Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy. It notes that ``The outdated regulations in place before this rulemaking did not ensure that financial advisers act in their clients' best interest when giving retirement investment advice. Instead, some firms have incentivized advisers to steer clients into products that have higher fees and lower returns . . .'' Statement of Administration Policy H.J. Res. 88--Disapproval of Department of Labor Rule on Fiduciary Responsibility of Financial Advisers--Rep. Roe, R-TN, and 30 cosponsors The Administration strongly opposes H.J. Res. 88 because the bill would overturn an important Department of Labor final rule critical to protecting Americans' hard-earned savings and preserving their retirement security. The outdated regulations in place before this rulemaking did not ensure that financial advisers act in their clients' best interest when giving retirement investment advice. Instead, some firms have incentivized advisers to steer clients into products that have higher fees and lower returns--costing American families an estimated $17 billion a year. The Department's final rule will ensure that American workers and retirees receive retirement advice in their best interest, better enabling them to protect and grow their savings The final rule reflects extensive feedback from industry, advocates, and Members of Congress, and has been streamlined to reduce the compliance burden and ensure continued access to advice, while maintaining an enforceable best-interest standard that protects consumers. It is essential that these critical protections go into effect. If the President were presented with H.J. Res. 88, he would veto the bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, we have two additional speakers, but they are not here yet. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I include in the Record a letter in opposition to the resolution, in support of the rule, from a long list of consumer organizations, as well as five pages of quotes from industry officials in support of the rule. Save Our Retirement, April 26, 2016. Re Oppose the Resolution to block DOL's final conflict of interest rule. Dear Representative: As organizations that support the Department of Labor's (DoL) rule to update and strengthen protections for retirement savers, we are writing to urge you to oppose H.J. Res 88, the Resolution of Disapproval that would block its implementation. This rule is a tremendous accomplishment in the fight to improve our nation's retirement income security and should be supported. The rule will at long last require all financial professionals who provide retirement investment advice to put their clients' best interests ahead of their own financial interests. By taking this essential step, the rule will help all Americans--many of whom are responsible for making their own decisions about how best to invest their retirement savings--keep more of their hard-earned savings so they can enjoy a more financially secure and independent retirement. In promulgating this rule, the DoL engaged in an open and inclusive process, and the final rule is better as a result. Specifically, the DoL responded to congressional and industry feedback by making significant revisions designed to facilitate implementation and compliance, while minimizing the harmful impact of conflicts of interest on the quality of retirement investment advice. Small account holders and moderate-income retirement savers stand to benefit most from this rule. The academic literature makes clear that it is the less wealthy, frequently financially unsophisticated retirement savers who are most at risk when it comes to investment recommendations that are not in their best interests. Often, those recommendations promote investment products with high costs, substandard features, elevated risks or poor returns. While the financial adviser may make a substantial profit off these recommendations, the retirement saver pays a heavy price for investment advice that is not in his or her best interest, amounting to tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost retirement income. Strengthening the protections for hard-working Americans who try to save for a secure and independent retirement is a key priority for our organizations, and to its credit, the DoL has worked diligently to make important and needed changes to an outdated rule. We urge all Members of Congress to join us in supporting this common sense and long overdue initiative and to reject this effort to block its implementation. Your hardworking constituents deserve no less. Sincerely, AARP, AFL-CIO, Alliance for Retired Americans, American Association for Justice, American Association of University Women (AAUW), American Federation of Government Employees, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Americans for Financial Reform, Association of University Centers on Disabilities, Better Markets, B'nai B'rith International, Center for Economic Justice, Center for Responsible Lending, Committee for the Fiduciary Standard; Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Demos, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), Justice in Aging, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Main Street Alliance, Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO, National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE), National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, National Consumers League; National Council of La Raza, National Women's Law Center, OWL--The Voice of Women 40+, NAACP, National Education Association, Pension Rights Center, Public Citizen, Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association, Rebalance IRA, SAFER UMass Amherst (SAFER: A Committee of Economists and other Experts for Stable, Accountable, Fair and Efficient Financial Reform), Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Social Security Works, United Food and Commercial Workers, United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (USW), U.S. PIRG, Woodstock Institute, Young Invincibles. FINRA: The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the self-regulatory agency overseeing brokerage firms, was one of the most vigorous critics of the Labor Department's proposed fiduciary rule. The group ``filed one of the most pointed comment letters last summer about the proposed rule, which would require advisers to 401(k) and individual retirement accounts to act in the best interests of their clients,'' Investment News' Mark Schoeff Jr. reports. But the final rule gave big concessions to brokers, leading Finra's leader to effectively bless the new rule Friday. The organization's chair and chief executive Richard G. Ketchum told an audience at the Brookings Institution that the final rule is a ``big improvement.'' (Politico) John Thiel, Head of Merrill Lynch Wealth Management: ``We are pleased that Secretary Perez and the Department of Labor staff have worked to address many of the practical concerns raised during the comment period. Most important, we support a consistent, higher standard for all professionals who advise the American people on their investments. As we study the details of the final rule, we hope to continue what has been a constructive dialogue with the Department about how to implement a best interest standard effectively and efficiently for the benefit of our clients, advisors and shareholders.'' (WSJ) TIAA: ``Putting the customer first is a core TIAA value, and we believe adhering to a best interest standard under the Department's new regulation is an important way to help more people build financial well-being. IRAs are a key part of