[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


     FREE SPEECH: THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S CHILLING OF PARENTS' 
                           FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

        SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND LIMITED GOVERNMENT

                                 OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                        THURSDAY, MARCH 23, 2023
                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-11
                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
         
         
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]         


               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov               
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
51-678                    WASHINGTON : 2023                 
               


                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

DARRELL ISSA, California             JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking 
KEN BUCK, Colorado                       Member
MATT GAETZ, Florida                  ZOE LOFGREN, California
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana              SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                  STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
TOM McCLINTOCK, California           HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin                   Georgia
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              ADAM SCHIFF, California
CHIP ROY, Texas                      DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina           ERIC SWALWELL, California
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana             TED LIEU, California
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin          PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  J. LUIS CORREA, California
BEN CLINE, Virginia                  MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey            LUCY McBATH, Georgia
TROY NEHLS, Texas                    MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
KEVIN KILEY, California              DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             CORI BUSH, Missouri
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               GLENN IVEY, Maryland
LAUREL LEE, Florida
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina

                                 ------                                

        SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND LIMITED GOVERNMENT

MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana, Chair       MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania, 
TOM McCLINTOCK, California               Ranking Member
CHIP ROY, Texas                      STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina           VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
KEVIN KILEY, California              CORI BUSH, Missouri
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
WESLEY HUNT, Texas                   HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
                                         Georgia

               CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
          AMY RUTKIN, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                        Thursday, March 23, 2023

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Mike Johnson, Chair of the Subcommittee on the 
  Constitution and Limited Government from the State of Louisiana     1
The Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking Member of the 
  Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government from 
  the State of Pennsylvania......................................     3
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the Committee on 
  the Judiciary from the State of New York.......................     6

                               WITNESSES

Nicole Neily, President and Founder, Parents Defending Education
  Oral Testimony.................................................     9
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    11
Tyson Langhofer, Director, Center for Academic Freedom, Alliance 
  Defending Freedom
  Oral Testimony.................................................    17
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    19
Tiffany Justice, Co-Founder, Moms for Liberty
  Oral Testimony.................................................    32
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    34
Nadine Johnson, Managing Director, PEN America Washington, Free 
  Express Program
  Oral Testimony.................................................    38
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    40

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

All materials submitted for the record by the Subcommittee on the 
  Constitution and Limited Government are listed below...........    76

Materials submitted by the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking 
  Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited 
  Government from the State of Pennsylvania, for the record
    A special report entitled, ``School boards get death threats 
        amid rage over race, gender, mask policies,'' Feb. 15, 
        2022, Reuters
    An article entitled, ``Proud Boys' Presence Leads to Metal 
        Detectors, Deputies at School Board Meetings,'' Oct. 12, 
        2021, Chapelboro
A report entitled, ``A `Manufactured' Issue and `Misapplied' 
  Priorities: Subpoenaed Documents Show No Legitimate Basis for 
  the Attorney General's Anti-Parent Memo,'' House Judiciary 
  Committee Staff Report, submitted by the Honorable Mike 
  Johnson, Chair of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and 
  Limited Government from the State of Louisiana, for the record
Materials submitted by the Honorable Chip Roy, a Member of the 
  Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government from 
  the State of Texas, for the record
    An article entitled, ``Facts about library books in Duval 
        County Public Schools,'' Feb. 17, 2023, Duvall County 
        Schools
    A book's images entitled, ``Gender Queer: A Memoir,'' May 28, 
        2019, Maia Kobabe
    A book's images entitled, ``This Book is Gay,'' Sept. 7, 
        2021, Juno Dawson
    An article entitled, ``Shocking: Images from book `Gender 
        Queer,' which is stocked in school libraries across 
        Iowa,'' Oct. 28, 2021, The Iowa Standard
Materials submitted by the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking 
  Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited 
  Government from the State of Pennsylvania, for the record
    Attorney General Garland's School Board memo, Oct. 4, 2021
    An article entitled, ``FBI, DOJ tagged threats against school 
        officials, not parents for attending school board 
        meetings,'' Jan. 10, 2023, Politifact
Materials submitted by the Honorable Mike Johnson, Chair of the 
  Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government from 
  the State of Louisiana, for the record
    Handwritten letters from parents dissatisfied with the 
        education their children are receiving in public schools
    An article entitled, ``Southern Poverty Law Center Gets 
        Creative to Label `Hate Groups': Principled conservatives 
        are lumped together with bigots,'' Sept. 7, 2017, 
        Bloomberg

                                APPENDIX

Materials submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking 
  Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New 
  York
    Statement from Bruce Lesley, First Focus on Children
    Statement from Janai Nelson, President and Director-Counsel, 
        NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

 
                         FREE SPEECH: THE BIDEN
       ADMINISTRATION'S CHILLING OF PARENTS' FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

                              ----------                              


                        Thursday, March 23, 2023

                        House of Representatives

        Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:37 p.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike Johnson 
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Johnson of Louisiana, 
Jordan, McClintock, Roy, Bishop, Kiley, Hageman, Hunt, Fry, 
Scanlon, Nadler, Cohen, Escobar, Bush, Jackson Lee, and Johnson 
of Georgia.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The Subcommittee will come to 
order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess at any time.
    We welcome everybody to today's hearing on free speech and 
the Biden Administration's chilling of parents' fundamental 
rights.
    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement. We 
want to thank our witnesses for being here this afternoon. I 
know you are all busy people. You were delayed a little bit 
because of our vote series, so thanks for being gracious with 
your time.
    This is our Committee's first hearing regarding the Biden 
Administration's chilling of parents' fundamental rights. It 
sounds provocative, but the evidence shows clearly that this is 
exactly what is happening. Given the level of attacks this 
administration has waged against parents, it is surely not 
going to be the last of these hearings.
    Today's focus will be on how the National School Boards 
Association colluded with the Biden Administration to insert 
Federal law enforcement into local school board meetings. It is 
clear that the Biden Administration has no tolerance for those 
with ideological beliefs different from their own. The 
Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and thought to all 
Americans and that certainly includes the rights of parents 
over their children's education.
    When did it become the role of the government to decide 
what children should be taught without informing their parents? 
The vilification of concerned parents by this administration is 
a gross assault by the Federal government and one that aims to 
bolster identity politics at the expense of the interests and 
the goals of parents in simply raising their families.
    Recognizing that the family is the most important and 
sacred institution in any society, the U.S. Supreme Court has 
held for more than a century that the due process clause of the 
14th Amendment protects a parent's fundamental right to ``make 
decisions as to the care, custody, and control of their own 
children.''
    The First Amendment also protects a parent's right to speak 
and advocate for their children, but that right has been 
significantly stifled over the past few years because the 
leftists have decided they apparently know better than parents 
do. That is an outrage, and the American people are rising up 
to say that they will no longer tolerate it.
    As the radical leftists push this woke agenda on America's 
children, parents across the Nation began to speak up. They 
went to their local school board meetings, and they spoke out. 
They shared their views on issues like critical race theory and 
mask mandates and school closures and controversial curriculum. 
As more people spoke out, the NSBA, the National School Boards 
Association, colluded with the Biden Administration and we use 
that term intentionally because that is how it is described. 
They colluded with the administration to intimidate these 
parents into silence by siccing Federal law enforcement on 
them.
    These are just a few of the facts and summary. On September 
29, 2021, the NSBA sent a letter to President Biden and in the 
letter they equated concerned parents voicing their opinion at 
school board meetings with domestic terrorism. They urged the 
Biden Administration to use the PATRIOT Act against them, to 
use the Federal statutory authorities against them.
    On October 4th, just five days after the NSBA sent its 
letter, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memorandum 
that directed the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Offices to address a 
purported, ''disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and 
threats of violence at school board meetings.''
    The PATRIOT Act was passed in response to 9/11 to combat 
international terrorism. This administration is now employing 
it to target concerned parents. Attorney General Garland did 
not define intimidation, harassment, and threats in his memo, 
and that ambiguity has had the effort, of course, of chilling 
protected First Amendment activity by parents and law 
enforcement because they have to guess as to what speech is 
legally allowed, now, at school board meetings. It is absurd.
    Whistleblower testimony shows that FBI agents themselves 
had immediate concerns about the Attorney General's memo. One 
FBI whistleblower testified to our Judiciary Committee that 
they were ``stunned that the highest ranking law enforcement 
official in the country would publish something like that'' 
because ``it was leading toward targeting parents for speaking 
up about their children's education,'' and that it would 
``absolutely chill parents' First Amendment rights.'' That 
agent was stating the obvious.
    The Biden Administration's DOJ went even further than that. 
On October 20th, the FBI's Assistant Director of the 
Counterterrorism Division and the Assistant Director for the 
Criminal Division in an email notifying FBI personnel about a 
new EDUOFFICIALS threat tag that they created to apply to 
school board investigations. Another FBI whistleblower told our 
Committee that the memo and the creation of the threat tag 
suggested,

         . . . that the demand for terrorism vastly outstrips the 
        supply. So, we are going to try to expand out as much as we can 
        in order to meet the metrics that we have in order to show that 
        we are a successful agency.

