Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the reckless default on our debt act.

Unfortunately, those on the other side of the aisle have taken the full faith and credit of the United States hostage and have offered a terrible deal for the American people. Either they will inflict cruel cuts on vital programs for working families or they will destroy the economy.

Earlier this week, as has been pointed out, this plan was evaluated by Moody's Analytics, and they confirmed that almost 800,000 jobs will be lost. When they say the cuts aren't that bad, tell that to 200,000 children who will lose access to Head Start, 100,000 parents who will lose access to childcare, the 26 million students who are in title I schools who will get cuts in funding, or 6.6 million students who will lose money in Pell grants, or the tens of millions who will lose the funding for the student debt relief that has been promised.

These spending cuts are necessary, frankly, to pay for the Republican tax cuts that weren't paid for at the time. Eighty percent of the Trump tax cuts were scheduled to go to the top 1 percent and corporations, and now we are going to pay for them with cuts to education, healthcare, veterans' programs, and others.

I get tired of being lectured by the Republicans when it comes to fiscal responsibility because we know that every Republican Presidential administration since Nixon has left office with a worse deficit situation than they inherited, and every Democratic administration since Kennedy has left office with a better deficit situation than they inherited.

Democrats are ready to act to prevent a devastating economic default, just as we did three times under the Trump administration with little fanfare. President Biden and Democrats have already significantly cut the deficit, and we are willing to do more, but we want to do it in a way that is responsible and helps families. This bill hurts families, and we need to oppose the bill.

Mr. Chair, this bill is a mean-spirited attack on transgender women's and girls' participation in sports.

It essentially requires women and girls to prove their gender. In Kansas, where a similar bill was passed, students could be forced to have invasive inspections of their body parts.

The bottom line is, we should let parents, doctors, and sports organizations do their jobs to protect student athletes. For example, the NCAA supports a sport-by-sport approach to

transgender student participation, and high school leagues are also dealing with the issue.

We should focus our time on ensuring that children in America reach their full potential through high-quality public education.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 734.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the South Hampton Roads Bar Association on its 100th Anniversary.

The South Hampton Roads Bar Association, initially called the Tidewater Bar Association, was formed in October 1923 to empower African American attorneys in the Hampton Roads region of Virginia. Members of the association promoted the advancement of African Americans in the Commonwealth of Virginia and fought against the unjust practices of segregation and racial discrimination.

As one of the oldest African American bar associations in the nation, the South Hampton Roads Bar Association remains active and supports racial equality within the legal community in the Hampton Roads area. It is comprised of members that have distinguished themselves as devoted Commonwealth Attorneys, state and federal judges, members of the Virginia General Assembly and city councils. Through their present work, they are continuing the legacy of the founding members to strive towards racial equality and to build a community focused on opportunities for all.

I want to thank Attorney W. Marcus Scriven, the current President of the South Hampton Roads Bar Association, for his leadership and dedication to the organization's mission. I also want to thank all prior presidents and the many African American legal professionals who laid the foundation for this association to thrive for so long.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to congratulate the member of the South Hampton Roads Bar Association on the many hard-fought battles won since their inception 100 years ago and wish them many more years of success.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is a fairly simple amendment. It would just sabotage public education by transferring money in the public school system to the private school system. It would open up funds to children in public schools to those already in private school. A lot of money would be diverted that way, and it includes homeschooling.

Who is going to audit the money that the parents get for homeschooling their children?

Furthermore, how are you going to figure out how much money each child gets?

Title I is based on a formula that involves poverty. If it is a low- income child, will they get more money to go to a private school than a higher-income person who the formula did not recognize as far as getting money?

Those are just complications. Basically, it is a private school voucher program where those already in private school can take public money out of the public system and reduce the amount of money available for public schools.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this is a well-worn debate. I think people are familiar with what happens when you take public school money and put it into private schools. I thank the gentleman for making the amendment as simple and straightforward as he has.

This would decimate rural districts where there are few school options. People in rural districts would take money out of the rural community and plop it into urban areas.

I would just like to know how much money a family could get if they took two children out of public school and just kept them at home under the guise of homeschooling? How much money could they get from the public school system to do that?

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as I said, we don't know how much money a family could get. If they are financially strapped, how much money would they get for pulling their children out of public schools and using the money for the allowable uses, which includes extracurricular activities?

That could be a vacation to Disneyland. I don't know what they could use the money for, but they would significantly benefit financially by taking their children out of school.

Rural districts will benefit, those already in private school will benefit, and the ones that will be disadvantaged will be the school systems that are struggling to provide an education for low-income students today.

Mr. Chair, I hope we defeat the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment

Mr. Chairman, this would eliminate all of the targeted resources under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act consolidated into one view. If you just take Title I, that money is targeted toward low-income areas. There are targets to rural areas, to migrants.

Generally speaking, the mainstream education can be well done with the local and State funding. There are areas where there are troubles, English as a Second Language, migrants, low income, where the Federal Government comes in and targets money because, generally speaking, within the political give-and-take, these are the ones that are left out. Those who are generally left out and supported by ESEA are the exact ones that would be disadvantaged under this.

When you fund education with the real estate tax, as we do in the United States today, you almost guarantee inequity in education because the more wealthy areas can do better.

ESEA, primarily under Title I, goes into areas that are low income, have less resources, and they can get help from the Federal Government. That would be decimated by this amendment. I would hope we would defeat it.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this would concentrate funding where there are a high concentration of students, not where there is a high concentration of poverty, as the present formula gives.

It would remove targeted money for teachers, and, incredibly, it would remove targeted funding for family engagement. I thought that is why we were here. This amendment would remove money targeted for family engagement.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill has a lot of ambiguity about things like what is an injury? What is violent activity? Does there have to be an injury?

If there has to be an injury, then a shooting where the bullet misses and there is no injury would not be covered. But somebody pushes somebody and they slip and get a bloody nose, that would be an injury and that would be violent activity. It is very poorly defined.

Second is, aware of a video recording. Does that include fellow students' cell phones and other things? Does it include a monitoring of the school system monitoring?

It doesn't say anything about numerous rights and laws, rights of privacy, and what to do after you find out, what can you do about it. That is a little unclear.

It doesn't say what rights you have to the video or anything like that. I think it causes more questions than answers, and I hope we would defeat the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, this is another unfunded mandate placed on school systems that they have to do as a condition to receive Title I funds.

Then, look at what is involved if the class is eliminated because there is no teacher for that class or no student interest. For example, if no one signs up for a particular foreign language and the course is dropped, we have to now notify all the parents as a condition of getting Title I funds. If the only teacher who taught that language decides to retire and that course is not taught, you have to notify everyone as a condition of getting Title I funds.

This amendment does nothing to improve parent engagement. It just adds another Federal law. Along with the bathroom bills that we have heard, attacks on LGBTQ individuals, attacks on trans youth, now we have another report that has to be made.