creating retirement security, so we agree with the requirement that distribution advice be subject to the same fiduciary standard as all other investment advice. This will ensure that rollover discussions, including whether to roll over from an employer-sponsored plan to an IRA, are always in employees' and retirees' best interest. Based on our preliminary analysis, it appears the Department has gone a long way toward making the best interest standard the industry standard. TIAA supports this direction, and we look forward to reviewing the full rule.'' (Statement) LPL Financial Holdings Inc., which provides brokerage services to more than 14,000 independent advisers, said it was pleased with the Labor Department's changes to the fiduciary rule. ``In particular, we are encouraged by the increased time frame for implementation, the ability to easily enter into the best interest contract with our existing clients, and the freedom to recommend any assets that are appropriate to help investors save for retirement''. (WSJ) Ray Ferrara, Chairman and CEO, ProVise Management Group: ``It's quite workable,'' says Ferrara, whose practice serves many small businesses and mid-level investors in the retirement space. ``Under the best interest contract exemption, firms and advisors can continue to receive commissions for the sales of financial products and for the advice and services they provide--they just have to make sure that the commissions are reasonable and that their advice is not influenced by the level of compensation they receive.'' (www.provise.com) Jim Weddle, Managing Partner, Edward Jones: ``We've been adapting to new rules forever. The difference this time is that our compliance with the new rule will also grow the public's trust and confidence.'' (Statement) Morgan Stanley: ``Putting clients' interests first is a core value of Morgan Stanley. While it will take some time to analyze all of the rule's details, we have been planning for it since it was initially proposed and have been making investments in the systems and technology that will enable us to offer compliant solutions to clients whose retirement accounts are affected.'' (Investment News) Financial Planning Coalition: ``The Financial Planning Coalition opposes any effort by Congress to thwart the Department of Labor's final fiduciary rule, which reflects extensive public comment and articulates common-sense standards for ensuring financial advice in consumers' best interest. Initial reactions from many financial services firms and professionals--across business models--have been largely supportive and focused on implementation rather than opposition. We strongly urge Congress to step back, respect the comprehensive feedback process, and not to interfere with final implementation of this important rule to benefit millions of American retirement savers.'' (Statement) Financial Engines: ``The new conflict of interest rule is an important step forward in our nation's retirement security and has the potential to positively impact retirement investors, regardless of their wealth or investing experience,'' said Larry Raffone, president and chief executive officer of Financial Engines. ``Financial Engines has always believed that it is not only possible, but absolutely necessary, for retirement advisors to provide un- conflicted advice and guidance to their clients. That's why we've made a point of operating as a fiduciary for our clients since founding 20 years ago.'' (Statement) National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors: ``NAIFA members and others within the insurance and financial services industry worked diligently with the Department of Labor to address many concerns we had with the DOL's draft rule,'' said Jules Gaudreau, president of the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors. ``We appreciate that DOL has accepted many of NAIFA's suggestions and reworked some portions of the rule to address concerns raised during the review process.'' (Statement) The Rebalance IRA Investment Committee (Dr. Charles D. Ellis, Dr. Burton G. Malkiel, Scott Puritz, Managing Director, Mitch Tuchman, Managing Director, and Jay Vivian): As members of the financial advisor community, we are writing to express our appreciation for the leadership and hard work that you have devoted to the fiduciary duty rule just released by the U.S. Department of Labor. This extraordinarily important reform will protect millions of hard working Americans from the conflicts of interest that annually siphon away billions of dollars of hard-earned retirement savings due to inflated commissions and poor returns. (Letter) Karen Barr, CEO, Investment Adviser Association: ``The IAA is pleased to see that the Department of Labor clearly recognizes that many advisers already commit to providing high-quality advice that always puts their client's best interest first. We have long believed that the fiduciary standard should be applied to all financial professionals giving investment advice. Our members, SEC-registered investment advisers, are already held to that standard. The IAA is also pleased to see that--based on preliminary information--the DOL appears to have taken many of our most significant concerns with the proposal into account. For example, the IAA and others commented that the proposal appeared to favor low-fee and low-cost--typically passively managed--investments over all else, ignoring returns, quality, and other factors that may be important to investors. The DOL expressly acknowledges that it did not adopt the low-fee streamlined option considered in the proposal because of that concern, and further clarified that the adviser is not required to recommend the lowest fee option if another investment is better for the client. These are welcome changes. We also welcome the DOL's clarifications on the timing of fiduciary status, as it appears that the final rule makes it clear that ``hire me'' discussions that do not include investment recommendations are not fiduciary recommendations.'' (Statement) Jon Stein, CEO, Betterment: ``We support this rule for a lot of reasons. We've actually been engaged and involved with the Department of Labor and the OMB for a while supporting this rule,'' Stein told CNBC's ``Closing Bell.'' ``It's an unambiguous public good. This is one of the most exciting things to happen for investors in 40 years.'' (Business Insider) Triad Advisors: ``We're in the process of reviewing the details of this recently finalized rule, but one thing is clear: Delivering maximum choice and flexibility in business and compensation models to independent advisors is more crucial than ever before. We're confident that our firm's focus since we were founded on supporting hybrid advisors uniquely positions Triad Advisors to best serve the evolving needs of independent advisors in this new regulatory landscape. We're also encouraged on a preliminary basis with modifications from previous versions of the rule in its final version, which seem to reflect the willingness of the DOL to listen to our industry and the investing public on a range of key issues.'' (Statement) Legg Mason: Jeff Masom, co-head of sales for asset manager Legg Mason Inc. said the Labor Department had ``certainly made a lot of concessions'' including giving firms more time to comply and grandfathering in existing investments. While the rule is likely to require ``a lot of time and expense'' from intermediaries, Mr. Masom said Legg Mason is optimistic about the impact of the rule on its business. He said the firm benefits from not offering retirement plan record- keeping services and being a ``pure'' investment manager with a mix of products, some