Wow.
    Committee Republicans have repeatedly called on Attorney 
General Garland to rescind that ill-conceived memo, especially 
after the NSBA issued a retraction and apology for its letter. 
On February 23rd of this year, Chair Jordan had to subpoena the 
Justice Department, the FBI, and the Education Department for 
documents necessary to complete our oversight on this issue. 
They resisted that. To date, we only have 14 pages turned over 
by the FBI. From information obtained through the subpoenas, it 
is clear that the Biden Administration has misused Federal law 
enforcement and counterterrorism resources for political 
purposes. Still, the Attorney General's memo is standing out 
there. He will not rescind it.
    The Biden Administration's goal is clearly to silence the 
critics of its radical educational policies. Obviously, some 
Democrats today want to silence parents who disagree with their 
woke agenda to indoctrinate American children with 
controversial and inappropriate curriculum. If you think I am 
engaging in hyperbole, you need to stay tuned for this hearing.
    The radical left has infiltrated nearly every institution 
in this country and our education system is one of the most 
glaring examples. Just imagine just for a moment, if a 
Republican president designated an entire group of Americans as 
terrorists simply because they disagreed with the 
administration, Democrats and the media would go berserk. Yet, 
strangely, when the Biden Administration does this, they all 
look the other way.
    A good conscience and the Constitution require us to 
address this with urgency. Our responsibility in these hearings 
and in all these investigations throughout this entire Congress 
is to do three things very clearly: First, Clearly present the 
undisputed facts for the American people to evaluate for 
themselves and for us; second, to use as a guide to craft 
legislation to reform this chaos and ensure it is never allowed 
to happen again; and third, use the power of the purse that we 
have here in the House to ensure that Federal agencies are 
never again allowed to abuse and use the precious treasure of 
taxpayers against them.
    The Biden Administration's draconian approach to governance 
is a grave concern for Committee Republicans and I think all 
Americans. We will continue to fight to restore parental rights 
guaranteed in the Constitution.
    We look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and I 
yield back.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania, for her opening statement.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, and because this is the first 
hearing of the Subcommittee on the Constitution this Congress, 
I want to congratulate my colleagues, Representative Johnson on 
becoming Chair of this important Committee. As the 
Subcommittee's new Ranking Member, I look forward to working 
with you and the other Members of the Subcommittee to find 
common ground wherever possible so that we can work together 
for the benefit of the American people.
    Of course, one of the challenges is finding an agreed-on 
set of facts and I have to challenge much of what we just 
heard.
    Having served on school boards and having seen what has 
been happening across the country in recent months, recent 
years, I would have to say that the real First Amendment 
threats that our schools, teachers, students, and parents are 
facing is the attempt to turn classrooms into the epicenter of 
divisive culture wars. Extremists are imposing their beliefs on 
all students and parents through library book bans, bans on 
certain subjects in the public-school curricula, and censorship 
of educators, all to the detriment of students learning.
    Since 2021, State legislatures have introduced over 300 
bills in 44 States which can be characterized as educational 
gag orders. Twenty of these bills have become law and other 
States and localities have enacted such restrictions without 
legislation. Make no mistake, these bans represent the use of 
government power to deny students the chance to read books, to 
learn the full scope of our history, or even to be acknowledged 
as full members of American society.
    It is telling what types of materials these bans have 
targeted. These speech-restrictive measures are part of a 
systemic effort by MAGA extremists to eliminate portrayals of 
LGBTQ+ people and to erase the accurate teachings of racism 
from the American story. This march toward censorship and book 
bans deprives our students of an accurate and fact-based 
education. As these politically motivated stunts take effect, 
they shortchange our children and silence parents who want 
their children to be fully educated on these subjects.
    Extremist politicians are more interested in abusing their 
power to bring divisive culture wars into our kids' classrooms 
and our neighborhood schools than they are in proposing 
solutions to actually help students and parents. If we are 
concerned about chilling free speech, we should be concerned 
that the conservative attacks on free speech have caused those 
who write and publish books to be censored themselves. 
According to The New York Times, one textbook publisher has 
gone so far as to remove all mentions of race in the 
description of Rosa Parks' experience to gain approval to 
disseminate those books in Florida schools.
    There is a huge difference between attempts to suppress 
free speech based on content as we have been seeing in recent 
years and addressing speech that may be criminal because it 
threatens violence which we have seen directed toward educators 
and school board members across the country.
    Our Republican colleagues have tried to frame these 
potentially criminal acts to intimidate school board officials 
as examples of protected free speech by caring and involved 
parents. They are not. Any reasonable person can see the 
difference between threats of political violence and legitimate 
political discourse.
    Unfortunately, this hearing is based on that false 
narrative or alternative facts, if you prefer to call it that, 
designed to promote chaos and division in our communities. Over 
the past few years, partisan divides have grown, and bad actors 
have exploited those divisions for political gain. In the 
process, we have seen teachers, school officials, school board 
members, and their families subjected to threats and violence 
that were unimaginable just a few years ago.
    I know this from personal experience. All three of my 
children received public education and I served for a decade as 
a school board member including as president of my local school 
board, just as my father and sister before me had. During that 
time, I had endless conversations with involved parents and 
constituents in grocery stores, at school concerts, on soccer 
fields, and at formal school board meetings about how our 
schools could best serve our children and our taxpayers. 
Sometimes the discussions were emotional, passionate, heated, 
and people didn't always agree, but everyone always respected 
our democratic process and the boundaries of civility and 
protected speech as we sought to reach the best possible 
solutions for our community. Not once in that decade did I ever 
witness threats to the personal safety of board members, 
educators, or their families.
    In recent years, we have seen the weaponization of school 
board comment periods as part of an operative fueled with dark 
money, sought to create chaos in our communities to promote 
their own political ambitions. Near my district in Southeastern 
PA, school board members received threats of invoking gas 
chambers and acts of physical violence. Other school boards had 
to suspend meetings and call the police when brawls erupted. In 
school districts across the country, school board members and 
their families were threatened with death and physical violence 
based on the positions they took in school board meetings. This 
kind of political violence is not normal. It is un-American and 
it must be remembered that these attacks were happening against 
the backdrop of rising political violence across the country, 
in part stoked by these extremist right-wing conspiracy 
theories that have endangered public officials from election 
workers to teachers to law makers to law enforcement in this 
very building.
    When school authorities sought help from law enforcement to 
address this terrifying trend of threats against them and the 
people they serve, the Justice Department made clear in its 
memorandum on the subject that it was concerned not with the 
constitutional right to engage as Merrick Garland said ``to 
engage in spirited debate about policy matters'' but, was 
concerned with criminal conduct, specifically, threats that are 
not protected by the First Amendment.
    The Supreme Court established long ago that the First 
Amendment does not protect threats and incitements to violence 
or intimidation, so when some parents alleged that their free 
speech rights had been impeded by the Department of Justice's 
memo outlining its limited investigation of unprotected speech 
and potential criminal conduct, Federal court dismissed that 
case and held that the violence was not constitutionally 
protected free speech. These are deeply troubling developments.
    I hope we can hear from our witnesses about the true 
dangers to First Amendment freedoms in our country, of teachers 
being censored and books being banned, and ways that are 
dangerous to our children's education, to our democracy, and to 
our social fabric, instead of hearing more about fake culture 
wars that are stoked by political actors.
    I thank all our witnesses for participating in today's 
hearing and I look forward to a fair, balanced, and substantive 
discussion of these issues.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I thank the gentlelady. The Chair 
of the Full Committee, Mr. Jordan, is present, but I think he 
is waiving his opening statement in the interest of time. Thank 
you, Mr. Jordan.
    I now recognized the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, 
Mr. Nadler, for his opening statement if he has one.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would also like to 
thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, Ms. Scanlon, and to 
congratulate her on becoming Ranking Member of the 
Subcommittee, the first woman to do so in the position I also 
held for many years.
    Mr. Chair, our First Amendment protections are precious. 
There is a reason the Framers enshrined the freedoms of 
religion, speech, the press, and the right to peaceably 
assemble and petition the Government for redress as the First 
Amendment to the Constitution. These rights limit Government's 
power over our individual lives, thereby helping enable us to 
effectively participate in democratic self-governance. 
Restrictions on these freedoms is certainly a topic worthy of 
examination in this Subcommittee.
    It is unfortunate, therefore, that the new Republican 
majority would waste an opportunity for serious discussion of 
this issue and is instead using the first hearing of this 
Congress to advance the spurious assertion that the Biden 
Administration and the FBI are somehow chilling parents' free 
speech rights. There is scant evidence to back up the bogus 
claim of a wide-ranging Federal government conspiracy to quell 
opposition to COVID-19 policies or so-called woke 
indoctrination by targeting parents who protested at school 
boards as our colleagues across the aisle would have us 
believe.
    The Republican majority has wasted untold taxpayer dollars 
in a failed attempt to corroborate an elaborate conservative 
persecution fantasy built atop just two documents. The single 
September 2021 letter sent by the National School Boards 
Association, NSBA, to President Biden requesting Federal 
assistance in the face of real and credible threats of violence 
at school board meetings, and a brief, one-page memo issued by 
Attorney General Merrick Garland simply directing the FBI and 
Federal prosecutors to hold meetings with local law enforcement 
partners to discuss criminal threats against school personnel. 
Notably, neither the NSBA letter nor the Attorney General's 
memo mentioned the word parent and the Attorney General's memo 
did not use the term domestic terrorism. No amount of hysteria 
that we will hear from on the other side today will change 
those two facts.
    Instead, this false Republican narrative, unsupported by 
the evidence, appears to have originated in messaging guidance 
designed by a documentary film maker associated with the 
Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. The majority 
has also relied on so-called whistleblower testimony to 
reinforce this manufactured narrative, pointing to the FBI's 
use of ``threat tags'' as they investigate potential criminal 
conduct.
    In fact, the use of such threat tags is nothing nefarious. 
According to the FBI, it simply uses these tags to track 
information and to spot trends, but it does not necessarily 
signal a full investigation. Here, the tag was used to track 
threats directed against school officials, not parents who 
attended school board meetings, as has been claimed by the 
majority.
    Moreover, as the Republicans' own recent interim staff 
report acknowledges, the FBI has indicated that none of the 
school board related investigations have resulted in Federal 
arrests or charges. The majority would have the public believe 
that this all adds up to some murky, nefarious conspiracy 
orchestrated by the Biden Administration to chill parents of 
free speech rights. There is a simpler explanation.
    The DOJ is doing its job. We are living during an epidemic 
of gun violence and mass shootings. Sadly, workplaces, grocery 
stores, places of worship, and perhaps worst of all, schools, 
have been targets. Political violence of all stripes has become 
an increasingly common occurrence. For those us who were in 
this House on January 6th know that all too well. In this 
environment, it is both reasonable and legal for the Department 
of Justice to ensure that State and local law enforcement have 
the resources they need to protect American citizens from 
violence and threats of violence.
    Of course, the First Amendment protects the right to 
protest vigorously, even with offensive or acerbic language. 
The Supreme Court has also recognized that the First Amendment 
does not protect speech that is an incitement to imminent 
violence, a true threat of violence or other criminal conduct.
    When a parent or any other person crosses the line from 
mere protest to credible threats of violence at school board 
meetings, this unprotected conduct undermines free speech 
values by intimidating other parents into silence. The DOJ memo 
explicitly acknowledges this very point, a fact my Republican 
colleagues always seem to ignore. Indeed, when a group of 
parents filed a lawsuit alleging a First Amendment violation 
based on the Department of Justice memo, a Trump-appointed 
District Court Judge dismissed the case concluding that the 
memo did not target First Amendment protected activities, but 
rather it targeted unprotected criminal conduct.
    Bogus conspiracy theories aside, Americans are, in fact, 
currently facing a very real threat to their First Amendment 
rights in the education context. That threat, however, is 
coming from State and local governments. Republican-controlled 
State governments across the country have enacted or proposed 
book bans and restrictions on training and curriculum. 
Undoubtedly, my Republican colleagues will cherry pick out of 
context examples to justify this wave of legislation and other 
censorship measures, arguing that they are meant to protect 
children from age-inappropriate material of ``divisive 
concepts.'' These extremely, often vague, legislative mandates 
ultimately targeted particular groups and invariably focus on 
books by Black and LGBTQ authors and on the teaching of 
American history that includes an honest examination of race 
and bigotry.
    Let me be clear. This State-mandated censorship does not 
protect students. Instead, these legislative efforts will 
likely harm students, teachers, and the quality of public 
education. We do not serve the interests of students when we 
shield them from the truth, as uncomfortable as the truth may 
be at times. Moreover, such ham-handed censorship statutes can 
lead to absurd results. For example, a Texas school 
administrator had to apologize after she advised faculty 
members to teach ``opposing perspectives'' about the Holocaust 
to comply with a State law aimed at curbing the discussion of 
critical race theory in the classroom.
    An inclusive education is important for all children 
because it prepares students for participating in civil life in 
a pluralistic democracy. This State-imposed censorship will not 
protect our children or improve their education. To the 
contrary, it will harm them by promoting ignorance. Rather than 
chasing conspiracy theories and inventive scandals that advance 
the false narrative, we have plenty of true threats to free 
speech that we can examine. That would be a much better use of 
this Subcommittee's valuable time and resources. I hope that we 
will chart a different course going forward. With that, I yield 
back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I thank the gentleman. Without 
objection, all other opening statements will be included in the 
record.
    We will now introduce today's witnesses.
    Ms. Nicole Neily is the President and Founder of Parents 
Defending Education, a national membership organization that 
provides parents with resources and support to advocate for 
their children's education. Parents Defending Education also 
advocates for and informs children and parents through 
investigative reporting and litigation and engagement with 
relevant local, State, and national educational bodies.
    Mr. Tyson Langhofer is a Senior Counsel and Director for 
the Center for Academic Freedom at the Alliance Defending 
Freedom. Mr. Langhofer represents students and faculty at the 
public high school and college level in defending their First 
Amendment freedoms. ADF is the world's largest organization 
committed to protecting free speech, religious freedom, and 
parental rights.
    Ms. Tiffany Justice is a Co-founder of Moms for Liberty. 
She is a mother of four school-aged children of her own and has 
served on a school board for four years. Moms for Liberty is a 
national, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that seeks to 
unify, educate, and empower parents to defend their parental 
rights at all levels of government.
    Finally, Ms. Nadine Johnson is with us. She serves as 
Managing Director of PEN America Washington and Free Express 
Program. She spearheads PEN America's engagement with the U.S. 
Government on free expression issues in the U.S. and around the 
globe, focusing on matters of foreign policy, tech policy, 
privacy, and educational censorship.
    We welcome our witnesses and thank all of you for appearing 
today. We will begin by swearing you in. If you wouldn't mind, 
please rise, and raise your right hand.
    Do you solemnly swear or affirm under penalty of perjury 
that the testimony you are about the give is true and correct 
to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief so help 
you God? Thank you.
    Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in 
the affirmative.
    Please know that your written testimony will be entered 
into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask you to 
summarize your testimony in five minutes. The microphone in 
front of you has a clock and a series of lights. When the light 
turns yellow, you should begin to conclude your remarks. When 
the light turns red, your time has expired.
    Ms. Neily, we will begin with you. Push that button and we 
can hear your voice. Thank you. Is that button lit up there? 
You have got to--there you go.

