Vote Smart - Facts For All

OFFICIALS LEGISLATION INTEREST GROUPS PUBLIC STATEMENTS COMMITTEES VETOES

Parents Bill of Rights Act

Floor Speech

By: Bobby Scott

Date: March 23, 2023

Location: Washington, DC

Keyword Search: Vaccine

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Was the gentlewoman's request to introduce a statement recognized?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to adhere to the protocols of the floor. If I did not, I would shout from the rooftops as a mother and a happy grandmother that I champion parental rights and parents. I am happy to have been one and to continue to be one, and I view parenthood and parents' rights as cherished rights.

Not one Democrat here would argue against that principle. In fact, there is no doubt that we, as Democrats, have fought for parents and their rights.

Child tax credits should now be made permanent, taking care of additional childcare for those parents who are burdened, and for those who need housing, investing more so that children have roofs over their heads, as well as ensuring that no one is left alone looking for housing.

Why I cannot support H.R. 5 is not because of my championing parents' rights. Before I came here from Houston, I was with parents, fighting against the devastating takeover by a Republican Governor and State education commissioner of a school district that has a rating of B.

I am against undermining nutrition in schools. That is in this bill. I am against undermining vulnerable children, such as transgender children. I am against banning books, such as a book about a Black astrologist, a scientist, Neil deGrasse Tyson, or the story of a man ultimately of peace who brought South Africa together, Nelson Mandela.

Banned books, I am against that. I am against it because I want to make sure that parents want to have involvement in what their children learn.

I am against not wanting to hear the words of Elie Wiesel about the Holocaust. He said: ``I swore never to be silent whenever wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation.''

Don't we want our children to be kind?

Don't we want our children to know that slavery was wrong, as I fight against slavery today that still exists?

Don't we want our children to understand the basis of all of our history, the mosaic of this Nation and African-American history?

Don't we want teachers to get the salaries that they deserve?

Don't we want to make sure that it is important, if you will, to ensure that our school buildings are repaired?

That is why I include in the Record the First Focus letter. First Focus Campaign for Children, Washington, DC, March 20, 2023. Hon. Julia Letlow, Member, Committee on Education & the Workforce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Hakeem Jeffries, Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Virginia Foxx, Chair, Committee on Education & the Workforce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Bobby Scott, Ranking Member, Committee on Education & the Workforce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Congresswoman Letlow, Speaker McCarthy, Leader Jeffries, Chairwoman Foxx, and Ranking Member Scott: I am writing on behalf of First Focus Campaign for Children, a bipartisan children's advocacy organization dedicated to making children and families a priority in federal budget and policy decisions, to express opposition to H.R. 5, the Parents Bill of Rights Act. We do not believe this bill strikes the right balance between the duties of schools, the rights and responsibilities of parents, and the oft-ignored but important rights of children. Parental Engagement Is Critical

First, let's be clear: Parents are fundamental to the upbringing of children and absolutely should be engaged and involved in the education of their children. In fact, children have better outcomes when their parents are involved. As a parent of four children myself, I have engaged with my children's schools by voting in school board elections, attending all parent-teacher conferences, volunteering in my children's classrooms, scheduling time to meet with teachers and administrators when important issues arise, serving on the PTAs at my children's schools, serving on athletic booster clubs, and volunteering as an assistant boys and girls basketball coach for two county schools.

In addition to my personal experiences, I have learned a great deal over the years from both of my parents, my step- mother, step-brother, my uncle, and several cousins, who are all educators. Consequently, I have immense respect for the work, talent, dedication, and concern that the vast majority of teachers and educators bring to their profession on a daily basis--all with the goal of educating our nation's children to best achieve their hopes and dreams while also trying to provide a place of safety and compassion for each and every one of their students.

Again, we strongly support parental engagement in education, but parents should not control all curriculum and educational decisions. Doing so is unworkable.