Mr. Chair, I hope we defeat the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

We have heard a lot about people who can't speak at school board meetings because they are being arrested. I reiterate, the only ones being arrested at school board meetings are those the police believe are committing crimes.

I would point out that this is another Federal law, along with the bathroom bill that is in the bill that attacks LGBTQ and trans youth, but there is nothing in this amendment to increase parental say over which courses are being offered. Some courses are deleted, like African-American studies and AP African-American studies in Florida.

There is no money for new courses. There is no money for school construction in this legislation. There is no after-school program funding. There is no money for teacher salaries. There is no money for counselors or psychologists. It is just a list of things that most parents can do anyway. There is no money for actual parental involvement. Those amendments were defeated.

Mr. Chair, I hope that this additional requirement, as a condition of receiving Title I funding, will not be adopted and that the entire bill will be defeated.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5, the politics over parents act.

First, let me be clear. House Democrats believe parental engagement is central to student success. Parental engagement in schools is closely linked to better student behavior, higher academic achievement, and enhanced social skills.

Unfortunately, the politics over parents act does not take meaningful steps to increase or support parental engagement. In fact, it lists so- called rights and then declares that this allows the parents to control what is taught. Let's be clear: There is nothing in the bill to give parents the right to dictate what their children are taught.

Instead, this bill is one of many attempts by Republican politicians to give a vocal minority the power to try to impose their beliefs on all parents and students. This extreme education agenda has real consequences for students and educators.

According to PEN America, over 2,500 books were banned in schools during the school year 2021-2022, and nearly 140 additional book bans have taken effect since July 2022.

Let me just list some of the books that Republican politicians have gotten banned under the guise of parental rights: ``Diary of a Young Girl,'' the stories of a Holocaust survivor, by Anne Frank; ``The Kite Runner,'' a novel on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, by Khaled Hosseini; ``Beloved,'' a novel about slaves during the Civil War, by Toni Morrison; and on and on. Books like that have been banned because of efforts like what we have before us today.

Let's be clear. These books are taught at age-appropriate levels. If you have a problem with it, you should call the librarian. Yet, Republican politicians are actually having them removed from classrooms and school libraries.

Simply put, the politics over parents act is an educational gag order across the Nation which will prevent students from learning and prevent teachers from teaching. These efforts seek to score political points and scare parents into thinking that schools do not have their best interests at heart. Instead, we should be talking about the support that schools and families actually need to improve parent-teacher engagement.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the politics over parents act and join House Democrats in an amendment in the nature of a substitute to deliver real solutions to build partnerships between schools and families.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wilson), the ranking member on the Higher Education and Workforce Development Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), the ranking member of the Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction of the bill.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Was the gentlewoman's request to introduce a statement recognized?

Mr. Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), who is a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida, (Mr. Frost).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the Democratic whip.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Ocasio-Cortez).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the Democratic leader.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), the ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability.

Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman from Maryland an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, on Page 8 of the bill, it says that parents have ``the right to know if a school employee or contractor acts to:

``Change a minor child's gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name; or

``Allow a child to change the child's sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms;

``The right to know if a school employee or contractor acts to treat, advise, or address the cyberbullying of a student;

``Treat, advise, or address the bullying. . . . `'

This says, ``a child.'' It doesn't say their own child. It says a child, so I am not sure what the answer was.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Craig).

Mr. Chair, I yield the gentlewoman from Minnesota an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. McGarvey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. McClellan), the newest Member of the House.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I include in the Record a statement from Equity-Minded Education, Civil Rights, and Immigration Advocates on H.R. 5 that concludes that we urge Congress to focus on real and meaningful efforts to truly support our students, parents, and teachers, and to stop using parents as a decoy to launch political attacks on our schools.

[Mar. 7, 2023]

Joint Statement From Equity-Minded Education, Civil Rights, and

Immigration Advocates on H.R. 5

As equity-minded education, civil rights, and immigration

organizations, we work to ensure that our nation's students

are learning, feel safe and respected at school, and have the

supports they and their families need to succeed. As such, we

are deeply concerned about the Parents Bill of Rights Act

(H.R. 5) recently introduced in the House of Representatives.

This legislation, like similar bills in a growing number of

states that ban books or censor curriculum and textbooks, is

divisive and designed to politicize our schools rather than

provide what parents really want: a great education for their

children.

In addition to enabling book bans and curriculum

censorship, the bill is redundant and out of sync with what

parents want. Provisions in the bill that allow a parent to

demand inspections of schools and school budgets are designed

to disrupt teachers' ability to teach students, and hinder

school administrators' ability to run safe and welcoming

schools. The bill also inserts the federal government to help

determine the frequency of parent-teacher conferences--

something nearly all school districts across the country

establish through locally determined policies. Moreover,

recent polling indicates that the top priorities for parents

are not these wedge issues; rather they want to keep their

children safe from violence at schools, ensure adequate

mental health supports for them, and help in their learning

recovery. Federal law should--and already does--require that

parents receive information on what their kids are learning,

how they are achieving, and on the qualifications of their

child's teachers.

We support and encourage a broader view of the rights of

parents and students: the right to have access to fully-

resourced schools, prepared and qualified teachers, safe and

welcoming places for students to learn, and the supports to

make sure all students can thrive. The ability of the U.S.

education system to provide these essential requirements

should be the primary focus of Congress. We have supported

bipartisan efforts over the years to help achieve these

goals, including the funding of the Elementary and Secondary

School Emergency Relief Fund to provide schools with the

resources to safely reopen and to help students get back on

track after the disruption and loss caused by the pandemic,

and additional resources for mental health needs through the

Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. We urge this Congress to

focus on real and meaningful efforts to truly support our

students, parents, and teachers--and to stop using parents as

a decoy to launch political attacks on our schools.

All4Ed

Center for American Progress

Education Reform Now

National Center for Learning Disabilities

National Parents Union

Schoolhouse Connection

The Education Trust

UnidosUS

National Urban League

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a statement from Third Way, which concludes: ``Protecting the ability of parents to make the best decisions for their children is a fundamental American value. This proposal is a serious distraction from what our students really need right now: to be learning in an academically challenging and safe environment that engages families and teachers in true partnership to support students.''

Washington.--Third Way released the following statement

from Lanae Erickson, Senior Vice President for Social Policy,

Education, and Politics:

``This week, the House majority will bring H.R. 5 to the

floor under the guise of increasing parental engagement in

schools--but its substance would do nothing to advance that

goal. Instead, this bill would censor parents, undermine

student mental health, ban books from school libraries,

redirect resources and personnel away from meeting families'

real needs, and ultimately function as a gag order on

teaching and learning across the country.