                   STATEMENT OF NICOLE NEILY

    Ms. Neily. Chair Jordan, Chair Johnson, Ranking Members 
Scanlon and Nadler and distinguished Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me today.
    My name is Nicole Neily, and I am the President and Founder 
of Parents Defending Education. I am also the Executive 
Director of PDE Action and founder of the free speech 
organization Speech First, so this hearing topic is one that is 
near to my heart.
    On September 29, 2021, the president of the National School 
Boards Association sent a letter to President Biden requesting 
Federal intervention in school board issues, invoking, among 
other statutes, the U.S. PATRIOT Act to prove that Federal 
engagement was warranted. Her letter stated that the 
classification of these heinous actions could be the 
equivalence to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes. 
The NSBA sought assistance from the Department of Justice, FBI, 
Department of Homeland Security, Secret Service, and its 
National Threat Assessment Center. Although an early draft of 
the letter revealed that the NSBA also initially demanded that 
both the National Guard and military police be deployed against 
parents.
    Families across the country were shocked by this letter and 
even more taken aback when five days later, lightning speed in 
Washington, DC, Attorney General Merrick Garland signed a memo 
on October 4, 2021, directing the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, working with each United States Attorneys to 
convene meetings with Federal, State, local, Tribal, and 
territorial leaders in each Federal judicial district within 30 
days of the issuance of this memorandum. Unsurprisingly, 
parents were frightened by this escalation. In the days 
following the release of DOJ's memo, we fielded dozens of 
requests from concerned parents who worried whether they should 
continue their advocacy work or simply stay home fearing a 
knock at the door from Federal law enforcement.
    Family fears turned out to be well founded. On October 14, 
2021, the Acting U.S. Attorney for Montana sent a memo to the 
Montana Attorney General, all county attorneys, all sheriffs, 
the Montana Office of Public Instruction, and the Montana 
School Boards Association outlining a short summary of Federal 
statutes that may serve as a basis for prosecution of such 
threats and violent conduct in a move that calls to mind the 
law school game can you indict a ham sandwich?
    Two days later, on October 16, 2021, the Deputy Assistant 
Director of the FBI's Criminal Investigative Division, sent a 
joint message from his division and the FBI's Counterterrorism 
Division enacting the creation of a threat tag EDUOFFICIALS to 
be applied to investigations and assessments of threats 
specifically directed against school board administrators, 
board members, teachers, and staff. This memo wasn't revealed 
until a whistleblower provided it to this Committee in November 
2021. In May 2022, Chair Jordan stated that the Committee on 
the Judiciary had evidence that this tag had been used against 
parents dozens of times.
    The question remains, however, what was the genesis of such 
a memo? On October 11 and 12, 2021, I personally filed public 
records request in the home districts of all NSBA board members 
to learn about the letter's creation. The FOIA results revealed 
that not only were the majority of the NSBA Board not told of 
the letter in advance, but that they were nearly all opposed to 
its contents and furthermore, that NSBA leadership had been 
[inaudible] to the White House over the letter's content for 
``several weeks.''
    In addition, I contacted each State affiliate of the NSBA 
to ask if their organization was involved in the creation of 
the letter, if they agreed with the substance and tone, and if 
they planned to report individuals in their State to DOJ. At 
last count, 26 States have either withdrawn their membership, 
participation, or dues from the NSBA.
    Attorney General Garland asserted in sworn testimony before 
both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees in October 2021 
that his memo was written solely in response to the NSBA's 
letter. The NSBA apologized for its letter on October 22, 2021. 
Yet, curiously, the Attorney General has yet to rescind DOJ's 
memo. Accordingly, it appears to remain in effect to this day, 
hanging over parents like the sword of Damocles.
    To be clear, my colleagues and I of Parents Defending 
Education have always opposed violence and we continue to do 
so. Yet, school boards seem to forget parents have a 
constitutional right to assemble, to speak, to petition their 
government for a redress of grievances. Sadly, the airing of 
these concerns is now viewed by elected officials as violence, 
offensive, or hateful, in many cases, based solely on the 
speaker's viewpoint.
    American families have many concerns about education which 
merits discussion and open debate, but there is no question 
that people have been chilled from speaking out against 
children's education. PDE has a tip line and approximately 99 
percent of the tips that we receive people check a box because 
they want to be anonymous. They credibly fear retaliation, both 
against themselves as well as their children. It is lamentable 
that American parents no longer trust their local school 
officials. It is tragic that they now fear the Federal 
government.
    Thank you for your time and I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Neily follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Ms. Neily.
    Mr. Langhofer, you may begin.

                STATEMENT OF TYSON C. LANGHOFER

    Mr. Langhofer. Thank you, Chair Johnson, Ranking Member 
Scanlon and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Tyson 
Langhofer. I'm the Director of Alliance Defending Freedom's 
Center of Academic Freedom.
    Alliance Defending Freedom is the world's largest legal 
organization committed to protecting religious freedom, free 
speech, sanctity of life, marriage and family, and parental 
rights.
    My team works to protect the constitutional rights of 
students and faculty at America's schools and universities. I 
also work closely with ADF's Center for Parental Rights so it's 
my pleasure to testify today on these two important subjects.
    The Supreme Court has recognized that parental rights are 
perhaps the oldest fundamental liberty interest protected by 
our constitution. A fundamental distinction between a free 
society and a totalitarian one is whether the State exists to 
serve the people or whether the people exist to serve the 
State. This is often determined by a separate question: Who has 
primary authority over children, parents, or the government? 
Our constitutional tradition answers this question 
unambiguously. The child is not the mere creature of the State.
    It should hardly need saying how central free speech is in 
distinguishing a free society from a tyrannical one, but today 
many Americans are questioning the value of free speech, 
especially speech they may find offensive. So, it bears 
repeating that the kind of free speech that actually 
distinguishes a free society is the kind that permits its 
people to speak their mind even on the most contentious issues.
    As the Supreme Court said,

         . . . freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not 
        matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test 
        of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch 
        the heart of the existing order.

    Given the centrality of these two rights they're all the 
more important when exercised in tandem as when parents address 
their elected representatives about matters affecting their 
children's well-being and education. Unfortunately, the Biden 
Administration has acted to curtail these rights. This action 
has come in many forms, but I'd like to direct this 
Subcommittee's attention to two: Attorney General Merrick 
Garland's 2021 memorandum and the proposed rulemaking 
redefining sex in Title IX.
    With the wave of remote learning brought on my COVID-19 
parents garnered a new perspective in their child's education. 
Many didn't like what they saw, especially when it came to 
curricular materials promoting radical unscientific views about 
sex and gender. So, they did what every citizen has a right to 
do: They went to their school boards. The school boards were 
not very receptive. Loudoun County was infamously hostile.
    One elementary school teacher, Tanner Cross, spoke in a 
public comment period about his opposition to a proposed policy 
that would require him to engage in social transition of his 
students. Within 48 hours he was suspended. ADF represented him 
in a lawsuit against the board and secured his reinstatement, 
which was affirmed by the Virginia Supreme Court. The school 
board subsequently enacted the policy and continued silencing 
people.
    Here's where the administration comes in: The Biden 
Administration admitted that it worked with the National School 
Boards Association in producing a letter from the NSBA to the 
administration. The letter cited the events in Loudoun County 
and generalized parental opposition as, quote, ``acts of 
malice,'' that were, quote, ``equivalent to a form of domestic 
terrorism.'' The NSBA later apologized, but the Biden 
Administration had already gotten what it wanted: A pretext to 
target parents.
    A few days after the NSBA letter AG Garland issued his 
memorandum mobilizing Federal law enforcement officials. AG 
Garland claimed that this was focused exclusively on violent 
acts, but his own memorandum sweeps much broader and it 
unquestionably chilled parents in exercising their rights. Even 
though the public outcry was severe, the administration would 
not rescind the memorandum.
    After intimidating parents into silence then the 
administration moved to codify the very policies, they were 
objecting to by proposing to redefine sex in Title IX to 
include sexual orientation and gender identity and it expressly 
blesses policies that would require schools to engage in social 
transitions for students even while hiding this from parents.
    ADF successfully represented a teacher in Kansas 
challenging such a policy and ADF is currently representing 
parents in Wisconsin. In that case the school wasn't just 
keeping social transition secret; they were insisting on doing 
it over the objection of the parents.
    The Title IX changes also dramatically impact free speech. 
ADF is representing a student, parent, and teachers, all of 
whom were punished for expressing a view about gender identity 
that was different from the view the school requires. In all 
these cases the school cites to Title IX as a basis for their 
coercive actions.
    The Biden Administration's actions are both chilling and 
outright curtailing parents' most fundamental constitutional 
rights. I urge this Subcommittee to use all means at its 
disposal to counter this Executive overreach and I welcome any 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Langhofer follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Langhofer.
    Ms. Justice, you may begin.