For example, imagine an elementary school of 500 students where 12 parents oppose the teaching of evolution, 8 parents believe the early is flat, 21 are Holocaust deniers, 14 oppose learning about slavery, 7 believe in racial segregation, 17 believe in the concept of schools without walls, 27 believe in corporal punishment, 12 want Harry Potter books to be banned, 25 want books banned that mention the Trail of Tears, 31 believe parents should be allowed to overrule a physician's decision that a child with a concussion should refrain from participating in sports, 39 oppose keeping kids out of school when they have the flu, 4 believe that a child with cancer might be contagious, 34 believe students should be ``tracked'' in all subject areas, 12 believe students should not be taught how to spell the words ``sinal tap'', ``quarantine'', or ``isolation'' because they are too ``scary of words,'' 41 don't like the bus routes, 45 want a vegan-only lunchroom, 4 demand same-sex classrooms, etc. Even though most parents oppose these demands by some parents and many of them are completely false, undermine the purpose of education, threaten the safety of children, or promote discrimination, H.R. 5 would seek to push their accommodation in some form.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I also include in the Record a March 7, 2023 letter to President Biden and Secretary Miguel Cardona. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, March 7, 2023. Hon. Joseph R. Biden, President of the United States, The White House, Washington, DC. Dr. Miguel Cardona, Secretary of Education, U.S. Department of Education, Lyndon Baines Johnson Building, Washington, DC. CC: Catherine E. Lhamon, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, Lyndon Baines Johnson Building, Washington, DC.

Dear President Biden and Secretary Cardona: Public school education around the country is under attack and the actions of the Texas Education Agency (TEA) in taking over one the largest school districts in the nation, despite a B+ rating overall and intense work with schools needing additional help the state has underfunded, HISD is further evidence we must support schools, parents and teachers.

We the undersigned Members of Congress are writing to request that the Department of Education take immediate action to investigate systemic and discriminatory state takeovers of public schools receiving federal funds from the U.S. Department of Education throughout the State of Texas. It is imperative that there be some form of federal intervention immediately to prevent a takeover of the Houston Independent School District (HISD) because of the detrimental impact on a predominantly minority school district that is a recipient of major federal funding.

State officials in Texas are actively working to eliminate public education and erode federal protections in educational institutions throughout the State of Texas, causing racially disparate and harmful outcomes for children and families in Black and Hispanic communities in Texas.

The recent actions taken by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and the state of Texas are an absolute outrage and a threat to all Texans. There is no justifiable reason for the TEA to take over HISD. Rather, the continued intermeddling and overstepping into our educational systems by Texas state officials is causing further harm and damage to our communities--and it must stop.

Taking over a school district such as HISD makes absolutely no sense at all. HISD is the largest school district in Texas, with 274 schools and a student population of approximately 200,000 students. HISD is rated B+, and 94 percent of HISD schools now earn a grade of A, B or C, up from 82 percent in 2019. Yet, TEA is basing its decision to take over HISD on one school. As of today, Phyllis Wheatley High School is no longer low performing and there are new members on the board. The conditions that existed when the takeover was first proposed no longer exist. Moreover, Wheatley would've passed under the rules that were in place at the time, but TEA changed the rules, and made them fail. Given Wheatley's improvement to a C and the district's overall B rating, the TEA's reason for initiating a takeover bid in 2019 is no longer valid.

TEA has no experience managing a district of this magnitude and should not be engaging in such drastic efforts without any viable justification. The structure that will be used to govern this huge school district will be a board of managers solely selected by the TEA--with no input by voters, teachers, students and/or administrators. There is a question of whether the TEA is operating correctly under Texas State education law and the Texas State Education Code. Pursuant to Senate bill 1365, Section 39.0546 (c) and Texas State Education Code. Section 39.0546(c)(1) and (2) it is unclear that the TEA commissioner even has the authority to takeover HISD because the school in question, Wheatley High School, has maintained a C performance rating at this time. This action is confusion to the constituents of HISD, and the state has no answer as to why they think they have the right to do this--particularly when Wheatley High School is performing, other schools are performing, and the school district is performing, even though there are schools with challenges that the school is focusing on.

While the TEA Commissioner's stated reasoning for pursuing a state takeover of HISD, namely one single underperforming school in Houston ISD, this rationalization further highlights the latest confusing and contradictory actions taken by Texas state officials in their larger efforts to justify stripping locally elected school boards of their authority, and effectively stripping Texans of their federally protected rights.

Despite the long-evidenced fact that state takeovers have targeted low income and Black and Hispanic communities, resulting in lower graduation rates and higher student suspensions, Governor Abbott has made no secret of his support for privately run charter schools--of which do not have to provide a free, appropriate public education under federal law--and his discontent for public schooling for all children in Texas, of which is subject to federal law and oversight. Seizing HISD, the eighth-largest school district in the country is a clear overreach by Texas government officials and their pursuit and intent to turn over state run schools to privately run charter schools.