of which are low-cost. ``Competing with passive has always been on the table. Active managers always has to justify their fees. Nothing has changed on that front,'' Mr. Masom said. (WSJ) Cetera Financial Group: ``Cetera has been aware of the broad brush strokes of the DOL rule for some time now, and we have been actively positioning our advisors to transition this situation from an obstacle to an opportunity. We have been utilizing our industry-leading scale and resources to develop multiple new tools and platforms to prepare our advisors for how to best operate their businesses and enjoy continued success in this new regulatory environment. Preliminarily, it appears the rule includes modifications that indicate the DOL has considered some of the industry's concerns. However, we will be studying the newly released details of the final rule in the coming days, and from there, we will announce a number of our initiatives to support advisors in this area in the coming weeks.'' (Statement) Jason C. Roberts, CEO, Pension Resource Institute, and Partner, Retirement Law Group: ``Based upon our initial review, we believe that many of the challenges in the proposal have been modified to be more workable. We are sifting through the details but are generally encouraged-- particularly with the lower bar for fee-based IRA rollovers and the extended timeline for implementation. We will be begin updating PRI's member firms next week and start developing the required forms, agreements, disclosures, policies and training in the coming months.'' (Investment News) Morningstar: Scott Cooley, direct of policy research at investment-research and investment-management firm Morningstar Inc., said: ``One of my fears was that people who had already had paid a commission on their retirement accounts would be moved into fee-based accounts and then have to pay 1% of assets a year after they had already paid a commission.'' But the DOL has ``indicated that it would have to be in the best interest of the client to shift them to a fee-based account from a commission-based account. That's unambiguously pro-consumer.'' Mr. Cooley also said that because the final rule incorporates the financial-services industry's comments, ``It will be harder for people in the industry to argue that the DOL didn't take their feedback into account. I suspect the DOL drafted this with an eye towards potential court challenges.'' (WSJ) Evensky & Katz: Harold Evensky, chairman of financial- advisory firm Evensky & Katz who champions the fee-only, fiduciary approach to financial advice and planning and who has long supported the rule, said: ``The DOL has indeed taken a major step toward a more secure and dignified retirement for millions of Americans. In addition, the DOL has obviously carefully listened and responded to the concerns raised by many financial service participants regarding the original proposal including easing the compliance process but maintaining a strong, legally enforceable best interest standard.'' He added: ``At this stage it seems that the Department of Labor's years of effort will be a major win for investors.'' (WSJ) RBC Capital Markets: In an unexpected positive change for the industry, RBC Capital Markets said in a research note, the requirement that financial advisers enter into a separate fiduciary contract with customers when dealing in the retirement area got scrapped. Another positive: The Labor Department expanded the universe of 401(k) and other retirement plans that would be exempt from the new rule. The draft proposal would have covered plans under $100 million in assets, while the final rule drops that threshold to $50 million. RBC said annuity companies including Lincoln, MetLife and Prudential ``would still see a negative hit to variable annuity sales--although the impact would likely be slightly less than if the draft had been left unchanged.'' (WSJ) UBS Group: Scaling back aspects of the rule will likely boost the stocks of the very firms most affected by the tighter restrictions, a team of researchers at UBS Group AG said in a research note. ``While the thrust of the rule remains unchanged and we still see longer-term headwinds, we believe the rule's softening could provide a relief rally in many of the most impacted stocks including asset managers, life insurers and [independent broker-dealers],'' the UBS researchers wrote. They based their analysis on a fact-sheet distributed by the Obama administration. (WSJ) Bob Gerstemeier, President, Gerstemeier Financial Group: ``The responsibility of putting my clients' interests first will have little impact to the way I operate,'' he says. ``Ultimately, I think the new regulations requiring advisors to make more disclosures and put clients' interests first will not only make our profession better, it will ensure that more Americans receive competent, trusted and appropriate advice.'' (www.provise.com) Guild Investment Management ``At Guild, which is an SEC- registered investment advisor, we have adhered to fiduciary standards for our entire life as a firm (more than four decades), and we certainly welcome the expansion of these standards, which we view as simple and fair common sense.'' (www.equities.com) Rob Foregger, Co-founder, NextCapital: Rob Foregger, co- founder of Next Capital, says the Labor Department ``made very sensible amendments to the proposed rule. The final result strikes the right balance.'' ``The new DoL fiduciary rule is a major step forward for the modernization of the $17 trillion retirement industry--and perhaps the largest overhaul to the investment management industry in nearly three decades,'' he added. ``The DoL went to great lengths to integrate the productive feedback from the financial industry, while ensuring that a true fiduciary standard of care was enacted.'' (www.nasdaq.com) United Capital: The Labor Department's fiduciary rule is an important step in providing more disclosure to investors, but ``this should really be viewed as a step one,'' says Terry Siman, a lawyer and a managing director with wealth- management firm United Capital Financial Advisers LLC who has supported the rule. ``It takes a long time to make the cultural shifts'' of moving the industry toward providing greater transparency, he said. Mr. Siman added the new rule would give retirement savers a boost by putting their interests ahead of advisers, while also empowering them to ask for more information around costs and conflicts of interest. ``The consumer ultimately will benefit, it's just going to be first and foremost the responsible consumers who know'' to ask their advisers for that additional information,'' said Mr. Siman. (WSJ) Andrei Cherny, CEO, Aspiration: ``I've seen first-hand that the wheels of government can move slowly--especially when there are thousands of lobbyists and many millions in campaign contributions working against progress. But the new fiduciary role from the Department of Labor is a big step in the right direction. The financial industry is one of the least trusted in America--for some very good reasons. Too often, conflicts of interest lead to a `heads I win, tails you lose' game where people's very livelihoods are on the line.'' (Statement) Wells Fargo: ``Wells Fargo has been an active advocate for our clients and financial advisors during the DOL's rule- making process. We have a robust plan in place for reviewing the final rule, which we hope will reflect the suggestions that we and others have offered in order to avoid unintended negative impacts on investors. Wells Fargo has long supported a best interest standard and believes that professional financial advisors have a crucial role to play in encouraging retirement saving and investing. As one of the largest and strongest financial services companies, we enjoy a distinct advantage in our ability to adapt to this change.'' (Investment News)

