Parents Bill of Rights Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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.''
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source