``We should be empowering school boards and Parent Teacher

Associations to make informed decisions when it comes to

their students' education. This bill would invite Congress to

dictate the schedule of parent-teacher conferences and

control course instruction in every one of the nearly 100,000

public schools from coast to coast. We should be supporting

the well-being of students by increasing access to mental

health professionals. This legislation would limit families'

access to crucial mental health services in an era when we

know they are needed more than ever. We should be investing

in the safety of our students by keeping firearms out of

classrooms. This bill would focus only on reporting violence

once students have already been hurt or killed.

``Protecting the ability of parents to make the best

decisions for their children is a fundamental American value.

This proposal is a serious distraction from what our students

really need right now: to be learning in an academically

challenging and safe environment that engages families and

teachers in true partnership to support students.''

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Landsman).

Madam Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes), a former teacher of the year.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I want to get back to something that was said a little earlier because it is a little disturbing the way this legislation, a notice of rights--that people have a right to information about their child, their child, their child. You have a right to notice before a person speaks to their child at a class, school assembly, or any other school-sponsored event.

If you have a field trip, I guess you have a right to notice before anybody at the museum can speak to your child. But under subsection L, it says you have: ``the right to know if a school employee or contractor acts to change a minor child's gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name. . . .''

That means any child--if any teacher addresses any child, everybody has a right to notice if they change their minor child's gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name. I think that is concerning. I don't know what is meant by that, but that is the way it reads.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I include in the Record a list of groups that either oppose or express concerns about H.R. 5, over 225 different organizations.

List of Groups That Either Oppose or Have Expressed Concerns About H.R.

5

AASA, The School Superintendents Association; All4Ed;

American Federation of Teachers (AFT); American Library

Association (ALA); A Way Home America; AACTE (American

Association of Colleges for Teacher Education); Act To Change

Advocacy Institute; Advocates for Youth; American Association

of University Women; American Atheists; American Civil

Liberties Union; American Humanist Association; American

School Counselor Association; Apiary for Practical Support;

Arab American Institute (AAI); Asian Americans Advancing

Justice (AAJC); Athlete Ally; Autistic Self Advocacy Network;

A Woman's Choice of Charlotte; A Woman's Choice of

Greensboro.

A Woman's Choice of Jacksonville; A Woman's Choice of

Raleigh; Acadiana Queer Collective; Aces NYC; Action Together

New Jersey; African American Office of Gay Concerns; AIDS

Foundation Chicago; Alliance for Quality Education; Arkansas

Black Gay Men's Forum; Avow Texas; Bazelon Center for Mental

Health Law; Bend the Arc: Jewish Action Campaign for Our

Shared Future; Bans Off Miami; Black Californians United for

Early Care and Education; Care in Action; Catholics for

Choice; Center for American Progress; Center for Applied

Transgender Studies; Center for Law and Social Policy

(CLASP); Center for LGBTQ Economic Advancement & Research

(CLEAR).

Center Link: The Community of LGBT Centers; Collective

Power for Reproductive Justice; Council of Parent Attorneys

and Advocates Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund;

Campaign for Our Shared Future (COSF); Cato Institute; Center

for American Progress (CAP); Campus Pride; Carolina for All;

Central Florida Jobs with Justice; Chicago Abortion Fund;

Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights; Cobalt;

Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund; Democrats for

Education Reform DC (DFER DC); Democrats for Education Reform

Massachusetts; Democrats for Education Reform New York;

Detroit Disability Power; DFER Colorado; Disability Law

Center; Donald Patton.

Dutchess County Progressive Action Alliance; Education

Reform Now; Education Trust; EducateUS: SIECUS In Action;

Education Leaders of Color (EdLoC); Education Reform Now;

Empowering Pacific Islander Communities; End Rape On Campus;

Equal Rights Advocates; Equality Federation; Equity Forward

Evaluation, Data Integration, and Technical Assistance (EDIT)

Program; Education Reform Now; Education Reform Now CT;

Education Reform Now Texas; Equality California March;

Equality Illinois; Equality South Dakota; Equality Virginia;

EqualityMaine; Family Equality.

Feminist Campus; Fenway Institute; First Focus Campaign for

Children; FORGE, Inc.; First Focus Campaign for Children;

Faces of Fallen Fathers; FL National Organization for Women;

Florida Council of Churches; Florida Health Justice Project;

Forever Caring Evonne; Girls Inc.; GLAAD; GLBTQ Legal

Advocates and Defenders (GLAD); GLSEN; Grandmothers for

Reproductive Rights; Gender Justice; GLSEN New Mexico;

Greater Milwaukee Urban League; Greater Orlando National

Organization for Women; Hindu American Foundation.

Hispanic Federation; Houston Area Urban League; Human

Rights Campaign; Human Rights First; If/When/How: Lawyering

for Reproductive Justice; Impact Fund; In Our Own Voice:

National Black Women's Reproductive Justice Agenda;

Indivisible; interACT: Advocates for Intersex Youth;

Interfaith Alliance; Illinois Families for Public Schools;

Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct

Organization; Indivisible DuPage Indivisible Georgia

Coalition; Indivisible Miami; Japanese American Citizens

League; Juvenile Law Center; Jane's Due Process; JASMYN,

Inc.; KIPP Public Schools; Lafayette Citizens Against

Censorship.

Latino Memphis; Learning Rights Law Center; Los Angeles

LGBT Center; Louisiana Citizens Against Censorship; Louisiana

Coalition for Reproductive Freedom; Louisiana Progress;

Louisiana Trans Advocates; Labor Council for Latin American

Advancement; Lambda Legal; LatinoJustice PRLDEF; Lawyers'

Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; Lawyers for Good

Government; League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC);

Matthew Shepard Foundation; MomsRising; Movement Advancement

Project; Maine Parent Federation; Massachusetts Transgender

Political Coalition; Mazzoni Center; Memphis Urban League.

Michigan Alliance for Special Education; Michigan Education

Justice Coalition; Missouri Health Care for All; NARAL Pro-

Choice America; National Association of School Psychologists

(NASP); National Black Justice Coalition; National Center for

Learning Disabilities (NCSD); National Center for Lesbian

Rights; National Center for Parent Leadership, Advocacy, and

Community Empowerment (National PLACE); National Center for

Transgender Equality; National Center for Youth Law; National

Council of Asian Pacific Americans; National Disability

Rights Network (NDRN); National Domestic Workers Alliance;

National Education Association (NEA); National Employment Law

Project; National Hispanic Media Coalition; National LGBT

Cancer Network; National Organization for Women; National

Parents Union.

National Urban League; National Women's Law Center; New

American Leaders Action Fund; New Generation Equity

Oregonizers; NASD; National Council of Jewish Women St.

Louis; NJ Community Schools Coalition; North Carolina Justice

Center; OutFront Minnesota; OutNebraska; People For the

American Way; PFLAG National; Physicians for Reproductive

Health; Planned Parenthood Federation of America; Plume

Health Public Advocacy for Kids (PAK); Public Citizen; Public

Justice; Parent Education Organizing Council; Paterson

Alliance; Paterson Education Foundation.