A state takeover would not only lead to school closures, layoffs and no improvements in test scores, it would also absolutely harm the HISD scholars. All you have to do is look around to see any urban schools that TEA has taken over and you will see that TEA did not make them better. The vast majority of school districts that have been taken over by state agencies (TEA included) have not improved but declined.

There are 15 such instances over the course of three decades, according to state records. None likely offer a case study that would compare to a takeover of the diverse student body of HISD, the largest school district in the state and the eighth largest in the nation--which also serves predominantly Black and Hispanic children and families considered to be ``economically disadvantaged''. According to the recent article in the Houston Chronicle reporting on this concern of prior Texas state school takeovers, it is pertinent to quote the following information:

Seven of those districts were predominantly Black, including multiple districts with schools significant to Texas' African American history. Another seven of the districts taught mostly Hispanic student bodies. Only one district--Shepherd ISD--was predominantly white. Around 66 percent of students in that district are economically disadvantaged.

Of HISD's 187,000 students, 62 percent are Hispanic and 22 percent are Black. Nearly 80 percent of its students are economically disadvantaged.

None of the districts previously taken over by TEA come close to comparing in size to HISD. The smallest of those districts, Kendleton ISD, had less than 100 students and the largest, El Paso ISD, has 50,709. Beaumont ISD has around 17,000.''

While there are real schools struggling throughout Texas and despite an overall increase in public school performances, TEA is choosing to target only those schools with predominantly Black and Hispanic children over other school districts with far greater rates of performance decline. In fact, TEA released a report for its 2022 A-F accountability ratings for districts and campuses, which showed that of the 1,195 districts and 8,451 campuses rated in 2022, 25% of districts and 33% of campuses improved their letter grade from 2019, and 18% of high-poverty campuses in Texas were rated an A.

It is also important to highlight that Texas is behind the national average in how much it spends per student in the classroom. More specifically, data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that Texas spends $3,000 less than the national average. Overall, Texas spent a little over $10,000 per student in 2020; as the largest school district in the state, HISD spent even less, averaging $9,380 per student. Given the complete lack of funding infused into school districts like HISD, it should be incumbent upon the State of Texas to reprioritize and shift its focus to allocating more appropriate and equitable funding across shamefully underfunded and underserved communities and school districts.

In fact, it is well known that a critical factor impacting students' academic outcomes is investing even more money into low-income students. Low-income students perform worse in states with larger spending gaps--states whose actual spending is furthest from the amount needed. With data ranging back to the late 1980s, researchers found that most state takeovers don't translate to academic improvements. And in states with no spending gaps, poor students perform at or above the national average for all U.S. students--which shows that states can improve the academic performance of even our poorest students by investing more--not by discriminately targeting schools for state takeovers.

As your agency is aware, Texas is plagued with 154 open and pending cases of reported discrimination currently under investigation at elementary, secondary and post-secondary schools throughout the state. Between 2015 and 2023, there have been at least 51 cases opened at such institutions and are currently pending investigation for racial discrimination and harassment, as well as at least 28 cases for retaliatory discrimination at various educational institutions across Texas. And yet, these numbers do not even begin to account for the countless documented and undocumented cases of current and historical discriminatory practices, of which no state in this nation is immune to.

The Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights serves to enforce several federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance from the Department of Education. Whereby, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits sex discrimination; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability; and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 prohibits age discrimination, the primary role of OCR is to assist student populations facing these areas of discrimination, and to resolve their complaints, as well as to provide guidance and assistance to advocates and institutions promoting systemic solutions to civil rights problems.

These civil rights laws enforced by OCR extend to all state education agencies, elementary and secondary school systems, colleges and universities, vocational schools, proprietary schools, state vocational rehabilitation agencies, libraries, and museums that receive U.S. Department of Education funds, including but not limited to: admissions, recruitment, financial aid, academic programs, student treatment and services, counseling and guidance, discipline, classroom assignment, grading, vocational education, recreation, physical education, athletics, housing, and employment. An additional critically important part of OCR's responsibilities is to foster partnerships and initiatives designed to develop creative approaches to preventing and addressing discrimination.

Unfortunately, Texas educational school systems and their controlling governmental officials are no stranger to running afoul of federal laws your agency is tasked with enforcing and protecting.

