Bobby Scott

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 the so-called Lower Health Care Premiums for All Americans Act. This package includes two partisan proposals marked up in the Education and Workforce Committee. First, it recklessly expands association health plans which would allow small employer groups and individuals to join associations to offer health insurance that are subject to fewer regulations than traditional plans in the individual and small group markets. AHPs would make it easier for associations to cherry-pick small employers with younger, mostly male workforces who are healthier and can be charged lower rates. Smaller employers whose workers are older and sicker would remain in the traditional market. Simple arithmetic dictates that if you pull healthy groups out, then all of those left behind will be paying more. Furthermore, these plans, if history is any guide, will show that they are more vulnerable to fraud and insolvency than those in the marketplace. The second proposal is the Self-Insurance Protection Plan which would prohibit the Department of Labor and States from ever regulating stop- loss insurance, inviting nefarious practices that could hurt consumers and employers by creating loopholes for plans that will escape any regulatory oversight. Further, Mr. Speaker, this plan does nothing to extend the ACA enhanced tax credits which are set to expire. Millions of people will see their premiums skyrocket, and millions more won't be able to afford any insurance at all. If we bring up the bipartisan bill, then we could avoid that result. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier), who is the ranking member of the Health Employment Subcommittee.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams), the ranking member of the Higher Education and Workforce Development Subcommittee.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Landsman).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. McClellan).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Grijalva).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Carter).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Underwood).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Dexter).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this bill does nothing to reduce costs for all Americans. By weakening protections, undermining State oversight, and siphoning healthy individuals out of the ACA, this bill will actually increase premiums and reduce oversight and protection for families. We need to extend the 3-year extension for the enhanced tax credits. I oppose the bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 3898, the PERMIT Act, and in opposition to the underlying bill. For the last fifty years, the Clean Water Act has provided the federal government with the means to hold polluters accountable for contaminating our Nation's wetlands, rivers, lakes, and sources of drinking water. The Clean Water Act, in many cases, has been the sole reason why decades of pollution threatening the health of our communities has been reversed and why countless bodies of water throughout the country are now being preserved for future generations. The PERMIT Act will reverse progress and give polluters the ability to, once again, contaminate our waters by minimizing many of the critical protections in the Clean Water Act. This legislation establishes blanket Clean Water Act exemptions for toxic and cancer-causing chemicals stemming from pesticide use, agriculture, and wildfire management. This legislation also shields polluters from liability for pollutants that they do not disclose on their permit applications, even if they know that their operations result in the introduction of these pollutants. In Southeastern Virginia, one of our region's most critical resources is the Chesapeake Bay. The Bay provides our local economy with many opportunities in recreation, business, education, and tourism. Throughout the watershed, the Bay brings in nearly $14.3 billion in annual revenue and supports nearly one million jobs. The federal government and the states in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed recognize that our communities rely on the health of the Bay and signed the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement to regulate pollutants and implement standards like the Total Maximum Daily Load, or TMDL. It is extremely concerning that the PERMIT Act includes language specifically targeting the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement's TMDL by weakening the federal government's role in its implementation. My amendment strikes this language from the bill. The long-standing collaboration between the federal government and the states should not be diminished. I would like to thank the twelve members who cosponsored my amendment to strike this language. Because this amendment is not included and because of the various provisions in the underlying bill that endanger the protection of our Nation's waters, I oppose passage of this legislation.