PAVE (Parents Amplifying Voices in Education); Pride Action

Tank; Pro Choice Missouri; Pro-Choice North Carolina;

Progress Florida; Queer Northshore; Red Wine & Blue;

Reproductive Rights Coalition; Rad Family, a project of North

Jersey Pride; Reproductive Freedom Acadiana; Save Our Schools

NJ; SHERo Mississippi; Silver State Equality-Nevada; Solid

Foundation Youth Outreach; Southern Echo Inc.; St. Tammany

Library Alliance; School Board Partners; Sexual Violence

Prevention Association (SVPA); SIECUS: Sex Ed for Social

Change; Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund

(SALDEF).

SPAN Parent Advocacy Network; SPLC Action Fund; Stand for

Children; Schoolhouse Connection; Software & Information

Industry Association (SSIA); Tahirih Justice Center; The

Advocates for Human Rights; The Arc of the United States; The

Council of the Great City Schools; The Education Trust; The

Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; The Personal

Stories Project; The Sikh Coalition; The Workers Circle;

TransAthlete; True Colors United; Trust Women; Third Way; The

Ezekiel Project; The Parents' Place of MD.

The Urban League of Philadelphia; The Womxn Project; Urban

League of Greater Pittsburgh; Urban League of Middle

Tennessee; UnidosUS; Unitarian Universalist Association;

United State of Women (USOW);

URGE: Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity; VoteProChoice;

Voto Latino; Virginia Coalition of Latino Organization;

Wayfinder Foundation; We Testify; Whole Woman's Health; Whole

Woman's Health Alliance; Woodhull Freedom Foundation; YWCA

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, in that case, the individual child will be identified and will be, essentially, outed, and that is even worse than the underlying language. I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, in closing, despite our colleagues' claims, the politics over parents act would only further politicize our children's classrooms while doing nothing to meaningfully improve partnerships between parents and educators. It will lead to censoring books.

Last night at the Rules Committee, a significant amount of time was taken to identify books that ought to be banned, and although the bill does not technically, directly censor books, the reporting requirements will allow national groups to find books all over the country that they don't like, and they could threaten each of those schools--wherever they find the book, they can threaten lawsuits unless the book is actually banned.

House Democrats tried several times to ensure that this legislation would actually address real challenges facing students, parents, and educators, and increase parental involvement.

For example, Democrats offered amendments to prevent this bill from banning books or censoring the curriculum. Moreover, in committee, we offered 25 amendments to actually improve student success, such as improving access to teacher training, fully fund parent engagement centers, and ensure students have access to mental health resources, among others. Unfortunately, they were struck down.

Madam Chair, Democrats are dedicated to improving parental engagement and ensuring that every child receives a well-funded and accurate education. This legislation does nothing to achieve that goal and would only advance an extreme education agenda at the expense of students and parents.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 5, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, as with most of the underlying bill, this is yet another unfunded mandate placed on our schools requiring them to issue yet another report as a condition of receiving much-needed title I funds.

The majority would prefer to impose additional burdens to already understaffed schools rather than do what they were trained to do, and that is teach and work with parents.

I would agree with the gentleman's comments about the need for counselors. He is absolutely right. We need more counselors. However, this amendment does not increase the number of counselors. It just reports the number they have. It doesn't improve students' mental health.

So for those reasons, Madam Chair, since it doesn't improve mental health or increase the number of counselors, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, this is another effort to turn classrooms into the epicenter of a culture war. The politics over parents act doesn't do anything to actually help students succeed and seeks to scare parents into thinking that schools do not have their best interests at heart. Children benefit when their parents and teachers work together, but the politics over parents act would not take any meaningful steps to increase that parental cooperation.

The bill would create necessary and burdensome reporting requirements on schools. It would divert essential resources and personnel from their jobs, meeting the family's real needs into reporting and everything else in the bill, and it would open the door to dictating what students can and cannot read or learn.

The underlying bill distracts from what our public schools really need. Similarly, the manager's amendment does nothing to provide the families with real parental engagement as some of the amendments would have done that were rejected.

The bill, for example, gives a so-called Federal right of action to address the school board. We know that many school boards in recent years needed police protection to conduct their meetings because of credible threats of violence. These are elected officials. They don't need a Federal law to instruct them to be polite. The voters can take care of that. There is no right that is being given. We already have the right.

Now, one thing that is a little concerning is that I had an amendment to allow this right to take place with reasonable limitations.

If 100 people show up at a school board meeting, does the school board have to listen to each and every one as long as they want to speak without any limitation?

Each one has a Federal right of action where they can bring a lawsuit to compel the school board to sit up and listen to each and every one without limitation.

If they have heard from 10 or 15 or 20 people on one side of the argument or one side of a debate and nobody on the other side, then do they have to listen to the other 80?

I don't know. That is what the bill suggests. I don't know any jurisdiction where you don't have the right to address the school board in a reasonable way, and that is what this bill does and that is what the manager's amendment does.

Madam Chair, I ask Members to defeat the manager's amendment and the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, all school systems are members of athletic leagues. They are dealing with this controversy. They don't need a Federal law to apply all over the country. In higher education, the NCAA is dealing with this.

We don't need a Federal law to tell local school divisions what to do in all cases. Local school divisions are dealing with this.

This is controversial, and I think we would do well just to let them work this out.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, did the gentlewoman yield back her time?

Madam Chair, as I said, the NCAA is working on this, and I just assume rather than disparage trans youth, let them work it out.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I don't think we need a Federal law to help schools tell students which bathroom to use.

In Loudoun County, that situation is under investigation, including criminal charges. I think it is time we stop disparaging trans youth.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I think the amendment speaks for itself. If a hundred parents show up at a school board meeting, and each demands to be heard for as long as they want to speak, this bill will give them a private right of action in Federal court to enforce their right to speak to the school board.

My local school board limits people to 3 minutes. I think that is a reasonable limitation, but when the amendment to allow reasonable limitations was defeated, you have the bill that they have--everybody has a right, each and every one of the hundred people who show up, no matter how repetitive or irrelevant it may be.

I think people need to know what is in the amendment and can judge it for themselves.

People have said that some parents have been arrested by the police for showing up at the school board. Let me tell you, that can only happen if the police believe that a crime is being committed.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I think I would prefer that we fixed all of the schools so that all students are provided with an opportunity of a high-quality education and a safe and healthy environment.

All this amendment does is give people the right to scurry around and try to find the best schools. Those that are the best at identifying the best schools may end up there, but frankly, all this is going to do is cause confusion because when word gets around as to which are the best schools, everybody will want to go to that school. Then what?

The majority has offered the amendment in committee to let parents know that if they can work the system, they may get their child into a good school but all the rest end up in a school that is dilapidated, unaccredited, or otherwise undesirable.