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, there are two points that I would like to make. One is that when all you can complain about is the size of the bill, you know you have a very weak argument. Second, they mentioned the United Kingdom. As I understand the United Kingdom plan, they banned commissions, so it is not the same thing. This rule will allow commissions if those commissions are in the best interests of the consumer. Mr. Speaker, last week the Committee on Education and the Workforce hastily marked up this joint resolution only 48 hours after it was introduced. This week the House majority has rushed it to the floor for a vote, only 21 days after the rule was published. According to the Congressional Research Service, that is one-fifth of the average time between the time a final rule is issued or published and when the CRA vote occurs. If anyone has concerns about the rule, those concerns can be addressed to the Department of Labor, and the Department can issue clarifications and guidance. But instead of reserving judgment and seeking clarification, this resolution is offered and would have the effect of not only rejecting this rule, but any similar rule in the foreseeable future. This joint resolution may pass the House today and may pass the Senate next month, but the President will veto it. There are not the votes to override the veto, so that is simple arithmetic. We are just wasting our time. Instead of wasting time on this sure-to-be-vetoed joint resolution, the House should be helping working people make ends meet and better provide a future for their children and grandchildren. We should be taking up legislation that would boost workers' wages, help workers achieve a better balance between work and family, level the playing field by strengthening protections from discrimination so everyone has a fair shot, and strengthening workers' ability to have a safe and secure retirement. All of that will be the focus of House Democrats. For now, I urge my colleagues to protect workers' hard-earned retirement funds by voting ``no'' on this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Takano. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on the committee. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), the leader of the Democratic Whip's Task Force on Poverty, Income Inequality, and Opportunity.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ms. Lee for all of her hard work on the task force. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas), a Member who has been fighting for children as a member of the State legislature, a member of the Los Angeles City Council, and now is a Member of Congress.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, more than 60 years ago, Congress responded to the Defense Department's concern that so many children were malnourished, they would be unfit for military service, that they passed the National School Lunch Act as a measure of national security to safeguard the health and well-being of our Nation's children. Through the enactment of the first Federal child nutrition program, Congress recognized that feeding hungry children is not just a moral imperative, it is vital to the health and security of our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I serve as the ranking member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. Our committee is tasked with making sure that all children have an equal shot at success, so it is only fitting that child nutrition programs fall within our committee's jurisdiction. Just as there is a Federal role in ensuring that all children have access to quality education, regardless of where they live, what they look like, or their family's income, there is also a Federal role in ensuring that every child has access to healthy and nutritious food. Research has repeatedly shown us that a lack of adequate consumption of specific foods, especially fruits and vegetables, is associated with lower grades among students; and child obesity affects all aspects of a child's life, from their physical well-being to their academic success and self-confidence. So we have a choice to make. We can put money into these programs now and support healthy eating in schools, or we can cut corners and spend more money down the road on chronic diseases and other social services, putting the well-being of our children and our Nation's future at risk. Either way, we will spend the money. In fact, researchers estimate that $19,000 was the incremental lifetime medical costs of an obese child relative to a normal weight child who maintains that normal weight throughout adulthood. So it is important to keep this tradeoff in mind as we talk about reauthorization of child nutrition programs. The hallmark of a good reauthorization is that it makes progress; it moves us forward; it builds on what works and improves on what needs to be improved. So with this in mind, Democrats are ready to make improvements to the child nutrition programs and to protect the progress that has been made. For example, we have made progress in creating a healthier school environment for students. The nutrition standards enacted after the 2010 bipartisan reauthorization are working. Around 99 percent of all schools are meeting the standards. Kids are eating better foods. Studies show that kids are eating up to 16 percent more vegetables and 23 percent more fruit at lunch. Now, unfortunately, many are now advocating that we roll back the standards, and the Republican draft bill released last week makes numerous steps backwards by making less nutritious foods available in schools. Another example of progress is the community eligibility provision. Enacted in the 2010 reauthorization, the community eligibility provision, or CEP, allows schools to provide free nutritious meals to all students without using the paper applications when a large portion of the students are deemed eligible because they are already receiving certain social benefits. Schools love this, teachers love this, families love it, and kids love it. So why go backwards? Again, unfortunately, the Republican bill does just that by making it harder for schools to use CEP, kicking thousands of schools out of CEP and back into the individualized paper application process. So we are talking about a hugely popular option for schools that improves the health of children, makes everyone's job easier. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And if it ain't broke, you shouldn't make a special effort to try to break it. Our work on reauthorization of our school nutrition programs represents a great opportunity to continue to change the way children eat, to expand their access to nutritious meals, and to end the child hunger crisis in our Nation. So we should ask ourselves if these are goals that we are willing to compromise or whether we will continue on that path that has resulted in healthier schools and communities. The success of these programs are too many to mention, but it is my hope that we will continue to build on our success and invest in the future of our country. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from Ohio (Ms. Fudge), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revised and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier), a hardworking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), a strong child advocate.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentlewoman. The gentlewoman is absolutely right. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), who is one of our strongest advocates for ending hunger in America.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for all of his advocacy on ending hunger. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), an effective member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Cardenas very much for his hard work, too. Mr. Speaker, reauthorization is an opportunity to improve legislation. Unfortunately, the pending Republican bill reduces nutrition standards and kicks kids off the school meal programs. Instead, we should be improving the program and expanding the child nutrition and the school lunch programs. I thank my colleagues for saying why this is so important. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor St. Mark's Episcopal Church in Richmond, Virginia on its 150th anniversary. Founded in 1866, St. Mark's was originally a mission church of St. James and the congregation grew rapidly. After outgrowing three buildings in their first 50 years, church leaders moved the congregation to a new building in the West End of Richmond. The Georgian Revival style building opened in 1922, was consecrated in 1946, and is still in use today. Under the leadership of Rev. Edward Meeks ``Pope'' Gregory, St. Mark's was the first Episcopal church in Richmond to integrate its parish in 1967. Rev. Gregory invited the members of the Osgood Memorial Episcopal Church, to join St. Mark's congregation after they were displaced by the building of the downtown expressway. Over the last 150 years, St. Mark's has continued to be a leader in the Richmond community. In the 1980s, the church offered compassionate responses and funeral services to victims of HIV/AIDS, as well as starting the Richmond AIDS Ministry. More recently, St. Mark's has proudly performed wedding ceremonies for all couples. Today, St. Mark's hosts fundraisers for the Fan Free Clinic, provides cooling centers in the summer months, serves as a food pantry twice a month, provides school supplies to a nearby school, and is continuously involved with the Richmond community. Additionally, this summer, in honor of their 150th anniversary, St. Mark's will re-launch a neighborhood summer reading program for elementary school students. Mr. Speaker, as St. Mark's Episcopal Church celebrates this historic anniversary, the congregation can rejoice in 150 years of fellowship. I wish them many more years of dedicated service to the Richmond community.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for getting the title of our State correct. I thank the gentleman from New York and the gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding and organizing tonight's Special Order. Last week, the House of Representatives failed to pass a budget by the statutorily mandated date of April 15. This failure is unfortunate for our budget process, but perhaps not unfortunate for the American people because no budget is better than the proposed Republican budget that would have been brought to the floor. Our Nation's budget reflects priorities, but the Republican budget only highlights the wrong priorities. The budget the House Republicans wanted to bring to the floor would be even more devastating to students, working families, and seniors than their previous proposals. The Republican budget would end the Medicare guarantee for seniors by converting Medicare into a voucher payment that would not keep pace with medical inflation, shifting billions of dollars in medical costs onto our senior citizens. The Republican budget would repeal the Affordable Care Act and would jeopardize the health insurance for millions of Americans, even though the budget assumes all of the revenue collected by the Affordable Care Act to pay for the Affordable Care Act, all of those taxes remain in the budget. The Republican budget includes a total of $6.5 trillion in spending cuts, largely unspecified. If this level of cuts were ever made, it would devastate our investments and jobs, education, research, and would essentially eliminate any new transportation projects. On top of these devastating cuts to vital programs that support and uplift hardworking American families, the Republican budget calls for trillions of dollars in tax cuts that would primarily benefit millionaires and billionaires, and then they claim the tax cuts would be revenue neutral, suggesting that we are to believe that trillions of dollars in new taxes would be imposed to pay for those tax cuts for the wealthy. But despite this, the Republican budget is not a credible plan. Are we really going to dismantle Medicare? Are we really going to cut hundreds of billions of dollars out of education and job training and transportation? Are we really going to raise trillions of dollars in new taxes to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy? I don't think so. But the House leadership couldn't even secure enough votes for this budget proposal because a faction of their conference wanted even deeper, unrealistic spending cuts. Budgeting is about making tough choices, and the only choice the Republicans seem to have made with the budget proposal is that we can only balance the budget on the backs of students, workers, seniors, the disabled, and vulnerable communities across the Nation while cutting taxes for the wealthy. The Congressional Black Caucus knows that is not the right choice. That is why, as we have done for the last 30 years, we have diligently prepared our own budget alternative to the Republican budget, which we would have offered as an amendment to the Republican budget if they had brought up their proposal. The CBC budget chooses to invest in programs that we know will grow our economy and ensure that every American family is able to prosper. Our budget proposes a comprehensive jobs program, totaling $500 billion over 3 years that will accelerate our economic recovery and ensure that it reaches virtually every community in America while also investing in what will guarantee America's long-term economic competitiveness. This jobs plan includes funding for direct jobs creation programs, school modernization, jobs for teachers and first responders, immediate investments in our Nation's crumbling infrastructure, assistance for neighborhoods and families still reeling from the housing crisis, job training programs, and summer jobs. Our budget calls for significant and sustained investments-- approximately $300 billion over the next decade--above the President's request for programs that have been instrumental in lifting millions of Americans out of poverty. Some of these proposals include restoration of cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, expanding access to affordable housing, increasing access to quality and affordable education, increasing funding for job training and Trade Adjustment Assistance, adjusting the earned income tax credit and child tax credit to inflation, as well as decreasing the age where you can benefit for the earned income tax credit down to 21 years of age. Thanks to the leadership of Congressman Jim Clyburn, our budget also ensures that Federal resources are targeted more efficiently toward eradicating poverty by targeting Federal spending toward persistent areas of poverty through the 10-20-30 formula. Our budget also includes more than $340 billion above the President's request for education over the next decade. This additional money will help make college more affordable by increasing the Pell grant, fully funding the President's free community college program, reducing interest rates on student loans, and financing other proposals to ensure that no student