                  STATEMENT OF TIFFANY JUSTICE

    Ms. Justice. Good afternoon, distinguished Members of the 
Constitution and Limited Government Subcommittee. My name is 
Tiffany Justice, Co-founder of Moms for Liberty. Founded in 
2021, Moms for Liberty has 275 chapters in 44 States and is 
growing every month.
    I want to begin by thanking you for taking up this 
important topic. Free speech has been chilled for too long by 
our own government. I applaud you for bringing attention to the 
intimidation and harassment of law-abiding citizens.
    Parents have the fundamental right to direct the upbringing 
of their children. That includes their education, medical care, 
morality, and religion. I want to be clear: These are inherent 
natural rights. Parental rights do not stop at the classroom 
door. We do not co-parent with the government.
    In March 2020 public schools across the country were closed 
without parental input. Tina Descovich and I, Co-founders of 
Moms for Liberty, were serving on school boards in Florida. 
School districts shifted to virtual learning, but 
accountability for teaching and learning was lacking. Despite 
documented low student engagement graduation rates remained 
steady and federally-mandated services were not being provided 
despite continued funding.
    Parents watched in horror as teachers' unions fought to 
keep schools closed. We watched as our children struggled with 
depression and anxiety, the development regressing at every 
turn. Nationally parents were asking when and how had we become 
a Nation that was more concerned with protecting adults than 
protecting children. Parents desperately wanted to help their 
children and they turned to their school boards to try to 
understand why it was OK for people to gather and riot in the 
streets and not for children to gather and learn in classrooms.
    In the U.S. the right to petition the government to correct 
a wrong or achieve a goal is fundamental to the workings of our 
constitutional republic. Parents who took up this right were 
silenced. Then the premier law enforcement agency of the United 
States of America, the FBI, was used as a weapon by the DOJ 
against parents who dared to voice their concerns at the most 
local level, their school board.
    Thanks to the whistleblower we now have evidence that 
Attorney General Garland instructed the FBI to take action 
against parents and that a threat tag was created for parents 
who spoke up in public meetings. How dare they?
    One of your moms was one of those parents targeted. One 
minute you're making peanut butter and jelly and the next 
minute the FBI is calling you. You answer the phone, and they 
want to talk to you about your comments at a school board 
meeting last week. Do you have any guns in your home? Do you 
have a history of mental health illness? Oh, and by the way, 
don't tell anyone we called.
    When this mother called me, I was numb; I was shocked; I 
did not know what to say. Can the FBI ask you to be 
confidential about their inquiry to you? I immediately worked 
to make the Judiciary Committee Members aware of the situation.
    Did the actions of the Biden Administration chill the free 
speech of parents? Yes. There is no doubt. It sent shockwaves 
across this country that we still feel today. What did this mom 
do wrong? She disagreed with her school board. That is not 
illegal in this country. We not allowed to have differing 
views?
    A hundred and 15 thousand members strong, we attended 
school board meetings often facing unjust treatment. Parents 
were expelled, their mics were cutoff, and many were prevented 
from speaking. We are moms, dads, uncles, aunts, grandparents, 
and concerned citizens. We are not domestic terrorists, and we 
will not be silenced to protect a failing system. The DOJ 
betrayed the trust of the American people. There must be 
accountability.
    While the FBI made phone calls to parents who spoke out at 
meetings and wrote memos calling concerned parents domestic 
terrorists, I submit to you what the Federal government was not 
doing was paying attention to educating our children. America's 
public education system is failing. Perhaps the silencing of 
parents was meant to hide these facts, but we see. Our eyes are 
opened to a distressing truth that our children are being 
taught to distrust the sanctity of their own homes and to view 
the Nation as broken and unjust. We witness schools and States 
fueling this fire, encouraging such beliefs to take hold.
    I ask you to hold accountable those that violated their 
oath to the constitution, who trampled on our right to be 
heard, and who sought to use their position of power to subvert 
we the parents. The No. 1 indicator of student success is 
parental involvement. Any action by the government that 
undermines that jeopardizes the very future of this Nation.
    We are joyful warriors. We are going to fight like hell for 
the future of this country with a smile on our face because our 
children are watching. Our members build relationships, spread 
truth to educate their communities and empower parents to do 
the same. That is the power of parents.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Justice follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Ms. Justice.
    Ms. Johnson, now you may begin.

               STATEMENT OF NADINE FARID JOHNSON

    Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Chair Johnson and Chair Jordan, 
Ranking Member Scanlon, and Members of the Subcommittee. My 
name is Nadine Farid Johnson and I am the Managing Director for 
Washington and Free Expression Programs at PEN America. It is 
an honor to testify here today.
    I am a daughter of immigrants, a mother of two young 
school-age children, an attorney by training, and a proud 
American who had the privilege of serving her country under 
both the Obama and Trump Administrations.
    PEN American, my employer, is a no-profit, nonpartisan 
organization that stands at the intersection of literature and 
human rights to protect free expression in the U.S. and around 
the globe. We view free speech as an underpinning of democracy 
and a cause above politics and we are unwavering in our 
commitment to upholding this foundational right.
    Today, we are in the midst of the broadest attack on First 
Amendment rights in schools and universities this country has 
seen in generations. Throughout our Nation's history we have 
seen waves of efforts to curtail access to books, but at every 
turn these censorious efforts have ultimately failed and the 
rights protected by the First Amendment have been preserved.
    In this new era of censorship, we have tracked 303 bills 
which we term educational gag orders in 44 States. These 
government restrictions forbid the teaching of specific 
curricula or ban certain concepts from the classroom. We have 
already seen the chilling effects that this kind of legislation 
on educators around the country. Book banning is a compounding 
trend. We documented more than 2,500 instances of individual 
books being banned in the last school year alone affecting four 
million children in 32 states.
    National and local groups purporting to represent the 
wishes of all parents are overwhelmingly targeting books with 
LGBTQ+ characters or themes, or primary characters who are 
people of color.
    We must not confuse access to books and ideas with 
endorsement of their content. Books such as Mein Kampf, The 
Communist Manifesto, Uncle Tom's Cabin, and Gone With the Wind 
are on public and school library shelves as they should be. The 
right approach to such materials is to contextualize them and 
to read and teach them with sensitivity and a critical eye, not 
to deny access. The right answer when it comes to different 
ideas about books cannot be to cull the ones to which anyone 
objects. That would too easily leave nothing on the shelf.
    Parents have a right and a responsibility to be aware of, 
involved in, and express concerns about their children's 
education. That's why we have parent teacher associations. sign 
up for a parent teach conferences, attend school board 
meetings, and see school districts across the country publish 
their curricula. For many of us, myself included, it's why we 
check our children's homework, read to them or encourage them 
to read each night, and advocate for them when the need arises.
    Yet, much of what we are seeing now is not just parents 
being involved in their children's classrooms. It is instead an 
effort to impose the wishes of a few onto entire communities by 
enlisting the government to act as a proxy and engage in 
censorship on their behalf.
    Supreme Court jurisprudence has repeatedly made clear that 
the First Amendment, including the right to receive ideas and 
information, applies in public schools. School boards may not 
contract the spectrum of available knowledge. We can certainly 
disagree about and debate training materials, classroom 
discussion topics, and more. At times materials in use in 
American schools may be tendentious or heavy-handed, but the 
right approach to handling this is to raise concerns and work 
together to address them. The answer is not legislated bans.
    Given our work all over the world to fight threats to free 
speech we at PEN America are particularly attuned to the fact 
that educational censorship laws and book bans are a long-
standing tactic of repressive regimes. Apartheid South Africa 
banned 12,000 books. The Nazi Party burned un-German ones. More 
recently Iran banned the study of English in primary school. 
Hungary banned all curriculum referencing homosexuality from 
schools. Russian laws ban so-called LGBT propaganda as well as 
criticisms of the State.
    Right now, in the U.S. measures aimed at silencing the 
exchange of ideas and open inquiry in schools are creating a 
climate of intimidation and fear that detracts from teaching 
and learning. We risk giving students only a sanitized narrow 
education that will constrain their ability to understand and 
engage with the multiplicity of ideas, perspectives, people, 
and stories that make up our world. An erosion of trust in our 
educational institutions, our education professionals and one 
another risks undermining fundamental elements of our 
democracy.
    I want to end with the words of a speaker at a meeting of 
the Martin County, Florida School Board earlier this week. A 
100-year-old woman named Grace Lynn stepped up to speak 
indicating she had attended to share her shock and dismay at 
the recent book bans in her county. She noted that her husband 
had died young fighting in the Second World War to defend our 
democracy, our constitution, and our freedoms. She said, 
``Banned books and burning books are the same. Both are done 
for the same reason: Fear of knowledge.''
    Fear is not freedom. Fear is not liberty. Fear is control. 
Let us choose courage instead. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you.
    Thank all our witnesses. You all kept it under five 
minutes. That is beautiful.
    We will now proceed under the five-minute rule that we hold 
our members to as well. Those questions will begin by myself as 
the Chair recognizing the gentlewoman from Wyoming for her five 
minutes.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. Thank you to the witnesses for 
being here today.
    Parents have every right to know what their children are 
being taught, what information is being given to them, and how 
schools are spending our tax dollars. Parents have every right 
to engage with their local school district and to make their 
concerns known and to demand accountability for the education 
of their children. They also have every right to demand that 
their children not be indoctrinated, but again be educated 
instead.
    Even though there are now multiple ways for information to 
be provided to parents today, it seems that educational 
institutions are more opaque than ever. We must ask why is 
that? Could it be that if parents actually got to see what 
their sons and daughters are being taught that maybe the far-
left agenda of critical race theory, gender confusion, and 
environmental alarmism might be in danger of elimination? I 
think that is exactly right.
    Ms. Justice, in the NSBA letter that has been discussed 
calling on parent--that called parents domestic terrorists and 
asking for the Federal government to crack down on them, the 
NSBA claimed, quote,

        This propaganda continues despite the fact that critical race 
        theory is not taught in public schools and remains a complex 
        law school and graduate school subject well beyond the scope of 
        a K-12 class.