We need to work to improve all of the schools, not just figure out a scheme where some can figure out how to get their child into a good school and leave everyone else behind.

Madam Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed.

Madam Chair, I support the amendment because the GAO report will actually expose the legislation for what it is. It is a waste of money, will provide no meaningful rights, and it will adversely affect the education of the children.

Madam Chair, I support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the House Republican majority's effort to override President Biden's veto of H.J. Res. 30.

This resolution sought to nullify a popular and sensible rule that enabled retirement plan managers to make fully informed investment decisions.

I commend the President for his veto. Workers should be able to invest their retirement savings in a way that reflects their values, such as combating climate change, without sacrificing investment returns.

That is why the Biden-Harris administration issued a rule to clarify that retirement plan managers may consider the economic effects of climate change and other environmental, social, and governance factors, or ESG factors, when they make investment decisions for participants in retirement plans.

Simply put, this rule is not an ESG mandate. It just allows participants to make those decisions.

Additionally, the rule does not change the fiduciary standard to which the professionals who make the investment decisions for retirement plans are bound. They must still prioritize the interests of retirement plan participants and cannot sacrifice investment returns to pursue ESG goals.

Today's debate is not a referendum on the administration's rule or even ESG in general. We had that debate last month.

The debate is about two things. First, it is about arithmetic.

As my colleagues know, overriding the President's veto requires support of two-thirds, or 290 Members of the House. H.J. Res. 30 passed the House with 216 votes, nearly all of which came from the Republican Caucus. Anyone who can count knows that the Republican majority will not have the votes to override the President's veto; and everyone should be asking why are we going through the motions.

Second, the debate is a window into the Republican majority's agenda. Unfortunately, they would rather spend precious time on the floor on a doomed effort instead of advancing legislation that would help put people over politics.

While we are considering the veto override, we could have been considering ensuring women received equal pay for equal work; ending workplace discrimination; strengthening a worker's ability to join a union and negotiate for better working conditions; help people balance work and family by providing paid sick leave and family and medical leave; or raising the minimum wage.

House Democrats and the Biden administration are focused on these priorities and remain committed to lowering costs for our constituents, creating better-paying jobs, and making our communities safer.

Madam Speaker, before I reserve the balance of my time, I will ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record President Biden's veto message of H.J. Res. 30. It says, in part: ``There is extensive evidence showing that environmental, social, and governance factors can have a material impact on markets, industries, and businesses. But the Republican-led resolution would force retirement managers to ignore these relevant risk factors, disregarding the principles of free markets and jeopardizing the life savings of working families and retirees. In fact, this resolution would prevent retirement plan fiduciaries from taking into account factors, such as the physical risks of climate change and poor corporate governance, that could affect investment returns.''

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the complete veto message be entered into the Record.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Today, we have heard a lot about ESG and other topics, but nobody made a convincing case that there are the votes to override the President's veto, and that is because a convincing case cannot be made.

The Republican majority may think this futile attempt to override the President's veto is an appropriate use of the House's time and resources, but we disagree.

The first quarter of this year is nearly over, and there is so much the Republican majority has failed do to improve the lives of Americans.

In contrast, under Democratic leadership during the last Congress, the House made significant progress to deliver for the American people. We took action to create millions of jobs, reduce unemployment to near- record lows, to save workers' pensions, to deliver historic funding for education, to improve child nutrition, and to bring the number of uninsured Americans down to the lowest level ever.

By that standard, this current majority has a long way to go. However, at the very least, we should agree that we can't afford to waste time on futile efforts that we know won't go anywhere.

I urge my colleagues to quickly join me in rejecting the veto override, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment exposes a problem with the underlying bill.

You should not be able to ban books for other parents' children. In fact, this amendment exposes the bill as actually doing exactly that. That is why this amendment is appropriate, and I would hope that it would be adopted.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have some concern with some of the terms in the amendment, like what constitutes a major cyberattack or who determines whether an attack has been made, or if notice is required if it may have compromised information and exactly what is concerned there.

Generally speaking, if information is exposed during a cyberattack, people expect to be notified so that they can take appropriate action to protect themselves. These schools should be no exception. I support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in the first part of the bill, it says nothing is actually to be construed to oppose any requirements of non-public elementary and secondary schools. I am unaware of anything the bill does to impose requirements on non-public elementary or secondary schools, so it seems to me to be unnecessary.

Second, it is the sense of Congress that says local agencies do not have the authority to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over curriculum or program of instruction of non-public elementary and secondary schools. Again, I am unaware of local school boards' authority to exercise such supervision, direction, or control, so that seems also to be unnecessary.

I am not sure what the amendment speaks to that is relevant, so I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, whenever we encounter an attempt to dismantle the Department of Education, it is clear that we are undermining public education. Yet, even the Founders of our great Nation were committed to education.

Moreover, without a Federal role in education, when States were left to their own devices, we lacked a common set of standards for high- quality education, high-quality teachers, and high expectations for student outcomes. Many students were left behind, such as racial minorities, low income, those with disabilities, those with English as a second language.

The Federal role in education ensures a level playing field for all of our students and especially provides funding to help the most needy students.

Moreover, the Federal role in education is still striving to live up to the promise of Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 decision. In that decision, the Supreme Court said that education is a right, which must be made available to all on equal terms, and further, that racially segregated so-called separate but equal education was inherently unequal.

The GAO first revealed in 2016 that public schools, unfortunately, are still segregated--as a matter of fact, more segregated now than the late 1960s.

In July 2022, GAO found that more than one in three public K-12 students attend essentially racially segregated schools, so we still have work to do in that area. We still have work to do to fulfill the promise of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. We are not fulfilling that promise.

So we still have a lot of work to do on the Federal level. There is a Federal role for education. The Department of Education is working on fulfilling that responsibility.

For these reasons, I oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this is not a complicated amendment. It just asks whether you want a Department of Education. I think we should have a Department of Education, therefore, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, parents already have the right to address their local school board. It should be done, unfortunately, within reason, but a reasonable amendment was rejected in committee. You don't need a Federal law to instruct school board members who are elected to be polite to the public. The voters can take care of that.

This bill grants a Federal right of action to each and every person who shows up for the school board, no matter how obnoxious, extreme, irrelevant, or repetitive that person may be.

This amendment is unnecessary because it doesn't do anything to the underlying bill. The underlying bill gives you that so-called right, but we have heard that some parents have been arrested. As I have said before, they were arrested because the police believed they were committing a crime.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am having a little trouble understanding the amendment. As I understand it, a student couldn't participate in a non-curriculum-based activity, event, or initiative unless the parents have affirmatively opted in. Otherwise, the students would be prevented from participating in that event.

If that is my understanding, if the parents don't get the paperwork in, the students can't participate in the event.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I am advised that in some Montgomery County, Maryland schools, they have a celebration on Halloween with a costume parade and a Valentine's Day with a class party. If the parents didn't get the paperwork in on time, the children can't participate.