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 S. 284, the Congressional Award Program Reauthorization Act. Since its inception in 1979, the award program has honored young people for their remarkable achievements through volunteering in their communities, personal development, physical fitness, and exploration. The Congressional Award is a unique initiative, completely voluntary and noncompetitive, allowing young individuals who are ages 13 to 24 to set and achieve personal goals at their own pace. It encourages them to engage with their communities and strive for excellence in all areas of life. By providing this recognition, we give young people the motivation and push they need to realize their potential, reminding them that they are the future of this country. This bill reauthorizes the program through 2029. The award operates solely on private donations overseen by a bipartisan Congressional Award Board, which underscores the collective commitment to fostering the potential of our Nation's youth. At a time when our youth face unprecedented challenges, it is essential that we continue to uplift and recognize their efforts. By supporting the bill, we can take a small step to reaffirm our commitment to supporting the youth, nurturing their potential, and celebrating their achievements. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this bill reauthorizes the Congressional Award program that has been an acknowledgment of achievements by individuals since 1979, recognizing their accomplishments and service within their communities. This is more than just an award. It is about empowering our youth to engage in their communities and realize their full potential. As young people are being tested in today's climate and atmosphere, it is crucial that we uplift them and celebrate their accomplishments. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 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, today, we are considering S. 222, the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025. School meals play a critical role in reducing child hunger and providing children with the healthy food they need in this country. Milk offered as part of these meals can deliver essential nutrients that are central to a child's development. That is why it is important that students be provided with the most nutritional options. Child nutrition standards for school meals, including milk options, are guided by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, DGAs, which are periodically updated based on recommendations from child nutrition experts and public input. The latest DGAs, supported by the American Heart Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, and over a dozen other public health advocate organizations, agree that fat-free and low-fat milk are the healthiest options for children. The DGAs must follow the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee's evidence-based recommendations to maintain current limits on saturated fat, sugars, and sodium. Simply put, nutrition standards must be guided by scientists, not politicians and industry lobbyists. If there is a controversy, that should be debated at meetings of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, not with a group of politicians. S. 222, the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025, disregards evidence-based recommendations by removing the statutory requirement that milk options served must align with the DGAs and exempts the saturated fat found in milk from the total regulatory limits on saturated fat in school meals. This would allow schools participating in the National School Lunch Program to serve dietary options, such as whole milk, that do not align with the current science-based recommendations, which protect children's health. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, the bill should be defeated. I do recognize, however, that there are some improvements to existing law in the bill, including better options for students seeking a non- dairy alternative. Schools will now have an easier process to serve nutritionally equivalent, nondairy beverages, such as soy milk, and provide that they may be served in the regular lunch line. Increasing access to plant-based meals and beverages in the lunchroom is a goal everyone should be able to support. However, this is not enough of an improvement, considering the bill's other shortcomings. Whole milk contains far more saturated fat, cholesterol, and calories than fat-free and low-fat milk. Experts agree that saturated fat from whole milk increases the risk of heart disease, the leading cause of death in this country. In fact, the majority of Americans consume too much saturated fat. More than 80 percent of the U.S. population exceeds the recommended limit. This bill needlessly inserts politics into what should be a science-based process, to the detriment of our children's health. The Trump administration has demonstrated time and time again its disregard for public health and evidence-based interventions, and these revisions to the DGAs in this bill will have the same disregard for following the evidence. However, hopefully, future administrations will recommit to science and the decades of nutritional guidance that ensure children will receive the healthiest meals possible. Mr. Speaker, I am also disappointed by the majority's decision to depart from precedent by moving a limited child nutrition bill outside of a comprehensive child nutrition reauthorization. More to the point, this is the only piece of legislation that our committee has considered this year that amends laws governing child nutrition programs. We have considered no bills that improve access to free school meals; no bills to improve the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, the WIC program; no bills to improve options for summer food programs; no bills to improve the Child and Adult Care Food Program, and no bills to address the need for healthy meals after the school day is over. The majority did, however, choose to advance that big, ugly bill which contains Medicaid and SNAP cuts, which will result in a drastic reduction in the number of students eligible for free school meals. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I oppose the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, as earlier noted, S. 222 does make some improvements to the whole milk debate with its inclusion of better options for students seeking nondairy alternatives. The gentleman from Louisiana spoke to those provisions, and that is something that is supported by our Nation's nutritionists, pediatricians, and scientists. However, I remain disappointed that the bill overall makes school meals less healthy. This bill goes against the dairy industry's stated commitment to ensure that students have access to the healthiest dairy options consistent with the DGAs. The DGAs make clear that fat-free and low-fat milk are the healthiest options for children 2 years and older. Whole milk contains far more saturated fat, cholesterol, and calories than fat-free and low-fat milk. In a nation where the obesity rate among children is over 16 percent and the children are already facing obesity-related challenges such as type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol, and high blood pressure, we should not ignore the stance of dieticians, nutritionists, pediatricians, and the overall science. Mr. Speaker, I am committed to ensuring that students have access to the healthiest dairy options in accordance with science-backed guidelines, but S. 222 contradicts that commitment by interfering with the independent process that aligns child nutrition standards with the latest science. Furthermore, let me just point out that after months of Republican- led political brinksmanship, we are still considering a bill that does nothing meaningful to address childhood obesity, nutrition, or hunger. The bottom line is that Members of Congress should not inject politics into child nutrition standards at the expense of nutritious school meals that our children need. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose S. 222, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for her relentless attention on this issue. First, when we talk about protecting the Department of Education, I think we have to first--when we talk about dismantling the Department of Education, we keep saying we are going to return education to the States. Education never left the States. It has always been with the States. What the Department of Education has done has been civil rights. The Department of Education has nothing to do with curriculum, teacher qualifications, or the courses needed to graduate from high school. All of those are local and State. The Department of Education's Federal interests is civil rights beginning in 1954 when the Supreme Court decreed that we could not maintain so-called separate but equal schools. In Brown v. Board of Education, the court said: ``It is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity . . . is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.'' The court then concluded that segregation of students by race denies the students of a minority race of an equal educational opportunity because separate facilities are inherently unequal. That is what the Supreme Court did in 1954. They didn't tell the State what they would teach. They just said students can't be segregated. In 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act addressed inequality in education. Title I addressed it by putting money into low-income areas. We fund education with the real estate tax, guaranteeing that low-income areas won't be at a disadvantage, so title I comes in with money for low-income areas. Other provisions in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act talk about students with disabilities and making sure students with disabilities have a free and appropriate public education. It also supports those for whom English is a second language. It eliminates racial achievement gaps. That is what the Federal role in education is, not what the courses are. With higher education, Title IX talks about equality of the activities of men and women. We don't tell colleges what to teach, but we just make sure we have Pell grants and student loans so that people can go. When we dismantle the Department of Education, we are not returning anything to the States. We are just eliminating civil rights. It is no surprise that the first victim in the dismantling of the Department has been the Office of Civil Rights. The Office of Civil Rights enforces civil rights. The big, ugly bill that they passed earlier this year cuts back on student loans and Pell grants so fewer students can attend. Other actions have been limiting equal opportunity in education. That is why the dismantling of the Department of Education is so reprehensible. It is not because we are so-called returning anything to the States. It is because we are dismantling civil rights. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for all of her work and for her relentless attention on this issue and making sure people understand what is going on.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to H.R. 1069, the so-called PROTECT Our Kids Act. This bill would add a new stipulation that disqualifies public schools from receiving Federal funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act if the school receives contributions, materials, or other resources from China or an individual or entity acting directly or indirectly on behalf of the Government of the People's Republic of China. The bill gives no guidance on what ``acting directly or indirectly on behalf of'' means or how you are supposed to know and how a parent's contribution to a school program should be evaluated, and really, are you supposed to scrutinize all parents' contributions or just those from parents of Chinese-American students? H.R. 1069 would specifically prohibit Federal funding for any school that operates the program sponsored by the Confucius Institutes or Confucius classrooms. It is worth noting that although there may have been a lot of programs in the past, right now there may be as few as five Confucius Institutes in this country serving K-12 students. The provisions of this bill will have to be administered not by those five school systems, but every school district--15,000 school districts-- will have to administer the provisions of this bill. As written, the bill would create significant administrative burdens to our schools and chill community investment in our children. For example, the bill would disqualify a school from receiving Federal funds by simply accepting donations from a Chinese immigrant if it turns out the immigrant is acting indirectly on behalf of the Government of the People's Republic of China. That is if you can find out. The bill bestows upon the Secretary of Education the sole discretion of deciding if an individual is acting indirectly on behalf of the Chinese Government, the very department which the Trump administration is actively dismantling. Without any additional funding or dedicated help, schools would have to become investigators and determine if an individual who wanted to donate to the school or participate in parents' contributions could possibly be tied to the Chinese Government. The justified fear of losing critical Federal funds would almost assuredly lead schools to eye any well-meaning donations skeptically, sowing distrust in our neighbors. Now note, there is no limit to this level of funding. It doesn't say contributions over $1,000 or over $10,000. It is any contribution. It must be said that there is no credible evidence to support the claims that China is exerting any inappropriate or undue influence over America's K-12 public schools. Even the report from the group Parents Defending Education, which makes these allegations, offers speculation rather than verifiable incidents or actual influence. However, even if we are able to verify that China poses a credible threat to our K-12 schools, this bill, as written, does nothing to actually address any national security threats. Instead, it seeks to punish schools for accepting educational materials or participating in cultural exchange programs. Actually, our schools would be the victims of the undue foreign influence, but instead of deterring the bad actors, the bill seeks to punish the victim and, in effect, punish our students. The bill is, therefore, poorly written, poorly tailored, misdirected, and ultimately counterproductive and not a targeted national security measure. Similar to H.R. 1005 and H.R. 1049, which we considered yesterday, H.R. 1069, if passed, would force school districts already facing shortages of teachers, counselors, and support staff to divert critical time and resources from instruction to completing bureaucratic paperwork. This is the very definition of an unfunded mandate. It imposes obligations on 15,000 school systems without offering any capacity or funding to meet that obligation. Lastly, we have to note that the Trump administration is in the process of trying to abolish the Department of Education, with key responsibilities being shifted to other agencies. We are left with a chaotic patchwork of authority and no one apparently left to actually administer the provisions of this bill. For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I recommend a ``no'' vote on the bill and reserve the balance my time.