    Moms for Liberty has done a great deal of work all over the 
country, including in Wyoming. Have you found examples of CRT 
and other concerning political ideology in classrooms?
    Ms. Justice. Sorry, first time here. Yes, ma'am, we have. 
It's been really unfortunate, and Nicki can speak to this as 
well, the incidents of propaganda, of ideology in the 
classrooms.
    Many people will say, well, CRT isn't being taught. No, 
it's not being taught, and they're not teaching a graduate 
level course in schools. What they are doing is teaching 
through the lens of critical race theory and critical theory in 
general.
    It's demoralizing our children, and it's having an affect 
that's causing division among the children. We're seeing 
increases of violence across the country that we're very 
concerned about.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, and I think that is exactly right. So, I 
am going to be very blunt in my next question. Is it fair to 
say that the NSBA lied to the Biden Administration and DOJ 
about the teaching of CRT in our lower grades?
    Ms. Justice. Yes, I absolutely think they did. What we 
saw--the National Center for Education Statistics conducted a 
study of long-term trends and reading and math assessments for 
nine-year-olds to examine student achievement during the 
pandemic. Average scores declined five points in reading and 
seven points in mathematics compared to 2020.
    My question continues to be, why so we continue--you're 
talking about books here. No one wants to talk about reading 
proficiency. American parents are very concerned about what's 
happening in our schools, and I think it was a real effort to 
silence us when we came to the school boards. The school board 
members did not want to answer questions and they wanted to 
protect the system.
    Ms. Hageman. I think that is exactly correct. There is one 
other point that I think is important to make and that is that 
we have a Committee report that cites numerous instances which 
the National Threat Operations Center routinely received tips 
based on everything related to parents and their involvement 
and attendance at school boards, except they are engaging in 
unlawful action.
    Through the Full Committee and our Select Subcommittee on 
the Weaponization of the Federal Government, we have routinely 
exposed that the DOJ has not been going after violent acts or 
unlawful acts. They have been going after people with whom the 
left disagrees. Would you agree?
    Ms. Justice. Yes, ma'am, I would.
    Ms. Hageman. Ms. Johnson, I just have a real quick question 
for you. Do you believe it is censorship to prohibit teachers 
from exposing first graders to Penthouse magazine?
    Ms. Johnson. Do I believe it is--I'm sorry, ma'am. Do I 
believe it's censorship to--
    Ms. Hageman. Do you believe it is censorship to prohibit 
teachers from exposing first graders to Penthouse magazine?
    Ms. Johnson. I don't know of any instances in which a--
    Ms. Hageman. That isn't my question. My question is, do you 
believe that it is censorship to prohibit teachers from 
exposing first graders to Penthouse magazine?
    Ms. Johnson. I believe that it is important that we have 
parents, teachers, and educators who are involved--
    Ms. Hageman. You are not going to answer my question then. 
Is that right?
    Ms. Johnson. I believe it is important to have parents, 
teachers, and educators involved and understanding what is 
being presented to students and that there is--
    Ms. Hageman. Do you believe that it is appropriate to 
present Penthouse to first graders?
    Ms. Johnson. Of course not.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I thank the gentlelady. I now 
recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Scanlon, for five minutes.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. As I noted in my opening statement, 
we have seen a troubling rise in violence, threats, and 
intimidation against school officials in recent years. I would 
note that most of these school officials are, in fact, parents, 
grandparents, mom, and dads in their own right, furthermore, 
overwhelmingly unpaid public servants, unlike those who are 
seeking to weaponize the school board proceedings for their own 
attention getting or political purposes.
    Yes, parents have a right to protest vigorously at school 
board meetings under the First Amendment. Intimidation and 
threats are not protected by the First Amendment when they go 
too far. That is certainly what we saw.
    It wasn't people offering peanut butter sandwiches to 
school board members. It was people saying to school board 
members, we are going to kill you, or contacting the children 
of school board members and saying, we are going to kill you 
and your parents. So, we are not talking about idle policy 
discussions here.
    We are talking about threats against individuals based on 
their political positions. Political violence is un-American. 
Ms. Farid Johnson, can you speak to the difference between 
protected speech under the First Amendment and threats of 
violence?
    Ms. Johnson. Yes, thank you for the question. You are 
correct that there are certain narrowly defined types of 
expression that do not receive First Amendment protection. 
These do include incitement and true threats.
    The key with incitement is that the imminence of the 
reaction, will there be an immediate unlawful reaction as a 
result of speech advocating illegal conduct? Will there be an 
immediate violent reaction as a result of the communication? 
These are quite different from protected speech, even 
passionate or zealous speech that is certainly protected.
    PEN America, we want people to show up at school board 
meetings. We want people in the community to be able to engage. 
It's critically important that we have that discourse. What we 
also understand is that there are limitations. Those do 
include, as I mentioned, incitement and true threats.
    Ms. Scanlon. Sure. Certainly, we have seen situations where 
there is a disruption to a public proceeding. In fact, there 
was one across the Capitol this afternoon as the Republican 
Chair of a Subcommittee had a father of a child murdered at 
Parkland removed from a hearing and arrested. So, perhaps the 
protected speech is in the eye of the beholder at certain 
times.
    I would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a 
Reuters report documenting over 200 threats to school officials 
made during the relevant time period. It is a special report on 
USA education threats.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Without objection.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I would also enter into the record 
an article from Chapelboro, Proud Boys Presence Leads to Metal 
Detectors and Deputies at School Board Meetings.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Without objection.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. Ms. Farid Johnson, American 
democracy relies on an informed and engaged citizenry. How do 
attacks on the First Amendment in terms of what books students 
have access to and what subjects teachers are allowed to teach, 
how does that impact our democracy and hinder student's ability 
to participate in real world experiences?
    Ms. Johnson. It is critically important that we allow a 
diverse perspective of viewpoints and information to be taught 
in our schools. I want to be really clear here that generations 
of children have read stories about experiences and lives that 
are different from their own. Reading about the Holocaust does 
not make one a Nazi.
    Understanding what happened during the Jim Crow era does 
not make on anti-civil rights or otherwise. What we need to be 
able to do is to ensure that people are informed because as the 
Supreme Court has said, when we allow free expression in the 
classroom because we know that First Amendment rights do not 
stop at the schoolhouse door, when we allow that type of 
expression, what we are doing is preparing these students for 
life in a democracy, a participatory democracy, one that does 
require us to debate, to understand, and to discuss. The more 
that we shield people from understanding the world around them, 
the worse off we will be.
    To also say this is a global issue as well. At PEN America, 
we work on issues all around the world, and we see what happens 
when authoritarian types of decisionmaking can affect what 
happens to a populous. It is critically important that we have 
an informed population that understands how to debate civilly, 
that understands discourse, and that works together so we can 
move forward as a Nation.
    Ms. Scanlon. I think that is one of the big fears here that 
it undermines our communities to allow a very noisy minority to 
dictate what everybody gets to hear. So, it is not that a 
particular voice is being silenced. It is that we need to work 
together, parents and teachers, to develop our community 
standards. So, thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentlelady's time has 
expired. I will enter without objection into the record a copy 
of the Interim Staff Report on the Committee on the Judiciary 
and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
Government dated March 21, 2023 and entitled, ``A Manufactured 
Issue and Misapplied Priorities: Subpoenaed Documents Show No 
Legitimate Basis for the Attorney General's Anti-Parent Memo,'' 
with a conclusion that the overwhelming majority of judicial 
districts supporting not having heard of any instances or 
threats of violence being leveled at school board officials. I 
will now recognize the gentleman from South Carolina for his 
five minutes.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding this hearing 
today and thank you to our witnesses for being here. Families 
stand at the center of our society and every family has a 
personal stake in promoting excellence in education. Excellence 
does not begin in Washington.
    This is straight from Ronald Reagan's 1984 State of the 
Union speech. Mr. Chair, I think that quote is as true today 
and even more so than it was 40 years ago. Due to liberals 
pushing their woke agenda on our kids, school boards have 
become ground zero for some of America's most contested issues, 
mask mandates, critical race theory, pronoun insanity, and 
rewriting U.S. history just to name a few.
    Thankfully, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution 
reiterates that fundamental right of parents to make decisions 
as to the care, custody, and control of their children. So, it 
is only natural for parents to advocate on their child's 
behalf. It is interesting that President Biden as a proud 
father himself fails to relate to parents in this way because 
as a result of parents speaking out as you have experienced, 
the Biden Administration and the National School Boards 
Association colluded to issue a memo to bring in law 
enforcement to these school board meetings and effectively 
silence parents.
    In November 2021, the NSBA's letter to the Biden 
Administration referred to those parents advocating for their 
children as domestic terrorism and hate crimes. Are you kidding 
me at this point? When I was a member of the South Carolina 
legislature, I along with 36 other Republicans called on the 
South Carolina School Board Association to pull out of the 
NSBA. Within a week, South Carolina joined the long list of 
States that were no longer a part of that national association.
    These parents are not domestic terrorists. They are simply 
parents who want the best for their kids. In fact, I would 
offer that it is important for parents to work with school 
board members and not to have that divide between them that is 
arbitrarily put up by this administration. Mr. Langhofer, can 
you describe an instance where you represented a parent or 
teaching who was being retaliated against for speaking at a 
school board meeting?
    Mr. Langhofer. Sure, absolutely. We represent and currently 
still do represent Tanner Cross. Tanner is a teacher in Loudoun 
County for many years. He went to an open school board meeting 
to object to a proposed policy which was going to force him as 
a teacher and all students to participate in the social 
transition of students.
    He spoke his one minute, left, went the next day to school 
and taught his PE class. He got a call that night, you need to 
come to H.R. tomorrow. The next day, he was suspended for 
simply exercising his constitutional right to speak about a 
proposed policy that was going to adversely affect every 
student in his class.
    We had to file a lawsuit, get an injunction, and get him 
reinstated. They fought that, even after they lost to the 
Circuit Court, to the Virginia Supreme Court. We are still down 
there now fighting that policy that they enacted over the 
objections of the teachers and parents later that year.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you. Do you think the Attorney General's 
October 4th memo, did that result in hostility toward parents 
that were advocating against some of the liberal agenda items 
that were coming in front of school boards?
    Mr. Langhofer. It absolutely did. We had calls from parents 
and teachers across the country who indicated they were really 
worried about whether they still had the right to go speak at 
these school board meetings. When you've got the power of the 
Department of Justice and the FBI telling you that if you go to 
these school board meetings, you may be labeled by the NSBA and 
DOJ may target you, it absolutely affected them. It took away 
their right to advocate for their kids which is their 
constitutional right.
    Mr. Fry. Right, on the one hand it would seem to indicate 
that parents were not welcome at a school board meeting to talk 
freely with their elected representatives. Is that fair to say?
    Mr. Langhofer. That's absolutely what's fair to say because 
the DOJ issued their letter solely based on the NSBA. The NSBA 
has now retracted that letter and apologized for it.
    Mr. Fry. Right. On the other hand, instead of kind of 
setting up a collaborative approach where parents are working 
with school boards, you kind of have that divided line with 
this memo that makes it a very adversarial process when a 
parent comes before a school board. Would you agree with that?
    Mr. Langhofer. Absolutely. I created a much more hostile 
environment for parents to be able to collaborate in the 
political process.
    Mr. Fry. In your experience, what are some of the topics 
that parents bring up at these school board meetings? Do you 
think that these parents have valid concerns in bringing them 
up at a school board meeting?
    Mr. Langhofer. Our experience with the parents and teachers 
that we represent, they were advocating against policies which 
would force every teacher at a school to participate in the 
social transition of students as young as kindergarten and 
first grade without the permission of their parents and hiding 
that information from the parents. They also were objecting to 
curriculum and materials and presentation which classified 
students based on their race or their religion and sex and 
classified them into oppressors or oppressed. Labeled them and 
then created this divide at the school that wasn't there prior 
to those curricular materials.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you. The gentleman's time 
is expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, 
Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Farid Johnson, you 
wrote in your testimony that we must distinguish between well 
developed, widely accepted methods of interplay between 
political bodies, educational systems, parents, and citizens 
and the current State of deliberate methods to exert 
ideological control over what can be read, learned, or thought 
about in schools. Can you explain how current book bans and 
other forms of censorship are ways you describe to exert 
ideological control of what can be read, learned, or thought 
about in schools?
    Ms. Johnson. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. The 
issue that we are seeing here is that there is--in our research 
we have found that there is this sweeping movement to ban all 
these books in schools, sometimes hundreds of books at a time. 
What we're seeing here is a particular direction toward the 
books that are being banned.
    We are seeing books that have topics of LGBTQ+ issues or 
identities, books that talk about race or racism. What is 
happening then is that students do not have access to this 
information. When a book is taken out of circulation, when it 
is banned from use by a student, that is censorship and its 
government censorship.
    That is denying students the right and the ability to 
access this information. What that does in a bigger picture is 
that, again, it points us in a direction whereby we have a 
narrowing of the understanding of students. We're doing two 
things that I think are critical to understand.
    The first is that we are risking creating an environment in 
which students feel excluded. Students deserve to have access 
to information and to see themselves reflected in books. Not 
only that but to understand others. We're also missing the 
opportunity or we're throwing away the opportunity really to 
allow students to develop empathy and to exercise that empathy. 
Then finally, we are also not preparing our students then for 
active and effective participation in our pluralistic society 
in a way that will make them the engaged adults we hope they 
will be.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Ms. Farid Johnson, the Supreme 
Court, its plurality opinion in Board of Education v. Pico 
rejected a school board's claim of absolute discretion to 
remove books from a school library. In reaching its opinion, 
the Court observed that, quote,

