students from health information, resources, and the rights that are available to them, Republicans are denying them the ability to choose what may be best for them and their families. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath).

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Randall).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I suggest that that big, ugly bill gave tax cuts primarily to the wealthy, but, meanwhile, it cut healthcare, Medicaid, SNAP benefits, and ran up trillions of dollars in additional debt. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from over 50 organizations representing civil rights, labor organizations, youth advocates, women's rights, reproductive rights, and others. January 20, 2026. Hon. Mike Johnson, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Hakeem Jeffries, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries: We, the undersigned organizations, represent a diverse group of advocates and experts dedicated to advancing civil rights protections and institutional resources for pregnant and parenting students. We write to share our opposition to the Pregnant Students' Rights Act--a thinly veiled anti-abortion law which would not address the key barriers to pregnant students' educational attainment, but would instead further shame and stigmatize people for their pregnancy outcomes. This bill that purports to ``protect the rights of pregnant students'' falls far short of the protections that are actually necessary for pregnant and parenting students and their children. More than 3 million undergraduate students in the United States are parents, which is nearly one in five. Despite earning higher GPAs than non-parenting students, parenting college students are less likely to graduate. This is not due to personal failing, but rather a lack of institutional support and recognition of the unique barriers to college completion for parenting students. Pregnant and parenting students often experience feeling disconnected from the larger education community and are not aware of who they can speak to when they experience discrimination because of their pregnancy or parenting status. Students who are pregnant and/or parents deserve to complete their education free from bias and harassment, in environments that support them on their educational journeys. Unfortunately, pregnant and parenting students are routinely stigmatized, discriminated against, and denied the resources, accommodations, and support they need to thrive in their educational institutions. Many pregnant students risk their health or the health of their pregnancies, because they are unaware of their right to accommodations, including leaves of absence, lactation accommodations, academic adjustments-- including virtual learning and extensions on completing assignments--financial aid eligibility, and child care. Ensuring that students are informed about their educational institution's policies that can further their academic achievement while also supporting their health and caregiving needs is an important step in addressing the systemic barriers that can keep pregnant and parenting students from graduating. Unfortunately, the proposed bill would do little to mitigate these harms and instead risks further stigmatizing pregnant and parenting students. The proposed bill relies on anti-abortion language and seeks to limit students' reproductive healthcare decisions. This language is part of a political ploy that the anti-abortion movement hopes to use to further its case for a national abortion ban now that the Supreme Court has overturned the federal constitutional right to abortion care as established in Roe v. Wade. Furthermore, the bill language undermines existing legal protections under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) for pregnant students experiencing a range of outcomes related to their pregnancies. Our belief in personal autonomy and respect for every person's capacity to make their own decisions--including whether to continue their pregnancy or not--is at the core of our work to support pregnant and parenting students. This bill does not contain any meaningful supports that would actually help pregnant and parenting students be able to remain enrolled and meet their educational goals. Such supports are critically needed, and include: Explicit protections under Title IX Nondiscrimination protections at the state and local level Accessible and affordable child care, and increased funding for on-campus child care Access to early education and pre-kindergarten services Transportation access Support for basic needs, including food, housing, clothing, etc. Flexible school attendance policies Lactation accommodations Less stigma and shame around young parenthood Increased accountability measures for institutions who fail to protect pregnant and parenting students Federal funding to support campus Title IX offices' work to prevent and investigate discrimination against pregnant students Mandatory data collection on student parents to help institutions better target supports and meet the unique needs of this population As mentioned above, pregnant and parenting students do face stigma and need adequate resources to combat discrimination. However, the Pregnant Students' Rights Act contains little more than a hollow directive for these students to file complaints with the Department of Education, which the Trump Administration has been systematically decimating since taking office, even promising to dismantle the agency. A series of Executive Orders issued early in 2025 substantially impacted the Department's enforcement of civil rights laws, by prioritizing weaponizing these laws to advance discrimination instead of protecting students, including pregnant and parenting students. Education Secretary Linda McMahon fired nearly half of Department staff--with the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), which