graduates from college saddled with unmanageable debt. The CBC budget also provides much-needed funding for families of Flint, Michigan, to help address the short-term and long-term cognitive and behavioral development of children exposed to high lead levels. However, the Congressional Black Caucus appreciates, unfortunately, that Flint is not the only community in America impacted by lead exposure. This is why our budget includes funds to help not only Flint, but also other communities across the Nation deal with the effects of lead exposure. Unlike the Republican budget, the CBC budget clearly shows how we pay for these additional investments. Our budget sets a new revenue target of $4 trillion over the next 10 years above the current revenue baseline. To demonstrate how this is achievable and realistic, our budget suggests several specific alternatives, totaling $7 trillion, that the House and Senate committees can choose from to reach that target. We ask for $4 trillion in new additional and specifically outline at least $7 trillion to choose from. We do this by specifically talking about closing specific corporate loopholes, treating capital gains and dividends as regular income, a reasonable fee for financial transactions, restoring the estate tax to levels paid over a few years ago, specific items where you can choose from and, in fact, if we just cancel the Bush-era tax cuts, we would have almost $4 trillion in new revenue right there. At the end of the day, our budget realistically reduces the deficit by approximately $3.2 trillion over the next decade compared to the Congressional Budget Office's March 2016 baseline. The CBC budget chooses investments in America's children and workers, protects our most vulnerable communities, and changes the wrong choices offered by the Republican majority. I hope that we will have an opportunity to debate these issues if the House Republicans are ever able to bring their road-to-ruin budget to a full House vote. Again, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. That is correct. If you look at that, those counties and areas are spread all over the country, and if we are ever going to eradicate poverty, we have to target it to the high poverty areas, and 10-20-30 does exactly that.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. That is exactly true. I thank the gentleman very much for pointing that out.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation today, which provides for a 3-year reauthorization of the Older Americans Act. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Education and the Workforce has been committed to seeing this legislation through. I want to particularly thank, on our side, the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Hinojosa, and Representative Bonamici. I want to thank them and Chairman Kline, Representative Curbelo, and all of the members of our committee, for making the passage of this bill a reality. As ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I have the privilege of working on legislation that affects Americans throughout their lives, from childhood into advanced age. The Older Americans Act was first passed 50 years ago as part of President Johnson's War on Poverty to help older Americans live in dignity and stay connected to their communities by receiving essential social and nutrition services. Today, the commitment to our Nation's seniors is more important than ever. One in 10 Americans over the age of 65 lives in poverty, and older Americans are also working longer--some because they want to but many because they have to so that they can secure their financial futures in the face of retirement insecurity. The spectrum of services provided through the Older Americans Act, in conjunction with Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, ensures that our Nation's older Americans are not left behind in their golden years. The Pew Research Center reports that the elderly population is expected to double by 2015, and without meaningful investments in services for our seniors, too many Americans who have worked hard all of their lives will be left struggling in their later years. Unfortunately, since 2009, the Older Americans Act's funding has actually dropped. Failing to invest in the Older Americans Act is bad for seniors, and it is bad for our country. Providing our seniors with health services, nutrition, and the supportive services they need makes them less likely to suffer illness or injury, less likely to incur expensive hospital visits, and more likely to live independently. These investments bring dignity to the lives of our seniors, and they, ultimately, will result in a significant savings to taxpayers. I am proud that we were able to agree on increased funding for these important programs. Had our investments in these programs kept up with inflation and the growing population, the funding levels would have actually been higher, but, thankfully, we can finally say that we are moving in the right direction. Vice President Hubert Humphrey once stated that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, our children; those who are in the twilight of life, our elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life. It is my hope that, by protecting and enhancing the Federal statutes to support our older Americans, we will be passing this test. Again, I thank my colleagues for their support of this legislation.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a talented group of young athletes who have distinguished themselves as giants on the basketball court, making their school, their community, and the city of Portsmouth, Virginia very proud. The I.C. Norcom High School boys basketball team had another remarkable season and I am honored to recognize their accomplishments. On March 12, 2016, the I.C. Norcom Greyhounds beat the Hopewell Blue Devils 67 to 65, to win the Group 3A state basketball championship. It was truly a remarkable game. In overtime, I.C. Norcom tied the game and with only seconds left on the clock, the Greyhounds' Travis Fields stole the ball from the Blue Devils, successfully hit a jump shot, clinching another championship for I.C. Norcom. The Greyhounds have had a consistent run of excellence in recent years. This year's victory is I.C. Norcom's third consecutive state title and their fifth state title in the last seven seasons. It goes without saying, but I.C. Norcom has certainly become a force to be reckoned with in Virginia high school sports. I.C. Norcom High School was founded in 1913 as the High Street School, the first public high school for black students in Portsmouth. It was renamed in 1953 in honor of its first supervising principal, Israel Charles Norcom, a pioneering educator, civic leader and businessman. Now, more than 100 years and three locations later, I.C. Norcom High School is still an innovating and inspiring place for Portsmouth students. In addition to excelling on the basketball court, the Greyhounds are also doing great things in the classroom. I.C. Norcom houses a Center of Excellence in Math and Science, which provides students with additional classes in science, math, and technology. Seniors completing the Center's curriculum this year will receive Center of Excellence Diplomas which require five science course credits, one more than necessary under the advanced diploma. In addition, I.C. Norcom students have been participating in the First College program--attending Tidewater Community College this semester and taking up to 14 college credits before they graduate. I.C. Norcom is doing a great job cultivating excellence both on and off the athletic field. I would like to extend my enthusiastic congratulations to each of the Greyhounds' players, their families, Principal Shameka Pollard, Coach Leon Goolsby and his entire coaching staff, on the occasion of another amazing state championship victory. On behalf of the citizens of Virginia's Third Congressional District, I commend the Greyhounds for this historic win and wish the program many more years of continued success.