I don't know if recess is a non-curriculum-based initiative, but my guess is, until you get your paperwork in, you can't go out and play in recess.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I think we understand that now we need a Federal law to determine how schools will handle recess and Halloween or Valentine's Day parties. We need a Federal law to tell them how to handle it.

I don't think so. I hope we oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment, you actually would assume that this was part of the bill to begin with. Since it is a bad bill, making sure that this is in it is just another bad idea.

For example, it brings in the provision that you have to notify the parents in advance of all the speakers that may be participating, so if you are in a career in technical education and you have a Career Day, you have got to identify all the speakers that are coming to Career Day so the parents--if you can get that list, all of them--they have to be notified.

It would limit the use of employers as speakers because you would have to know exactly which one is going to show up, and that would limit the students' ability to learn the high-wage, in-demand jobs available at a Career Day.

Basically, this just makes sure that the career and technical education is part of the bill, and insofar it is a bad bill, I would hope the amendment would be rejected.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, that is exactly not what I said. There is nothing wrong with carpenters or other careers.

It said that if you have a Career Day you may not be able to have the Career Day unless you can get all the speakers lined up well in advance and notify all of the parents in advance who they are going to be.

If you have a plumbing firm wanting to participate, you have to figure out which plumber is going to actually show up so you can notify the parents of the right one.

This adds too much confusion to it. You may not even be able to have a Career Day. To suggest that I am not in favor of career and technical education is ridiculous.

If you want a reasonable program, you have to allow for the participation of people to come in and speak, talk about the high-wage, in-demand jobs that are available. Forcing the school to outline each and every speaker, know each and every person that is going to show up at a Career Day, before the Career Day, in time to notify the parents is absurd.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Virginia, the Honorable Jennifer L. McClellan, be permitted to take the oath of office today.

Her certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to her election.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the dean of the Virginia congressional delegation, who you see in the well, to introduce and welcome to Congress the newest Representative from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Jennifer McClellan.

Representative McClellan was born in Petersburg, Virginia, and is the daughter of educators at Virginia State University, an HBCU in Virginia's Fourth Congressional District, which she now represents. She is a graduate of the University of Richmond and received her law degree from the University of Virginia.

A dedicated public servant, Representative McClellan has represented the Richmond area in the House of Delegates and the Senate of Virginia for the last 17 years. Through her time in the Virginia General Assembly, she has been a committed and principled legislator working to expand access to voting rights, reproductive rights, and environmental protections in the Commonwealth of Virginia. She has successfully sponsored more than 350 pieces of legislation during her tenure in the Virginia General Assembly.

She lives in Richmond with her husband, David Mills, and their two children, Jackson and Samantha. With her victory in last month's special election, she made history as the first Black woman ever elected to Congress from Virginia.

I know she will continue making history with her steadfast commitment to the Fourth Congressional District, fighting for their voices to be heard in this Chamber, and I know she will also carry on the legacy of her predecessor, our dear late friend, the Congressman from the Fourth District, Donald McEachin.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to now yield to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. McClellan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 30, a Congressional Review Act joint resolution of disapproval to nullify a popular and sensible rule issued by the Biden-Harris administration last year.

Workers should be able to invest their retirement savings in a way that reflects their values, such as combating climate change, without sacrificing investment returns.

That is why the Biden-Harris administration issued a rule to clarify that retirement plan fiduciaries may consider the economic effects of climate change and other environmental, social, and governance factors, or ESG factors, when they make investment decisions for participants in retirement plans.

Now, to be clear, this rule is not an ESG mandate.

Additionally, the rule does not change the fiduciary standard to which professionals who make investment decisions for retirement plans are bound. They must still prioritize the interests of retirement plan participants and cannot sacrifice investment returns to pursue ESG goals.

Let's be clear. Consideration of ESG factors is not at odds with making a profit. In fact, workers' profit is still central, but if a company has negative externalities, such as carbon-intensive business practices, vulnerability to sea level rise, high liability risks, or a record of mistreating workers who may go on strike, its stock could suffer in the long term.

Workers often contribute to their retirement for decades before drawing down on their savings, so it makes sense that retirement plan beneficiaries must consider the long-term time horizon when making investment decisions.

Finally, there is widespread support for the Biden-Harris administration's rule. Of the comment letters submitted on the proposed rule, 83 percent of the letters submitted by institutions like corporations, financial firms, and labor organizations supported the rule.

Over 97 percent of the letters submitted by individuals supported the rule. Simply put, the Biden-Harris rule reflects the best interests of the American people and our economy.

We should not get rid of this popular and reasonable rule by this resolution. The rule just simply allows retirement plan fiduciaries to appropriately consider ESG factors.

Retirement fiduciaries, not House Republicans, are best positioned and bound by law to make prudent investment decisions on behalf of retirement savers.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Vargas), a co-chair of the Congressional Sustainable Investment Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Magaziner).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

Mr. Speaker, during this debate, we have heard a lot about ESG investing. It is clear there is a difference of opinion on it, but whether Members of Congress see things the same way is not the point.

What matters is that the Biden-Harris rule puts the decisionmaking when it comes to considering ESG factors where it belongs, in the hands of retirement plan fiduciaries who are best positioned and bound by law, which has not changed, to act prudently on behalf of plan participants. That is where the decisionmaking should stay.

They, not Members of Congress, know what is in the best interests of their plan participants, and they are bound by their fiduciary responsibilities to do the right thing.

Now, when supporters say that a fiduciary should not consider nonpecuniary factors, they ignore the fact that ESG factors can, in fact, be pecuniary, because often ESG factors, such as sea level rise, can have a profound effect on the value of the investment. Those who recognize this should be able to make reasonable investments based on that knowledge.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record several letters from organizations opposed to H.J. Res. 30. Eighty-three percent of institutions that submitted comments were in favor of the underlying rule. These organizations, who are opposed to H.J. Res. 30, include the AFL-CIO, Americans for Financial Reform, Public Citizen, SEIU, Environmental Defense Fund, League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Union of Concerned Scientists, and others.

Mr. Speaker, these organizations have diverse missions, but they all agree that H.J. Res. 30 should be rejected.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two letters from financial services firms who submitted supportive comments on the underlying rule. These firms are BNY Melon Investment Management and Lazard Asset Management, who have trillions of dollars in assets under management.

BNY Mellon,

December 13, 2021.

Office of Regulations and Interpretations,

Employee Benefits Security Administration,

U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC.