is responsible for ensuring schools comply with federal civil rights laws, being particularly impacted. And Secretary McMahon also closed most of OCR's twelve regional offices that have responsibility to investigate alleged violations of civil rights laws. Directing pregnant students to an institution that has been gutted by the current Administration is little more than lip service. There is an alternate path forward. We applaud the bipartisan legislation put forward by Representatives Lucy McBath, Deborah Ross, and Don Bacon: the Understanding Student Parent Outcomes Act of 2025. This bill would make a meaningful difference by allowing essential data collection on the barriers to college graduation for pregnant and parenting students. Legislation like this is necessary to ensure that pregnant and parenting students can complete their education and that they and their families are protected. Although pregnant and parenting students face many roadblocks, they can thrive when their educational institutions listen to them, support them, and prevent discrimination against them, While balancing their health, caregiving responsibilities, and educational goals is challenging, these added responsibilities often renew students' dedication to their studies. While the decision to parent and/or continue pregnancy is a personal one, the barriers that pregnant and parenting students face are not. This proposed bill would reinforce structural and institutional bias and scrutiny of the decisions students make regarding their personal lives. We welcome the opportunity to have an open dialogue with the sponsors of the ``Pregnant Students' Rights Act'' and with any other members of Congress who are ready to be the champion that pregnant and parenting students in our nation need and deserve. Sincerely, Advocates for Youth, AFT, AFL-CIO, All* in Action Fund, American Association of University Women (AAUW), American Atheists, American Civil Liberties Union, American Humanist Association, Center for Reproductive Rights, Clearinghouse on Women's Issues, End Rape On Campus, Equal Rights Advocates, Feminist Majority, Girls for Gender Equity, Guttmacher Institute, Healthy Teen Network, Ibis Reproductive Health, Just Solutions, Justice and Joy National Collaborative, Know Your IX, Legal Momentum, the Women's Legal Defense & Education Fund. MANA, A National Latina Organization, MomsRising, National Council of Jewish Women, National Education Association, National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, National Institute for Reproductive Health, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice, National Network of Abortion Funds, National Organization for Women, National Organization of API Ending Sexual Violence, National Partnership for Women & Families, National Women's Law Center Action Fund, National Women's Political Caucus, New America Higher Education Policy Program, Physicians for Reproductive Health, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Positive Women's Network-USA, Power to Decide, Public Justice, Reproaction. Reproductive Freedom for All, Rocky Mountain Victim Law Center, SIECUS: Sex Ed for Social Change, Stop Sexual Assault in Schools, Tahirih Justice Center, The Pregnant Scholar at WorkLife Law, Transgender Law Center, UltraViolet Action, Union for Reform Judaism, University Survivors Movement, Women Employed, Women of Reform Judaism, Women's Law Project.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, they describe the Pregnant Students' Rights Act as: ``a thinly veiled anti-abortion law which would not address key barriers to pregnant students' educational attainment, but would instead further shame and stigmatize people for their pregnancy outcomes.'' They further say: ``This bill that purports to `protect the rights of pregnant students' falls far short of the protections that are actually necessary for pregnant and parenting students and their children.'' It points out that if you really want to be serious, there are some things that we could actually do to support the students, such as: explicit protections under Title IX; nondiscrimination protections at the State and local level; accessible and affordable childcare; access to early childhood education and pre-kindergarten services; transportation services; and others that would actually make a difference. Mr. Speaker, we have constantly heard that they are providing comprehensive information and not amending Title IX. The fact is that Title IX does have comprehensive rights that are listed under Title IX that are comprehensive. This bill, however, only requires partial information about those rights. When only partial information is given, that could have fatal consequences to women. Tragically, women have died because of anti- abortion legislation that was passed in some States that require women to be close to death before they can have what could have been a safe abortion if performed earlier. If they mistime it and get closer to death than they thought, many have actually died in those circumstances. Legislators voted for those laws. We have to note that we should not allow colleges to withhold information that could save women's lives. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that this bill would not pass under that situation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in closing, since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, State abortion bans have undermined healthcare for pregnant women, causing women to experience life-threatening health conditions and complications, with some women tragically losing their lives because of laws that legislators voted for. Now, House Republicans are going to make things worse by limiting students' access to information about available resources, including information about their right to receive accommodations and protections under Federal civil rights laws available to pregnant or parenting students on college campuses. Women should have access to all relevant information so they can make informed decisions about their futures. By requiring schools to provide only some information that encourages students to carry a pregnancy to term, this bill could unduly endanger students' health by keeping them in the dark about their rights and resources available to them. The supporters keep saying that they are not amending Title IX, which entitles students to all of this information. They keep ignoring the fact that this bill only requires that some, not all, of that important information be provided. Repeating a misrepresentation does not make it true. 