In 2018, the Department of Education found the entire state of Texas to be in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. By setting an enrollment target for special education, the Texas Educational Agency (TEA) denied tens of thousands of children their federally protected right to free and appropriate public education supports and services. Governor Abbott has long sought to restrict access to free public education to all children in Texas and takeover control of all Texas educational systems in order to implement harmful and discriminatory policies and agendas.

Most recently, Governor Abbott has been pushing for additional voucher programs across Texas--namely an $8,000 initiative for individuals in rural communities. While some may say that school choice efforts are critical to ensuring that families can decide the best educational settings for their children, such programs are not going to help public school systems. Instead of providing critical funding for underfunded school programs, money and resources simply get diverted away from the public schools that serve the majority of children in Texas.

Now, with the recent Texas Supreme Court ruling to lift the temporary injunction, that kept the TEA Commissioner, Governor Abbott and other state officials from taking over the HISD, the plight of schools and the educational future in Houston, as well as throughout the entire state of Texas, is particularly dire and in need of federal oversight and intervention.

A TEA takeover would have a significant and negative impact on HISD and other Independent School Districts in Texas because a board of managers is not elected, and they don't have to answer to the constituents, including children, parents and teachers, in those districts. This is particularly relevant given the day before the TEA Commissioner announced the state takeover of HISD, voters had democratically elected new members to the school board-- raising many unsettling questions about the state's true agenda.

Additionally, we must not lose sight of the fact that teachers and support staff within the education system are some of the most important people in our society. The dedicated public service they provide represents the heart of our nation--as the work they do is vital to fabric of our communities. They shape generations of our future leaders and hold the key to our children's potential. As we know, however, teachers are underpaid and often go unappreciated in their efforts to make our world a better place. The TEA takeover of HISD would not only result in school closures and job cuts, but the actions of the TEA would also eliminate all of their rights on how to be heard on how they can proceed in the face of such attacks on their livelihoods and service to our communities. Well-meaning and extremely qualified teachers would lose their jobs and their voice.

That is why we are writing to request that the Department of Education, pursuant to its duty and authority under law, investigate and take immediate action to address the recent systematic and dangerous efforts underway by state and local officials in Texas seeking to undermine and undo decades of civils rights protections and advancements in educational institutions and student populations. I am confident that the Department of Education will do all that is necessary to ensure that the rights of Texans and all those impacted by the heightened discriminatory actions by Texas officials are protected and safeguarded.

Thank you very much for your consideration and assistance in this matter. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee at (202) 225-38l6, the Representative for the 18th Congressional District of Texas, the jurisdiction where HISD is located.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I want us to know that, in supporting parents' rights, we must support not destroying public school education, and we must support the Houston Independent School District to not allow----

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5, which we should really call the politics over parents act.

As a mom of three, let me be clear about what this legislation would do. It opens the door to gagging educators, parents, and students, and turns classrooms into archaic tools for a vocal extremist minority.

Worse, it undermines what any mother wants for her child, a supportive classroom space that provides a fact-based education and practical life skills and critical-thinking skills.

Just look at the colossal education nightmare unfolding in my home State of Florida right now. Governor DeSantis and his stooge Florida lawmakers propose prohibiting girls from discussing their menstrual periods with one another while in school. They are already banning books, and they are barring certain elements of African-American history from being taught in school.

Governor DeSantis and his radical allies are also waging a cruel campaign to marginalize Florida's LGBTQ+ community, and suppress the histories of others they deem unworthy.

The Republican revival of the Lavender Scare includes shutting down businesses and passing a ``Don't Say Gay'' law that bans classroom discussions of sexual orientation and gender identity, even in high school.

Like a cancer, this hateful law has spread, with Republicans now censoring educators on a wide variety of topics, so it is no surprise my colleagues across the aisle want to export these same dangerous policies across America.

Make no mistake, H.R. 5 undermines teachers, and instead of offering students more support, it effectively denies it. The result of this law in Florida has cleared bookshelves and canceled coursework and an AP exam on African-American history.

As a mother whose children attended public schools, I speak for millions of moms when I say all we want for our children is a safe learning environment that ensures they discover the wider world, and not force them to grow into narrow-minded, ignorant adults.

This legislation just hands a vocal and extreme minority of parents the power to dictate what every American child learns.