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts not only for yielding, but also for his years of work fighting hunger. He is one of the strongest advocates we have in Congress in fighting the scourge of hunger. I want to thank him for all of those years of good work. It is my privilege to be the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. In that perspective, we played an integral role in the reduction of food insecurity and lowering the prevalence of debilitating health conditions, including obesity, diabetes, and others. Our committee is tasked with making sure all children have an equal shot at success. One important way is to ensure that by providing healthy, nutritious meals. There is a Federal role in ensuring that every child has access to a quality education, regardless of where they live or their family's income, and nutrition is a part of making sure they can get that education. More than 60 years ago, when Congress enacted the first Federal child nutrition program--the National School Lunch Program--Congress acknowledged that feeding hungry children was not only a moral imperative, but also an imperative for the health and security of our Nation. The National School Lunch Program was actually a response from the military community who were complaining that so many of our young military age youth were unprepared for military service because they were malnourished. Regrettably today, we are faced with the same crisis that impacts our Nation's national security. Too many of our children are now obese, too obese to enlist in our Nation's military. One-third of the children in this country are overweight, and childhood obesity has tripled in the last 30 years. While all segments of the population are affected, low-income families are especially vulnerable to obesity and other chronic diseases because they end up eating unhealthy food. Unfortunately, the poorest among us have the least access to healthy foods, many times without a full-service grocery store or farmer's market in their community. We still have a long way to go, but there have been positive signs of progress through the implementation of our child nutrition programs. Thanks to the introduction of stronger standards brought about by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, enacted just a few years ago, students across the country are experiencing healthy school environments with more nutritious meal options. One area in dire need of increased access to child nutrition programs and nutritious meals they provide is Flint, Michigan. As everybody knows, the residents of Flint are struggling with the consequences of exposure to high levels of lead as a result of the city's contaminated municipal water supply. Lead exposure is especially damaging to infants, toddlers, and expectant mothers and can cause behavioral and cognitive problems that last a lifetime. Although there is no cure for lead poisoning, research shows that a healthy diet, including zinc, vitamin C, iron, and calcium, can mitigate some of the harmful effects. Federal supplemental funding for nutrition programs, especially the WIC program, would allow access to healthier diets. Funding for a nutrient-rich third meal, an extension of WIC benefits, to 10 years of age for all eligible children would go a long way to help the residents of Flint, Michigan, deal with lead poisoning. Mr. Speaker, our committee is now working on a child nutrition reauthorization bill. With this reauthorization, we have a great opportunity to continue to improve the way that children eat, to expand access to nutritious meals, and to end the crisis of childhood hunger in this country. These efforts do not end with the school year or even the school day. Whether in schools, childcare settings, or summer programs, our goal should be to provide high-quality and nutritious food to all of America's children. We have a choice to make. We can put money into these important programs now and support healthy eating in our schools and other settings or we can cut corners and spend more money down the road on chronic diseases and other social services, putting the well-being of our children and our Nation's security at risk. Make no mistake. Either way, we will spend the money. A few years ago medical expenditures to treat obesity in the United States were estimated to be $147 billion, 16.5 percent of all U.S. medical expenditures. Investing in the front end, by maintaining strong nutrition standards and increasing access to healthy meals, is obviously a better choice for our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I urge my fellow Members of Congress to continue to invest in our Nation's future by moving forward, not backward, on issues of food insecurity and child nutrition. I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts again for his longtime advocacy, for his efforts to reduce hunger and to provide better nutrition for our Nation's children.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman from New York and the gentlewoman from Ohio for organizing tonight's Special Order to call on our colleagues in the Senate to do their job and provide their advice and consent on the President's upcoming nomination to the United States Supreme Court. The Constitution is pretty clear on this issue. Article II, Section 2, doesn't say the President might or the President should. It says the President shall nominate, and by and with advice and consent of the Senate, appoint judges to the Supreme Court. There seems to be some suggestion that, if it is an election year, he ought to skip that process and let the next President make the appointment. They say there is very little precedence for a President nominating somebody in an election year. That might be technically correct, but the fact of the matter is that there have been virtually no vacancies that have occurred during an election year. I think the last one was about almost 50 years. In that case, an appointment was made and considered. That is the process that ought to take place in this case. The rarity of such an event should not preclude the Senate from fulfilling its constitutional responsibility. There is precedent for the President nominating and the Senate at least considering the nomination during an election year. Now, Justice Kennedy was confirmed in an election year in 1988. That was a 7-month process that began with the appointment of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. His nomination was considered and defeated. And then there was the appointment of Douglas Ginsburg. We will just say his nomination went up in smoke. And then we had the nomination and confirmation of Justice Kennedy. In 7 months, from start to finish, another nomination was made and collapsed and another nomination made, all within 7 months. We could complete that entire process by the first Monday in October, the beginning of the Supreme Court session. There is no precedence for the President declining to nominate somebody and virtually no precedence for the Senate just to ignore a nomination that is made. The people overwhelmingly reelected President Obama in 2012 to a term that does not end until January 20, 2017, and we fully expect the President to fulfill his duty to nominate a qualified