On behalf of BNY Mellon Investment Management, thank you

for the opportunity to submit comments on the notice of

proposed rulemaking entitled ``Prudence and Loyalty in

Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder

Rights'' (the ``Proposal'') published by the U.S. Department

of Labor (the ``Department''). We strongly support the

Department's efforts to clarify the regulatory treatment of

environmental, social, and governance (``ESG'') factors under

Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of

1974, as amended (``ERISA'') following the publication of

``Financial Factors in Selecting Plan Investments'' and

``Fiduciary Duties Regarding Proxy Voting and Shareholder

Rights'' (together, the ``Current Rules''). To continue the

Department's efforts to add clarity to the use of ESG factors

by fiduciaries we suggest the Department add clarification in

the rule or preamble that a fiduciary can use a screen to

consider ESG factors based on the fiduciary's determination

that a particular ESG factor will impact investment value

consistent with Section 2550.404a-1(c)(2) of the Proposal.

BNY Mellon Investment Management is a division of BNY

Mellon, one of the world's largest financial services groups.

With a presence in 35 countries, BNY Mellon looks to connect

investors with opportunities across every major asset class.

BNY Mellon Investment Management encompasses BNY Mellon's

affiliated investment firms and global distribution

companies, constituting over $2.3 trillion in AUM (as of

September 30, 2021).

BNY Mellon Investment Management follows a multi-boutique

investment management model that weds the specialist

expertise from its investment firms offering solutions across

every major asset class, backed by the strength, stewardship,

and global presence of BNY Mellon. Each investment firm has

its own unique culture, investment philosophy, and

proprietary investment processes, and provides a global

perspective. Our seven majority owned investment firms, are

as follows (all AUM figures as of September 30, 2021):

Alcentra ($41.0B), ARX ($7.0B), Dreyfus Cash Investment

Strategies ($342.7B), Insight Investment ($1,100.0B), Mellon

($448.6B), Newton Investment Management ($139.1B), and Walter

Scott ($99.9B).

At BNY Mellon Investment Management our Responsible

Investment (RI) approach varies across our investment firms,

but the effective stewardship of our clients' assets is

common to all and core to our own purpose. Many products or

solutions offered by BNY Mellon Investment Management examine

ESG factors in their investment processes and decision-making

to better manage risk and generate sustainable long-term

returns. Six of our investment firms--Alcentra, ARX, Insight,

Mellon, Newton, and Walter Scott--are signatories of the

Principles for Responsible Investment (``PRI'').

As we have noted in a previous comment letter, over the

past decades, fiduciaries and investment managers have come

to appreciate the materiality that ESG factors can have on

investment value. We welcome the Department's clarifications

to the Current Rules regarding the use of ESG factors and the

exercise of shareholder rights. The acknowledgement by the

Department that climate risks and other ESG factors can be

and often are material to investment risk and returns will

better allow fiduciaries to mitigate risk and enhance returns

based on evaluating ESG factors.

Within the last decade, a deep body of research has been

produced that demonstrates the material influence of ESG

factors on the profitability of an enterprise and the

performance of its securities. For example, weak control of

environmental activities such as pollution, over-consumption

of raw materials or lack of recycling of waste materials

readily leads to volatile or lower achieved margins or

financial penalties that reduce investor returns. Similarly

with social issues: high staff turnover, high strike rates or

absenteeism or death or injury rates have all been linked to

lower productivity and poor quality control. Regarding

governance, we know from years of empirical observation that

poorly managed issuers can seriously damage investor returns.

To ignore the entire category of information and analysis

that comprise ESG factors, therefore, could be deemed an

abrogation of a fiduciary's responsibility to consider all

material information when assessing the risk and return of

any investment opportunity.

The Proposal appropriately balances the materiality that

ESG factors can have on investment value with the

Department's longstanding principles that a fiduciary's

duties of prudence and loyalty require the fiduciary to

consider factors that are material to investment value. In

particular, a fiduciary should not subordinate the interests

of plan participants and beneficiaries to other objectives,

nor sacrifice investment return or take on additional

investment risk to promote goals unrelated to the plan and

its participants and beneficiaries. We specifically believe

that the proposed removal of the definition of ``pecuniary

factors'' and the revision to the Current Rules providing

that a fiduciary's evaluation of an investment or investment

course of action should be based on factors that ``are

material to investment value'' both clarifies the rule and

ensures that the rule reflects the analysis performed by

fiduciaries when making investment decisions.

We also support the removal of the special rule prohibiting

certain investment alternatives from being considered

qualified default investment alternatives (QDIA) because the

investment references ESG factors. The QDIA restrictions in

the Current Rules add uncertainty and would be difficult to

apply. We agree with the Department that there is not a

reason to prohibit fiduciaries from prudently selecting a

fund that meets the QDIA requirements and includes the

consideration of ESG factors.

We support the Department's efforts to reduce the

uncertainty in the market caused by the Current Rules and we

suggest additional clarification regarding the use of

screens. We believe this clarification could further reduce

uncertainty that might otherwise prevent fiduciaries from

considering ESG factors which are expected to enhance

investment value and performance or improve investment

portfolio resilience against the potential financial risks.

As noted above, we support the removal of ``pecuniary

factors'' and that a fiduciary's evaluation of an investment

or investment course of action should be based on factors

that ``are material to investment value''. We think that the

Department could add additional clarity to the rule or

preamble by clarifying that the proposed rule does not per se

prohibit a fiduciary from using a screen on investments based

in whole or in part on ESG factors.

A common method used by investment managers to incorporate

ESG factors into the assessment of investment risks and

returns is the use of screens. As described in the Proposal,

``negative screening refers to the exclusion of certain

sectors, companies, or practices from a fund or portfolio

based on ESG criteria.'' The Proposal's discussion of the

benefits that can occur from the use of ESG factors in the

assessment of investment risks and returns relies on sources

that studied the impact of investment managers using screens

based on ESG factors. However, the Current Rules and some

past guidance regarding the use of ESG factors could be read

to preclude the use of screens based on ESG factors.

We suggest that the Department clarify in the final rule or

its preamble that the investment prudence duties and the

investment loyalty duties under Sections 2550.404a-1(b) and

2550.404a-1(c), respectively, do not per se prohibit the use

of screens. For example, it should be permissible for a plan

fiduciary to select investment managers and funds that use

screens to the extent that doing so would otherwise be

consistent with its duties. It should similarly be

permissible for any such investment manager to select an

``investment course of action'' that uses a screen to the

extent that the resulting investment strategy would otherwise

be consistent with its duties. Such a clarification would

provide certainty to fiduciaries seeking to use ESG factors

in the assessment of investment risks and returns in

accordance with their prudence and loyalty duties. It would

further ensure that plan participants realize the full

benefits of fiduciaries using ESG factors as described in the

Proposal.

We strongly support the Department's efforts to bring

clarity to the use of ESG factors and the exercise of

shareholder rights by plan fiduciaries. We believe the

Proposal and the changes suggested here will promote

retirement income security and further retirement savings by

allowing fiduciaries to better manage risks and improve

investment returns.

Sincerely,

Hanneke Smits,

Chief Executive Officer,

BNY Mellon Investment Management.