         . . . access to ideas makes it possible for citizens generally 
        to exercise their right to free speech and press in a 
        meaningful manner and that such access prepares students for 
        active and effective participation in a pluralistic, often 
        contentious society in which they will soon be adult members.

    What effect does censorious legislation have on student's 
preparation for adulthood?
    Ms. Johnson. If we do not have students who understand the 
world around them, they will be less prepared to engage in that 
world. We need students to understand not only different types 
of people, different types of families, different types of 
communities. We need them also to understand what has come 
before.
    So much of what we're seeing in the bans actually has to do 
with U.S. history and world history. That, again, contracts the 
amount of knowledge that these students have and allows them--
and does not prepare them well to engage. Also, it doesn't 
allow them to learn from what came before.
    When we're talking about these situations that have come, 
sometimes we have many dark periods in history. What we need to 
be able to do, though, is understand from those periods of 
history, to learn from them, and to do better. If we don't give 
students information, then they won't be equipped to do better.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Ms. Farid Johnson. Did the NSBA 
letter call parents domestic terrorists? If not, what did it, 
in fact, say?
    Ms. Johnson. I actually don't have the letter before me. My 
understanding is that it did not refer to them--refer to 
parents as domestic terrorists. I'm a parent. I'm a parent who 
gets involved in her children's education.
    Some might use the term, helicopter, to describe me. I wear 
that badge with pride. It is something that is really important 
for parents to be engaged.
    PEN America, we consistently stand up against the chilling 
of speech. We believe that people have a right and frankly a 
duty to speak up and be heard at school board meetings and 
other public fora. We would oppose efforts to restrict that.
    We also understand that true threats, whether they be 
against school members, Supreme Court justices, Members of 
Congress, these must be taken seriously. We believe that we can 
achieve both. We can ensure that you have a right to speak and 
without infringing on or chilling speech.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Finally, Ms. Farid Johnson, what are 
you currently hearing from parents, students, librarians, and 
teachers? What challenges are they facing and what are they 
most concerned about?
    Ms. Johnson. So, we're hearing quite a bit? I will say--
again, I mention I'm a parent. Most parents, we're tired. It's 
making breakfast and seeing what's coming up in homework and 
what's on the schedule and who has what sport.
    We are also wanting to ensure that our school systems are 
really working for everyone. That means that we don't have the 
viewpoints of one or two or a handful of parents then twisted 
and used by the government to censure. That's really what we're 
worried about, from teachers, from librarians.
    There's an incredible study by RAND recently that talked 
about over a quarter of teachers who have in these 20 different 
States where these ego bans have passed. They are worrying 
about they're examining their curricula. They're concerned 
about potentially offending someone.
    That's the situation in which I'm not actually allowed 
because of their jobs, the jobs they were trained to do. Same 
thing with librarians, and we see the empty shelves, pictures 
of empty shelves. They're not allowed--they're not being able 
to do their jobs, and they're being asked--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentlelady--
    Ms. Johnson. --to take on something that is really beyond 
the scope of their role in a way that ultimate chills their 
speech in terms of their ability to do their job, I should say.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. OK.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you. Time has expired. 
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas for his five minutes.
    Mr. Hunt. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the 
witnesses for being here. I really appreciate your time. Really 
appreciate it. Thank you.
    When parents begin exercising their right to question their 
local school boards during the height of COVID amid mask 
mandates, woke curricula, and harassment in schools, how did 
the DOJ respond? The Department of Justice responded under 
Merrick Garland with directing the public to report threats of 
violence to school board members, officials, and workers in our 
national public schools to a national hotline. One particular 
case, a mom was reported to the hotline as a threat because she 
was (a) a conservative, and (b) she was a lawful gun owner like 
myself.
    The complainant alleged that the mom was a threat because 
she belonged to a right-wing group known as Moms for Liberty. I 
have a real problem with identifying people like this because 
it is your right to belong to wherever you want to belong to. 
That is your freedom.
    Another investigation opened because a tip to the hotline, 
a dad was investigated because according to the complainant the 
dad fit the profile of an insurrectionist. I don't really know 
what that means, but that is interesting. He had a lot of guns 
and threatened to use them.
    When the FBI asked the complainant about these threats from 
the dad, the complainant admitted that no specific information 
or observations or any crimes of threats. According to the FBI, 
not one of these school board-related investigations resulted 
in Federal arrest or charges, not a single one. Recently, the 
DOJ announced that they were going to continue to prosecute 
people from January 6th to the tune of around 1,000 more people 
to be charged in a not so distant future.
    Now, January 6th was over two years ago, and the DOJ is 
still looking to charge more people. Yet, when there is a true 
domestic terrorist threat like Antifa, the DOJ did not direct 
the people to a national hotline. Where do they report these 
threats to our communities?
    Now, my colleagues on the left will tell you that Antifa 
doesn't exist. It is an idea. My question is, where is the 
intellectual curiosity to determine how Antifa, a highly 
coordinated domestic terrorist organization, is funded and 
organized.
    The DOJ did not set up a hotline for Antifa. They set up a 
hotline for you. No Federal resources were set aside to 
investigate the violence that we saw unleash across this 
country during the summer of love in 2020. Please note some of 
these photos.
    That is not January 6th. That is May 31, 2020. That is 
right in front of the White House. That is where the President 
lives. At the time, President Trump was ushered to a bunker 
because his life was being threatened. Where was the hotline? 
Next photo.
    That is not January 6th either. That is July 27th. That is 
in Portland, and that is Antifa rioting and pillaging our 
country. Where was the hotline? Next slide.
    Well, hot damn. That is not January 6th either. Those are 
more rioters that are destroying and rioting in Salt Lake City. 
Next slide. I believe--is that it? Wait, there is more.
    That is not January 6th either. That is June 1, 2020, and 
that is the streets of D.C. They are being rioted and pillaged 
by rioters. Where is the outrage? Where is the hotline?
    This is what domestic terror looks like. This is not a 
school board meeting. There is no hotline for any of these 
riots. We are going to have a hotline that is going to report 
parents for caring about their children's education.
    Even further, the DOJ would rather investigate 1,000 more 
people from January 6th than any single person in these photos. 
What a shame. That is why this is no longer the Department of 
Justice. It is the Department of Subjective Justice. With that, 
I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, gentleman. Chair 
recognizes next the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My friends on 
the other side of the aisle, the MAGA Republicans want you to 
believe that ex-President Trump won the election and is still 
the President. They want you to believe that the insurrection 
of January 6th was not an insurrection. It was just a tourist 
visit.
    They want you to believe that the tooth fairy is woke and 
anti-Christian. They also want you to believe that they will 
find something incriminating in Hunter Biden's laptop. They 
also want you to believe that there are some chilling of 
parents' fundamental rights by the Biden Administration.
    There is absolutely no evidence to support the MAGA 
conspiracy theories about far ranging Federal government effort 
to chill parents' speech. If the MAGA Republicans were truly 
concerned with protecting free speech, they would focus on the 
efforts of some Republican controlled State legislatures to ban 
books, censor our history, and limit what can be discussed in 
schools. According to research by PEN America, State lawmakers 
have introduced 303 educational gag order bills since January 
2021 and have instituted more than 2,500 book bans in the 2021-
2022 school year.
    Now, if MAGA Republicans were interested really in 
protecting free speech, they would not throw out grieving 
parents from a congressional hearing like they did today for 
voicing their opinions about their children being killed by gun 
violence. Schools are where children learn how to be engaged 
and thoughtful citizens in a democracy. These educational gag 
orders that are being promoted by some of these witnesses today 
are such that they prevent children from learning their full 
history about what really happened in America and learning 
basic skills to understand and analyze different viewpoints.
    How can we have a healthy democracy if we put blinders on 
our children's education and act like an authoritarian regime? 
Beyond that, these educational gag orders erase the experiences 
of our Black children and our LGBTQ children. Kids deserve to 
know and see themselves in books.
    They deserve to be able to express their true selves. 
Children of all races deserve to learn their history so that 
they understand the present. How can we expect adults of the 
future to consider and address contentious issues if they are 
taught as children that they should shut down discussion of an 
opposing idea, deny uncomfortable truths, and erase the 
existence of people who are different from them?
    We should all be able to agree that State-imposed 
censorship and book bans violate our cherished right to free 
expression and send the wrong message to children about core 
principles of democracy. Now, Neily, you are president of 
Parents Defending Education which takes money from the Koch 
brothers. Isn't that true? Well, you take money from the Koch 
brothers. That is my question. Isn't that correct?
    Ms. Neily. We believe in donor privacy, and I do not 
discuss where our money comes from. However--
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. All right. Let me--
    Ms. Neily. --I do actually--no, I'd like to--I'd like--
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Reclaiming my time. Ms. Justice, 
your group is a dark money group, and you got your start 
opposing mask mandates to protect children and school workers 
from COVID. Isn't that true? Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Langhofer--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. If you speak, make sure you push 
the button. Hold on. Mr. Johnson, hang on just a second. I want 
to remind everybody to push the button so we can hear your 
voice when you respond.
    Ms. Justice. May I answer now?
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Mr.--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Yes, you can answer.
    Ms. Justice. Oh, thank you. Sir--
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Reclaiming my time.
    Ms. Justice. I didn't have my mike on.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Mr. Langhofer, the Southern Poverty 
Law Center has designated the Alliance Defending Freedom as an 
LGBTQ hate group. Isn't that correct?