individual to the Supreme Court to fill the current vacancy. A failure of the Senate to act this year would be unprecedented. There is ample time for that to take place. The longest confirmation process for a single nominee has been 125 days. On historic average, it takes 25 days to confirm or reject a nominee. As of today, the Senate has 216 days until the first Monday in October. If the Senate were to refuse to consider any of President Obama's nominations--and they have said they want the next President to make the appointment--there has been no indication that they will give expedited consideration to the next President's nomination. It could be well into the next year by the time the new Justice is confirmed and sworn in. Even on an expedited schedule, the new President would not be able to nominate anyone until they are sworn in on January 20. The Senate Judiciary Committee would need time to prepare for hearings, which could not occur until probably February. And then the full Senate would need time to consider the nomination, with the confirmation not likely until probably March. Now, by March of a term, the term is effectively about over. Most of the oral arguments have already taken place and they are into decisions. You can't participate in a decision if you skip the oral argument. So not only would the vacancy occur through the rest of this term, almost half of a Supreme Court term, it would be well into the next term and, effectively, through most of the next term. There is no excuse to leave the Court vacancy open in what then would be a historic new precedence. There is no precedence for keeping a vacancy open that long. We need the justice appointed. The Senate ought to do its job. The President has indicated that he will do his job, as mandated by the Constitution, and so the Senate ought to just fulfill its responsibility under the Constitution and consider an appointment. Otherwise, you will have a vacancy not only through the rest of this term--and oral arguments have been taking place--you will have the vacancy through the rest of this term. You don't need a vacancy through the entire rest of the next term. There is plenty of time to consider and vote up or down on a nomination. And the unprecedented vacancy that would occur if the Senate fulfills its threat to stonewall any nomination is just unprecedented. So I want to thank the gentleman from New York and the gentlewoman from Ohio for giving us the opportunity to just say a word about the importance of everyone in our democracy fulfilling their constitutional responsibilities. The President shall appoint, and the Senate shall consider, advise and consent, so that we can have a Supreme Court Justice appointed before the first Monday in October. We have plenty of time to do that. There is no excuse for not doing it, and we expect the Senate to do its job.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank Congresswoman Watson Coleman for her leadership in coordinating this Special Order, and thank you to the Michigan Representatives who have been working so hard to try to respond to this tragedy. Madam Speaker, there will be a lot of investigations designed to find out what happened, whose fault it was, whether or not any crimes were committed, and how to prevent this from happening in the future, but there is one thing we know, and that is that children have been poisoned by lead exposure. As the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, we have begun the process to determine how to appropriately respond, because we know that lead poisoning creates severe challenges to the public school system. Children are entitled to an equal educational opportunity. That goes back to the Brown v. Board of Education case where the Court found that it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if denied the opportunity of an education. That opportunity is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms. The local, State, and Federal governments have all failed our children, allowing them to be poisoned by lead exposure. We owe it to our children to mitigate, to the extent possible, the adverse effects of lead poisoning so they can achieve an equal educational opportunity. Research already shows that the adverse effects of lead exposure are great due to decreased academic attainment, increased need for special education, higher likelihood of behavioral challenges, and it can result in a significant loss in earnings and tax revenues, additional burdens to the criminal justice system, and great stress on our hospital systems. The opportunity for a strong start to a successful life will be stunted for Flint's children if they are not given the necessary resources including early interventions and access to high-quality early learning programs such as Head Start to help them overcome the lifelong effects of exposure to lead. We have an obligation to provide these resources--and provide them as soon as possible--while they can be most effective. Current funding, however, only allows 20 percent of Flint children who are eligible for Head Start to actually attend. The children who are able to participate in Head Start can receive early screening services for developmental disabilities. Families can receive counseling and assistance in accessing services. Head Start can provide the Flint families affected by the disaster with early intervention services that they desperately need. But in order to do so, all families eligible for Head Start--not just the 20 percent presently participating--need to be able to access Head Start. We need to come up with the money to make that possible. But make no mistake; we should not expect the fix to this crisis to be easy or cheap. The impact of lead exposure on young children is long-lasting, and our response must have a long-term approach. We must use all of the tools available to us, starting with prenatal care and screenings for pregnant moms, early intervention to identify special education needs, title I funding from ESEA, after-school programs, and even investments in college access efforts. Our children's futures have been compromised by bad government decisions, but we know how to mitigate that damage. The response has to be more than just the infrastructure improvements and repairs to finally provide clean water. We need a comprehensive response. Members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce will be working to formulate the appropriate response to the educational challenges. Other committees will work to the responses within their jurisdictions. But one thing is certain: it is imperative that these resources be provided now, without delay.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, since the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, the House of Representatives has attempted to dismantle the law 62 times. Today is number 63, to repeal a major portion of the Affordable Care Act. Mr. Speaker, since the Affordable Care Act passed, people with preexisting conditions can now get health insurance. The cost of health insurance has been increasing at the lowest rate since they started keeping records about a half a century ago. Those young people under 26 can stay on their parents' policies. Women are no longer paying more for insurance than men. We are closing the prescription drug doughnut hole. While thousands of people were losing their insurance every day when we passed the bill, more than 17 million people have insurance today. If we vote ``yes'' on this motion, we will cancel all of that progress and at the same time just add to the deficit. Mr. Speaker, we should reject this motion, just as we have 62 previous times.