To all my business-friendly Republicans, every classroom move to censor and ban leaves our children even less competitive on the global stage. Mark my words.

Take it from this mom: We should reject this misguided legislation and, instead, unite to build classrooms where every child gets the resources and support they need to succeed in the 21st century.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the First Focus Campaign for Children. March 20, 2023. Hon. Julia Letlow, Member, Committee on Education & the Workforce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Hakeem Jeffries, Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Virginia Foxx, Chair, Committee on Education & the Workforce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Bobby Scott, Ranking Member, Committee on Education & the Workforce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Again, we strongly support parental engagement in education, but parents should not control all curriculum and educational decisions. Doing so is unworkable.

For example, imagine an elementary school of 500 students where 12 parents oppose the teaching of evolution, 8 parents believe the early is flat, 21 are Holocaust deniers, 14 oppose learning about slavery, 7 believe in racial segregation, 17 believe in the concept of schools without walls, 27 believe in corporal punishment, 12 want Harry Potter books to be banned, 25 want books banned that mention the Trail of Tears, 31 believe parents should be allowed to overrule a physician's decision that a child with a concussion should refrain from participating in sports, 39 oppose keeping kids out of school when they have the flu, 4 believe that a child with cancer might be contagious, 34 believe students should be ``tracked'' in all subject areas, 12 believe students should not be taught how to spell the words ``sinal tap'', ``quarantine'', or ``isolation'' because they are too ``scary of words''. 41 don't like the bus routes, 45 want a vegan-only lunchroom, 4 demand same-sex classrooms, etc. Even though most parents oppose these demands by some parents and many of them are completely false, undermine the purpose of education, threaten the safety of children, or promote discrimination, H.R. 5 would seek to push their accommodation in some form. The Real Parents Agenda for Children

We must all do better by our kids.

By an overwhelming 77-11 percent margin, a May 2022 poll by Lake Research Partners found that parents believe ``policy involving children should always be governed by a `best interest of the child' standard.'' By a 60-19 percent margin, the American people believe we are spending too little as opposed to too much on public education. And when it comes in investing in children, 9-in-10 voters (90-7 percent) agreed with the statement that ``investing in children helps improve their lives, development, and outcomes.''

When it comes to children's policy overall, a nationwide survey by Global Strategy Group in February 2023 found that American voters have strong priorities in favor of ``creating more effective childcare options for all families'' (87-8 percent), ``expanding family and medical leave'' (82-12 percent), bringing back the improved Child Tax Credit (76-13 percent), and ``expanding universal preschool for all 3- and 4-year-olds'' (73-16 percent). The support for this agenda stands in sharp contrast to the opposition that American voters express to an agenda that would call for ``passing legislation banning transgender-focused health care options for young Americans'' (41-47 percent), ``banning books that some parents find to have questionable content'' (32-57 percent), and ``banning high school classes like AP African- American history'' (21-68 percent). Children Have Fundamental Rights Too

Before diving into the details of H.R. 5, it is important to acknowledge that children need the support BY parents and government to be successful, and that they also sometimes need protection FROM parents and government.

The fact is that children have unique and fundamental human rights that should not be ignored or dismissed. These include the right to an education, the right to health care, the right to be protected from abuse and violence at home and in schools, the right to be protected from gun violence and school shootings, the right to not be discriminated against because of their race, ethnicity, gender (including gender identity and sexual orientation), economic status, disability, religion, immigration status, or age.

As for parental rights and H.R. 5's attempts to modify the Protection of Pupil Rights Act (PPRA) and the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), it is important to highlight that PPRA was originally enacted nearly 50 years ago (in 1974) and has been modified several times, including in 1978, 1994, and 2002, in order to broaden access and consent requirements.

H.R. 5 Adds New Bureaucracy to Schools and Detracts from the Time, Attention, and Funding Dedicated to Students

While the impetus for aspects of H.R. 5 are well- intentioned, our first concern is that the language is duplicative of language already in federal law, policies in state law, and general practice by school districts all across this country in many respects but also potentially adds new bureaucracy and red tape to schools and school districts all across this for no apparent benefit.

Unfortunately, these proposed changes may potentially harm children. Any funding, time, and attention that is shifted away from students and their learning toward added bureaucracy and red tape can be detrimental to students. But H.R. 5 provides no funding to address the many newly imposed bureaucratic requirements upon schools.