    Mr. Langhofer. Alliance Defending Freedom is one of the 
world's most respected Supreme Court advocates. We've won 14 
Supreme Court cases in the last 12 years. We advocate for the 
rights--
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. You are a hate group, are you not?
    Mr. Langhofer. --of all people, all walks of life.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. You have been designated as a hate 
group, correct?
    Mr. Langhofer. We are an experienced Supreme Court advocacy 
organization--
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. I will yield back my time.
    Mr. Langhofer. --that advocates for everybody's rights.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Yes, you yield back. SPLC has 
zero credibility. They have made a habit over the last four 
years of labeling all conservative groups as hate groups. So, 
you need to expand your sources.
    Mr. Nadler. They labeled all hate groups as hate groups.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. OK. All right. The gentleman's 
time has expired, and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman 
from Texas, Mr. Roy.
    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana.
    Ms. Neily, I know you wanted to comment just a minute ago. 
I just wanted to see if I can get you to within maybe two or 
three minutes so I can go to another subject explain a little 
bit of the great work that your organization has been doing.
    I think you're one of the true experts here and one of the 
heroes in exposing what has been going on in this 
administration to target parents.
    On September 29, 2021, the National School Board 
Association sends a letter to President Biden equating parents 
to domestic terrorism. Scott Smith was one of those people. I 
invited him to be my guest at the State of the Union.
    He was trying to defend his daughter to a school board and 
then he suddenly becomes the poster father for, quote, 
``domestic terrorism.'' The superintendent at Loudoun County 
has been fired. The Commonwealth attorney on the case has been 
removed.
    On October 4th after that September 29th memo the Attorney 
General put out a memo, and I know that the gentlelady is 
familiar with it, on October 20th and the FBI Assistant 
Director of Counterterrorism, sent an email referencing the 
October 4th Garland directive and then established the threat 
tag domestic terrorism which the Judiciary Committee Ranking 
Member just blithely just sweeps aside. It would be not 
concerning at all for an American to be--have a threat tag 
associated with them as a domestic terrorist.
    This year on January 11, 2022, you told officers--he was 
writing a letter to provide information to the White House from 
a request from Secretary Cardona. I want you to explain that, 
and on February 14, 2022, NSBA leadership knew a DOJ memo 
before its release.
    Can you walk through all your great work through the 
Freedom of Information Act to establish these facts that we are 
now relying on to understand the dangers of this 
administration?
    Ms. Neily. Through the Freedom of Information Act requests 
that we received back from the NSBA board members and their 
districts, two of the board members, Kristi Swett from the Salt 
Lake City School District, was corresponding with Marnie 
Maldonado from, I believe, Washington State, and she speculated 
that Secretary Cardona had been the impetus for that letter.
    I know that this Chair and this Committee has requested 
documents from the Department of Education and Department of 
Justice, which have not yet been turned over to them by either 
department and so we are unable to prove the veracity of that.
    That is something that, again, an Executive Committee 
Member of the NSBA asserted and I think it's something that the 
American people deserve answers on. The fact that Mary C. Wall, 
who is a Senior Advisor in the Domestic Policy Council at the 
White House, was intimately involved in this, maintains her job 
to this day, and is, I believe, a leader in the COVID-19 
Response Team, has not yet been held accountable for this.
    No one who was involved in the genesis of this memo has 
ever been called to account for this and so we demand answers 
on that. I think we deserve to know answers that how our tax 
dollars were weaponized against us as American citizens. This 
is a betrayal of us as Americans.
    Mr. Roy. Is there any doubt in your mind that there was 
collusion between the National School Board Association and the 
White House and the Department of Justice to target parents and 
coordinate the threat tag of domestic terrorism in light of the 
engagement and parents and school boards like Scott Smith?
    Ms. Neily. There's no question in my mind whatsoever. This 
had been in the works for several weeks before. There was also 
evidence at the National Association of Secondary School 
Principals they released a statement on September 16, 2021, 
calling for Federal intervention.
    The American Association of School Superintendents also put 
out a statement, although they in NSBA documents that were 
later released in May 2022, declined to request Federal 
intervention. It feels very much like there was an effort afoot 
by a number of outside organizations to gin up support for a 
pretextual investigation by the Federal government.
    Mr. Roy. Moving on to another subject in my minute and a 
half that I have left, I've heard a lot of colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle talking about book bans and accusing 
people in Florida, particularly Governor DeSantis and the 
people of Duval County, Florida, saying they want to ban books.
    Well, let me just say this. I hope they're successful in 
banning a number of books. The question is which are those 
books? Are those books, for example, ``Gender Queer: A 
Memoir''--that book or ``This Book is Gay.''
    In that book, there are all sorts of depictions, depictions 
with body parts, the male body parts. I can't even put on the 
screen the stuff that is in this book ``Gender Queer'' where 
there's two men engaged in a sexual position, another page 
where I can flip to where there's two men engaged in oral sex. 
Another picture here in which there are any number of 
ridiculous graphic pictures that are being put in front of our 
kids in schools.
    Now, my question for this entire panel is do you believe 
that parents have a right to know whether this stuff is in 
their schools, in the libraries, or being pushed or promoted by 
teachers in their schools. I would like a yes or no answer from 
each member of the panel.
    Start with you, Ms. Neily, and work down.
    Ms. Neily. Yes, absolutely.
    Mr. Langhofer. Absolutely.
    Ms. Justice. Yes. Absolutely.
    Mr. Roy. Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. Yes. Parents have a right to know.
    Mr. Roy. Parents have a right to know. Well, that's good to 
know. I would like to submit these for the record without 
objection of the Chair.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Without objection.
    Mr. Roy. I would also like to submit for the record an 
article called, ``Facts about Library Books in the Duval County 
Public Schools,'' which makes very clear that there are no 
books being banned about Rosa Parks or Roberto Clemente, that 
in fact there was a process for reviewing the books, that these 
books have been put on the shelves, left on the shelves.
    There are 13 books about Rosa Parks on average in every 
elementary school in Duval County. Our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle are lying about it. The facts are here, and 
I'll submit this to the record, and I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Very good. Without objection.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I thank the gentleman. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Kiley, for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Kiley. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for 
organizing this hearing on such an important topic, which the 
committee has very carefully laid out what happened.
    We had the powers of the Federal government--
counterterrorism powers, criminal powers, law enforcement 
powers--mobilized for the purpose of restricting and chilling 
the most core protected form of speech. That is the right to 
petition your government and to try to seek changes and on the 
most important of topics, the education of one's children.
    I had hoped this would have been a bipartisan effort toward 
accountability. After all, the National School Board 
Association, which laid out the predicate for this whole thing 
with its letter, has apologized for it.
    Yet, instead of a bipartisan inquiry into what happened 
here and what reforms we can make, the other side of the dais 
has engaged in an exercise of what aboutism, saying, well, 
we're not going to even address this but what about this whole 
other issue? As we have learned in the course of this 
discussion this other issue is really a red herring.
    So, Ms. Johnson, language really matters, and you throw 
around terms like book bans and censorship and gag orders. So, 
I guess I'll just ask you what, in your view, is the difference 
between banning books and selecting age-appropriate materials 
for classrooms?
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you for the question.
    What we're seeing now in terms of banning books--I'll back 
up a minute. PEN America defines a book ban as the removal of 
material that have been previously available for students, 
whether that material is being removed for, as a permanent 
matter or for a review, that sometimes turns into a long form 
review and ultimately ends in or it results in, excuse me, the 
access to the book being removed.
    When we're talking about a book ban, what is happening is 
the government--the heavy hand of government coming in and 
saying that this book may no longer be accessed by children.
    Age appropriateness is a different matter. When we're 
talking about age appropriateness there are actually a number 
of frameworks that exist for this. There's a Lexile framework 
that talks about what books should be--how books should be 
categorized and what ages.
    There are publishers who talk about this book is for young 
adults, this book is children--
    Mr. Kiley. Sure. So, let's just take an example. You said 
earlier that you think ``Mein Kampf'' be available in 
classrooms.
    Ms. Johnson. What I said is that ``Mein Kampf: the 
Communist Manifesto'' and other such books are available in 
public and school libraries and should be so we can learn about 
them in a historical--
    Mr. Kiley. And should be. So, did you mean for high school 
or elementary school?
    Ms. Johnson. That is not for me to say, sir. I am not an 
expert in terms of the age appropriateness.
    Mr. Kiley. That's fair. So, if ``Mein Kampf'' were not or 
were in elementary school and they decided we're not going to 
have it there anymore would that be a book ban?
    Ms. Johnson. If it had been in an elementary school and was 
removed for--and was removed and placed in the high school, 
that's a good question. I mean, look, it depends on the actual 
situation, and you're talking to someone who's going to--
    Mr. Kiley. You're right. It does depend--
    Ms. Johnson. I know. I mean, I'm not trying to be--
    Mr. Kiley. It does depend on the situation.
    Ms. Johnson. It depends on the situation.
    Mr. Kiley. So, clearly, you agree that there are some books 
that shouldn't be available to some grade levels?
    Ms. Johnson. I think that from my perspective as a parent 
there are some books that I would not want my children to read. 
You might have a different perspective than I do. You might say 
those books are fine for parents.
    Mr. Kiley. That's right.
    Ms. Johnson. I completely respect that.
    What my concern is, sir, is that when--it was my decision 
and I say, I want you to ban all these books and the school 
board says great because she said so. That's what I don't want 
to happen because it is not up to me. It is not up to me as one 
parent to--
    Mr. Kiley. That's right, and you have school boards who are 
making these decisions with input from the community. So, I 
just want you to be careful about the language that you use 