Mr. Speaker, this is just a small sample of the financial industry's support for the underlying rule. We should not overturn the rule with this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I oppose H.J. Res. 30, I encourage all Members to do the same, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the Scripps Howard School of Journalism and Communications at Hampton University on its 20th Anniversary.

The Scripps Howard School of Journalism and Communications was established in September 2002 to train students to become expert journalists and communicators and increase diversity within the industry. Hampton University is one of the nation's top Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and the Scripps Howard School continues the legacy of innovative higher education that is found at Hampton University.

The Scripps Howard School of Journalism and Communications hosts a wide variety of experiences to prepare students for their future journalistic pursuits. Housed in a 36,000 square foot building, the school offers students the ability to work in a broadcast studio, a radio station, and a television station with state-of-the-art editing equipment. Alumni of the school enter the workforce as talented journalists, holding positions at local and national news organizations. The Scripps Howard School of Journalism and Communications embodies the Hampton University motto: ``The Standard for Excellence, An Education for Life.''

I want to thank Julia A. Wilson, the current Dean of the Scripps Howard School of Journalism and Communications, for her dedication to the students of Hampton University. I also want to thank the prior deans Christopher Campbell, Tony Brown, Rosalynne Whitaker-Heck, Brett A. Pulley, and B. DaVida Plummer for their years of service.

Mr. Speaker, as the Hampton University community gathers this Friday to celebrate this momentous anniversary, I want to congratulate the students, faculty and alumni of the Scripps Howard School of Journalism and Communications on 20 years of excellence and wish them many more years of success.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment introduced by my friend and colleague, the gentlelady from Virginia.

Virginia is blessed with beautiful coastlines. The Atlantic Coast and Chesapeake Bay provide critical habitat to marine life and offer numerous recreational opportunities to locals and tourists. Virginia's coasts are also home to a growing source of clean, affordable, and domestic energy thanks to ideal windspeeds, shallow waters, shipping lanes free of overhead obstruction, and a talented workforce. Located 27 miles off the coast, the first two turbines in federal waters are not visible from shore. The benefits they generate, however, are increasingly being felt on shore as emissions are lowered and good, family-sustaining jobs are created.

These exciting developments are in sharp contrast to what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have planned for our coastal communities--an expansion of offshore drilling. We ought to learn from the tragic mistakes of our past: Exxon Valdez in the Prince William Sound, Santa Barbara off the coast of Southern California, and Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico.

Throughout my career, I have opposed attempts to open Virginia's coastline to offshore drilling along with local communities, small businesses, scientists, beachgoers, environmentalists, seafood lovers, and people of faith. The Virginia Beach Restaurant Association, the Virginia Beach Hotel Association, and the Virginia Restaurant, Lodging and Travel Association all oppose offshore drilling along with Oceana, the Sierra Club, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Surfrider Foundation, Virginia Interfaith Power & Light and so many others. National security experts also warn that offshore drilling is incompatible with military training in the region, not to mention the incredible harm a spill would do to military facilities.

As sea levels in Norfolk and around the world continue to rise, any expansion of highly polluting fossil fuel infrastructure is simply a bad idea. Virginians are simply not willing to sacrifice the health of our climate, marine life, local economies, or coastal ecosystems to expand offshore drilling.

The growth of offshore wind in the region further underscores the false choice being presented by my Republican colleagues. Virginians are already enhancing our energy security by harnessing the power of the wind. Thanks to the investments in the Inflation Reduction Act-- including provisions I introduced with Representatives Pascrell, Norcross, Luria, and the late Congressman McEachin--the future of offshore wind and domestic offshore wind manufacturing is bright.

Virginians have repeatedly stood together to protect our coasts and, as this amendment demonstrates, we will continue to do so. I urge my colleagues to protect Virginia's coasts by supporting this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I regrettably missed rollcall votes 507, 508, 509, 510, and 511 today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on these bills.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in support of the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Reauthorization Act. The Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program is authorized through the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act, what we call MIOTCRA, legislation that I was proud to work on nearly 20 years ago as the then-ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee of Judiciary Committee.

This legislation has proven to successfully connect State and local governments with necessary resources to plan and implement initiatives designed to increase public safety, save tax dollars on ineffective or even counterproductive incarceration, and improve the lives of people with mental illness and their families.

These grants for States and localities allow for the development of programming that connects those with mental illness and substance use issues with evidence-based and comprehensive treatment within the criminal justice system. Each year there are about 2 million people with serious mental illnesses admitted to jails across the country.

In fact, according to the National Alliance of Mental Illness, 44 percent of those in jail and 37 percent of those in prisons have a history of mental illness.

Furthermore, once incarcerated, individuals with mental illness tend to stay in jail longer, and upon release are more likely to return to incarceration than those without mental illnesses.

These grants encourage collaboration between law enforcement and healthcare providers. The reforms to this program included in this reauthorization are centered on reducing suicide, increasing access to case management services, bolstering the roles of co-responder and crisis intervention teams, and continuing the strong support of mental health courts. This bill recognizes that prevention is the best investment in the criminal justice system for long-term success and cost savings.

This legislation is the result of the hard work of many, including State government organizations, mental health organizations, and law enforcement organizations. I thank all of those and my colleagues who have led this effort with me, including Representatives Chabot, Jackson Lee, and Emmer; the chairman of the committee, Mr. Nadler; as well as Senators Cornyn, Klobuchar, Moran, Durbin, Grassley, Whitehouse, Tillis, and Cortez Masto.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting the reauthorization of this legislation so we can get it to the President's desk before the end of the year.

Madam Speaker, as dean of the Virginia congressional delegation, I am joined by Members of the delegation from the House and Senate. It is with a heavy heart that I announce to the House the

passing of our colleague, Congressman A. Donald McEachin.

Throughout his life of public service, Donald was a relentless champion for all Virginians, serving in the House of Delegates, the Senate of Virginia, and then here in the House of Representatives. He was the son of an Army veteran and a public schoolteacher. Donald graduated from American University, earned his law degree from the University of Virginia, and received his Master of Divinity from the Virginia Union University.

As many in this Chamber know, Donald was a thoughtful and principled legislator respected by Members on both sides of the aisle. He was also a trailblazing figure in Virginia politics. He was the first African- American nominee of a major party for Virginia Attorney General and only the third African American elected to Congress from the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Donald was resolute in pushing Virginia to lead the way in climate policy. He recognized the climate crisis as a moral issue and was a champion for environmental justice, using his skills as a trial lawyer to fight to ensure that the voices of our most vulnerable communities were heard and heeded. May we all seek to honor Donald's life and legacy by working to build a future in which everyone has access to clean air, water, and soil.

Madam Speaker, this body has lost one of its most dedicated public servants and fiercest advocates for justice and equality, and he will be deeply missed. I want to offer my deepest condolences to his wife, Colette, their three children, his beloved grandchildren, his friends, his staff, and the countless individuals positively impacted by his life of service.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).