For example, H.R. 5 proposes new reporting requirements for schools to include in their ``local educational agency report card'' a budget that is detailed ``for each elementary school and secondary school served by the local educational agency.'' Requiring detailed accounting of costs, some of which are shared across school campuses (e.g., school nurses, bus drivers, etc.), for the more than 90,000 public schools across this country will likely greatly increase the employment of accountants. However, H.R. 5 does not provide funding to pay for such a mandate. Before proceeding, we should acknowledge that this newly-imposed mandate detracts from the funding, time, and attention school districts and educators have for improving the education and well-being of children.

First Focus Campaign for Children supports tracking funding that is allocated for children's programs as a share of government spending, and thus, annually produce a Children's Budget that analyzes the funding of more than 250 federal programs. We share this report with Congress to raise the awareness and transparency of funding for children. However, we would urge Congress to focus as many of those dollars as possible on the children themselves and not on excessive accounting and reporting measures that consume much of the attention and focus of H.R. 5. H.R. 5 Promotes Book Bans Rather Than Access to Books and Reading

Another important concern is language from Sec. 104 and Sec. 202 that would require schools to share with all parents of students at every school ``a list of books and other reading materials available to the students of such school in the school library.'' Again, compiling, cataloging, and sharing such information to all parents would come at great time and expense that is not paid for by H.R. 5. That money and time would come at the expense of librarians and other educators focused on the education of children. Parents already have the right to visit their child's school and its library, to request such information, and to ask their own children what they are learning and reading in school.

Rather than adding the burdens of more bureaucracy and red tape to schools and creating a chilling effect through increasing incidences of censorship and book bans, we should be working together to pass legislation to encourage students to read and learn through greater access to books, such as Reach Out and Read, First Book, Reading Is Fundamental, and other literacy programs. An individual parent should not solely be allowed to object to a book and cause its censorship for all of the children in a school or school district. This violates the parental rights of the vast majority of parents who do not support book bans or censorship.

Even more importantly, it violates the fundamental rights of children. As Justice Abe Fortas wrote in his majority opinion in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969):

Students in school as well as out of school are ``persons'' under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State . . . In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views.

Justice Fortas adds:

It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.

In the Supreme Court case Island Trees School District v. Pico (1982), the Court ruled that children have a fundamental right to an education and access to learning that is not limited by the censorship of books based on ``narrowly partisan or political'' grounds. As Justice William Brennan writes:

Our Constitution does not permit the official suppression of ideas. Thus, whether petitioners' removal of books from their school libraries denied respondents their First Amendment rights depends upon the motivation behind petitioners' actions. If petitioners intended by their removal decision to deny respondents access to ideas with which petitioners disagreed, and if this intent was the decisive factor in petitioners' decisions, then petitioners have exercised their discretion in violation of the Constitution. H.R. 5 Threatens Access to Health Care, Privacy, and Confidentiality of Students

Concern about access to health care for our children leads us to oppose the language in H.R. 5 with respect to school health. There were more than 4 million children in this country that were uninsured in 2020. In 2016, the Children's Health Fund estimated that over 20 million children lacked ``sufficient access to essential health care.''

Therefore, the role of school based health clinics, school nurses, school counselors, coaches, social workers, and physical trainers in schools is critically important to the health, education, and well-being of children. The language in H.R. 5 appears to dramatically expands the potential incidences in which all of these school personnel would have to seek out parental notification and consent prior to performing care, such as to check whether a student has a fever, has an ankle sprain, may have experienced a concussion, or need to check for a possible broken bone. In many cases, these may not be considered emergencies, but in the meantime, children languish or must wait while school personnel spend large amounts of time trying to track down parents for consent.

In the report accompanying H.R. 5, the House Education and Workforce Committee majority write, ``Americans should never be forced to relinquish these parental rights to government-- whether that involves curriculum decisions or personal medical choices'' (emphasis added).

We strongly disagree.

First, such a statement would threaten the health, safety, and lives of some children in our country. For example, based on that statement, does the Committee majority reject the ability of schools to set graduation requirements? Oppose the teaching of evolution? Allow parents to send children to school even if they are vomiting, have a fever, diarrhea, or have a communicable disease? Does the Committee majority now oppose school vaccine mandates? School concussion protocols?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of 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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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 USA.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, did the gentlewoman yield back her time?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source

Parents Bill of Rights Act

Floor Speech

Navigation

Our Mission