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, 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. 2988, the Protecting Prudent Investment of Retirement Savings Act. This bill is premised on the Republicans' mistaken belief that they know best when it comes to investing workers' retirement savings. Under the present law, the retirement plan fiduciary is required to make prudent investment decisions in the best interests of plan participants and beneficiaries. The bill codifies two rules from the first Trump administration that impose first-of-their-kind restrictions on plan fiduciaries' abilities to consider what are called environmental, social, and governance, or ESG, factors when making investment decisions and exercise shareholder rights. The appropriate course of action is to permit fiduciaries to consider ESG factors so long as they don't diminish investment returns. As we know, such factors, whether it be sea level rise or poor corporate governance, are relevant to a company's performance. Considering whether a real estate investment will literally be underwater because of sea level rise is not ideology. It is sensible for plan fiduciaries to be permitted to consider such factors and to be able to adopt them if they don't reduce investment returns. That is precisely what the rule from the Biden administration permitted. Predictably, the Trump administration is walking away from that rule, and now the House is continuing to go in the wrong direction. For example, H.R. 2988 will impose unnecessary barriers to considering things like sea level rise. The supporters are making up some risk, suggesting that some of these funds may be worse than others. I think the studies have shown that they are as good or better, in fact, than others. Meanwhile, the Trump administration appears to be poised to green light what are clearly consensus-held risky investments such as cryptocurrency and put those in retirement plans. That makes no sense at all. Finally, H.R. 2988 would undermine the worthwhile efforts to increase diversity among asset managers. There are about $82 trillion in financial assets in retirement funds. Only 1.4 percent of those assets are managed by women or minority firms. Women and minorities, represented by two-thirds of the population, they are managing 1.4 percent of the assets. Now, apparently that creates a problem, and the problem is: How did they get the 1.4 percent? How did the good old boys lose 1.4 percent? So they are going to change the rules to limit access to women- and minority-owned firms. This bill would needlessly undermine what little progress has been made and actually raise questions about what problem we are trying to solve. We should be trusting our professionals bound by law, not House Republicans to make sound decisions about Americans' retirement savings. For those reasons, I oppose the bill, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Casten).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Magaziner).

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier), who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record links to letters in opposition to H.R. 2988: One led by the Americans for Financial Reform and signed by dozens of organizations representing labor, civil rights, environmental, and other relevant policy issues; another from the AFL- CIO; a letter from SIRES; another letter signed by the National Employment Law Project, the Economic Policy Institute, and the National Partnership for Women and Families; one letter from SEIU; and one letter from the U.S. Sustainable Investment Forum. The link is: https:/ /house.app.box.com/s/xpixugm5qpckl4kxrc4h4u55i3to8roy Mr. Speaker, right now across the country, workers are struggling to pay their bills and meet basic needs, let alone save for retirement. It is incredibly hard for workers to do much on their own for retirement when, according to the Federal Reserve, many would struggle to come up with the money to finance an unexpected $400 expense, such as a car repair or medical bill. That being the case, it should not be controversial for retirement plan professionals to appropriately weigh environmental, social, and governance factors in their clients' best interests. H.R. 2988 would restrict the fiduciary's ability to consider all relevant factors that might affect investment decisions to the detriment of retirees. Of course, it has been pointed out that some ESG funds do better, some do worse, just like all other categories of funds. The committee chair's opening statement suggested that ESG funds don't do as well as the S&P 500. The fact is, most funds don't do as well as the S&P 500 index funds, but the other funds are not restricted. A consideration, not a mandate, of ESG factors ought to be allowed. They said the present law is not neutral. This law is not neutral because if you want to consider environmental possibilities and concerns or governance or other factors like that, extra paperwork is needed, and it is much more difficult to have those considered. Mr. Speaker, the professionals ought to be able to decide what are the best investments for the retirees, not politicians. For that reason, I oppose the bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.