Promoting Responsible Oversight to Eliminate Communist Teachings for Our Kids Act

Floor Speech

I rise in opposition to H.R. 1069, the so-called PROTECT Our Kids Act. This bill would add a new stipulation that disqualifies public schools from receiving Federal funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act if the school receives contributions, materials, or other resources from China or an individual or entity acting directly or indirectly on behalf of the Government of the People's Republic of China.

The bill gives no guidance on what ``acting directly or indirectly on behalf of'' means or how you are supposed to know and how a parent's contribution to a school program should be evaluated, and really, are you supposed to scrutinize all parents' contributions or just those from parents of Chinese-American students?

H.R. 1069 would specifically prohibit Federal funding for any school that operates the program sponsored by the Confucius Institutes or Confucius classrooms. It is worth noting that although there may have been a lot of programs in the past, right now there may be as few as five Confucius Institutes in this country serving K-12 students. The provisions of this bill will have to be administered not by those five school systems, but every school district--15,000 school districts-- will have to administer the provisions of this bill.

As written, the bill would create significant administrative burdens to our schools and chill community investment in our children. For example, the bill would disqualify a school from receiving Federal funds by simply accepting donations from a Chinese immigrant if it turns out the immigrant is acting indirectly on behalf of the Government of the People's Republic of China. That is if you can find out.

The bill bestows upon the Secretary of Education the sole discretion of deciding if an individual is acting indirectly on behalf of the Chinese Government, the very department which the Trump administration is actively dismantling. Without any additional funding or dedicated help, schools would have to become investigators and determine if an individual who wanted to donate to the school or participate in parents' contributions could possibly be tied to the Chinese Government. The justified fear of losing critical Federal funds would almost assuredly lead schools to eye any well-meaning donations skeptically, sowing distrust in our neighbors.

Now note, there is no limit to this level of funding. It doesn't say contributions over $1,000 or over $10,000. It is any contribution. It must be said that there is no credible evidence to support the claims that China is exerting any inappropriate or undue influence over America's K-12 public schools. Even the report from the group Parents Defending Education, which makes these allegations, offers speculation rather than verifiable incidents or actual influence.

However, even if we are able to verify that China poses a credible threat to our K-12 schools, this bill, as written, does nothing to actually address any national security threats. Instead, it seeks to punish schools for accepting educational materials or participating in cultural exchange programs. Actually, our schools would be the victims of the undue foreign influence, but instead of deterring the bad actors, the bill seeks to punish the victim and, in effect, punish our students. The bill is, therefore, poorly written, poorly tailored, misdirected, and ultimately counterproductive and not a targeted national security measure.

Similar to H.R. 1005 and H.R. 1049, which we considered yesterday, H.R. 1069, if passed, would force school districts already facing shortages of teachers, counselors, and support staff to divert critical time and resources from instruction to completing bureaucratic paperwork. This is the very definition of an unfunded mandate. It imposes obligations on 15,000 school systems without offering any capacity or funding to meet that obligation.

Lastly, we have to note that the Trump administration is in the process of trying to abolish the Department of Education, with key responsibilities being shifted to other agencies. We are left with a chaotic patchwork of authority and no one apparently left to actually administer the provisions of this bill.

For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I recommend a ``no'' vote on the bill and reserve the balance my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, when you hear the title, PROTECT Our Kids Act, you wonder what this bill is all about. You might think it protects kids from guns, protects kids from bullying, or protects kids maybe from online predators; but no, this is from the foreign influence of China.

There is no credible evidence of any improper influence in K-12 schools, yet this is what the bill is about. It imposes sweeping penalties that do nothing to enhance national security. It only harms students. The apparent target of this legislation seems to be the maybe five school districts that have Confucius Institute programs, but it applies the provisions of the bill to 15,000 school systems in America.

All of this unfolds while the Trump administration works to dismantle the Department of Education, leaving critical responsibilities scattered throughout agencies. This bill wastes critical resources without any apparent benefit.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source