because you as well think it's appropriate to limit access to 
certain types of materials in classrooms.
    You just go ahead and say that anyone who disagrees with 
you on the particular limitations that are put in place is 
guilty of banning books or violating the First Amendment when 
that just isn't the case.
    Now, on a related topic, are you aware that right now 
schools are shut down in the Los Angeles Unified School 
District?
    Ms. Johnson. I am aware of that, yes.
    Mr. Kiley. Because of yet another school shutdown and 
strike. Are you aware that in that school district kids were 
out of class for up to a year and a half?
    Ms. Johnson. I was not aware. You mean during COVID?
    Mr. Kiley. During COVID. In many districts across the 
country, of course, schools were shut down for extended 
periods.
    How many books did kids have access to inside of 
classrooms, inside of school libraries, in those schools when 
they were shut down?
    Ms. Johnson. That I don't know if there are ways to bring--
if there were some students who had access to books that were 
brought to them. That I can't tell you.
    Mr. Kiley. Certainly, not very many, I would think. Is that 
right?
    Ms. Johnson. There's a difference, sir--I'm sorry?
    Mr. Kiley. Certainly, not very many books were available. 
Is that right?
    Ms. Johnson. Ostensibly, that would be correct. There's a 
difference here between--
    Mr. Kiley. OK. I'm sorry. I'm out of time. I'm sorry to cut 
you off. I just want to say as you might be aware Ms. Justice 
and parents like her tried to get schools open, and we know at 
this point it was a catastrophic mistake to keep them closed, 
and that enabled students to have access to all the books that 
were there.
    You've been fighting--your whole testimony has been getting 
access to a few, but she got them access. They fought to get 
students access to all the books. So, I just--would you like to 
take the opportunity to thank Ms. Justice and the other parent 
leaders for their efforts?
    Ms. Johnson. I add that Ms. Justice was a member of a 
school board, which I really appreciate. I think the public 
service is incredibly important. Look, what we're talking--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. OK, wait. Hold on. The 
gentleman's time has expired. I've got to move on.
    The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. 
Escobar.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This has been a surreal 
hearing--a surreal experience. I am so fortunate. I'm the 
mother of two children. They're adults now--26 years old. My 
son is 26 years old. He's in law school. My daughter is 24 and 
she's working on her license to be a social worker.
    I am so proud of them, so proud of the role that their 
father, my husband, and I played in their education and our 
goal always was to ensure that our kids had a robust education, 
that there were great debates that they participated in so that 
they could be part of a country that honors and uplifts 
important debates and discussions.
    I wanted them to be prepared as prepared as possible for 
the workforce and I am so grateful that they are not young 
people in school today.
    When I talk to constituents of mine who are parents, with 
school-aged children who share with me what their number-one 
concern is, their number-one concern is that their kids will 
not come home because we are a country awash in guns, and that 
their kids have to go through horrific drills to--that mimic 
school shootings.
    That is the real crisis in our schools today. That is the 
real crisis for young people in America, and instead of talking 
about that and confronting that crisis and talking about how we 
can create places that are safe for kids so that they can 
survive yet another day without fear of gun violence, this is 
what we're talking about.
    There's not been any evidence whatsoever of anyone being 
arrested or prosecuted and instead now we have this extremist 
agenda that seeks to create the most limiting experience 
possible for children by limiting their access to important 
books about slavery, about the Holocaust, about aspects of 
human history that are important for us to learn from.
    Ms. Johnson, can you talk a little bit about the real 
chilling effect that laws such as the educational gag order can 
have on parents, students, and teachers?
    Ms. Johnson. Yes, thank you for the question. What we are 
seeing with these laws is, as you know, it's essentially a 
threefold issue. The first is that educators now do not know 
what they are permitted to say based on what a political 
official has told them they can or cannot say in the classroom.
    The second is that there are now parents who are having 
less and less of being able to have input into what's happening 
in the schools, and as mentioned before we do believe that 
parents have an essential role to play alongside teachers, 
alongside other educators, in what happens in schools.
    The third is that the students are not getting information. 
The entire point here is that we are talking about access. We 
want students have access to information. As I've noted 
previously, the Supreme Court has held--it held long ago that 
the First Amendment rights are not stopped at schoolhouse gate.
    That also that also extends to students and it extends to 
the receipt of information. When we are not allowing students 
to have access to information, when we are not teaching them 
about the very basics of our history, we are doing them a 
disservice.
    I completely understand we might have disagreements in this 
room. We might agree--maybe we'd be surprised by with whom we 
agree about what actually should be taught in the classroom, to 
what age and what manner. I completely get that.
    What we don't want to see is a legislative ban saying it 
must be silenced. What we need to be doing is talking about it. 
Let's converse. Let's discuss. Let's debate. Let's figure out 
what's the best. Let's not silence.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much, Ms. Johnson. One last thing 
that I'd like to say. I've had the privilege of meeting with 
many teachers in my district and teachers have a really tough 
job.
    They have to balance a lot of needs that the kids have and 
the last thing that we should be doing with professionals who 
we are lucky to have in the workplace like the great teachers 
that teach across this Nation is inserting politics into their 
job.
    So, it is my hope that this Committee can and the 
Subcommittee can get back to focusing on real issues that 
American families face so that we can create the best kind of 
environment for our kids so that they can then go on and become 
as competitive and brilliant as they can be as part of our 
workforce future.
    Thank you so much. I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you. The gentlelady yields 
back. The Chair recognizes the Chair of the Full Committee, Mr. 
Jordan, for five minutes.
    Mr. Jordan. I thank the Chair.
    Ms. Johnson, in your written remarks you said that the PEN 
Center has a steadfast devotion to free expression. In fact, I 
counted 16 times in your written testimony you used the terms 
free expression or free speech.
    I just want to know two weeks ago when Senator Schumer 
stood on the Senate floor and said to a major American news 
outlet that they should not play video footage from January 6th 
was that something that's consistent with a steadfast devotion 
to free expression?
    Ms. Johnson. I'm sorry, sir. When Senator Schumer--
    Mr. Jordan. Told Fox News don't play video footage from 
January 6th. Was that a commitment to steadfast devotion to 
free expression?
    Ms. Johnson. Senator, I cannot speak to Senator Schumer or 
what he intended.
    Mr. Jordan. I'm not asking you to speak for him. I'm asking 
you to comment on what he said.
    Ms. Johnson. If there is an issue of national security, 
sir, I'm not going to comment on what--
    Mr. Jordan. How about the very next day when this Committee 
released a report where the Federal Trade Commission sent a 
letter to a private company Twitter and asked them who were the 
journalists you were talking with and named four journalists by 
name? Would that be consistent with a steadfast devotion to 
free expression?
    Ms. Johnson. Sir, PEN America consistently works to defend 
the rights of journalists, including their ability to do their 
job. That's all I will say about that.
    Mr. Jordan. The next day two of those four journalists 
mentioned in the FTC's letter to Twitter testified in front of 
this Committee, and Democrat Members of Congress asked those 
two journalists who their sources were. Is that consistent with 
a steadfast devotion to free expression?
    Ms. Johnson. Sir, PEN America consistently works to ensure 
that journalists can do their job and that means allowing for 
anonymous sources as appropriate.
    Mr. Jordan. Good for you. How about this? Two days into the 
Biden Administration, literally two days, January 23, 2021, 
Clark Humphrey, Executive Office of the Presidency, White House 
office, sends an email to Twitter where he says this: ``Wanted 
to flag the below tweet and am wondering if we can get moving 
on the process for having it removed ASAP.''
    Would that be consistent with a steadfast devotion to free 
expression?
    Ms. Johnson. Sir, I don't know the content of the tweets. I 
can't speak to that.
    Mr. Jordan. I'll give you the content. They cited a tweet 
from Robert F. Kennedy, that conservative Republican Robert F. 
Kennedy, Jr., where he was raising some concerns about vaccines 
and the White House two days into this administration said they 
wanted that tweet taken down. Would that be consistent with 
free expression?
    Ms. Johnson. I will say two things about that. One is that 
not having seen this--and I appreciate your reading it to me--
one is that we would like to err on the side of permitting 
content, because I think it's important to have content--
    Mr. Jordan. I'm with you. I'm with you. That's why--
    Ms. Johnson. OK. I think the other, sir, is that we would 
also want to ensure that if there is misinformation or 
disinformation being promulgated that we're able to address it 
and so--
    Mr. Jordan. Well, that's when it gets scary. That's when it 
gets really scary. I'm surprised you said that after mentioning 
free expression 16 times in your written statement that 
suddenly now unless it's misinformation as defined by you. That 
is entirely contrary to what the First Amendment is about.
    How about this? The National School Boards Association 
letter that was the catalyst for most of this, frankly, all 
this was sent on September 29, 2021. I just want to read the 
first sentence. ``America's public schools and education 
leaders are under immediate threat.'' The letter then goes on 
to say, ``the NSBA requests a joint expedited review by the 
Department of Justice. Such review should examine the use of 
the PATRIOT Acts in regard to domestic terrorism.''
    Do you agree with the NSBA letter sent on September 29, 
2021?
    Ms. Johnson. Sir, we are not--PEN America has not 
[inaudible] on that letter. I will just say I understand--
    Mr. Jordan. No, I'm just asking do you--well, how about 
those two sentences I just read? Do you agree with the tone of 
that in that letter? Do you agree with that?
    Ms. Johnson. I'll say this that--sorry.
    It is really important that any member of a community is 
able to stand up before a school board and voice their opinion. 
It is equally important that a school board member is able to 
carry out this critical important public service, sir, in a way 
that keeps their safety. That's really what I'll--
    Mr. Jordan. Well, you know who disagrees with it?
    Ms. Johnson. Who disagrees with me, sir?
    Mr. Jordan. All kinds of people. The most important entity 
who disagrees with it is the School Boards Association 
themselves because 23 days later they rescinded it. Twenty-
three days later they said this, ``we regret and apologize for 
the letter.''
    There was no justification for the language included in the 
letter. So, the idea that the Attorney General still continues 
to defend his memorandum based solely on this, as Ms. Neily 
pointed out in her opening statement, I find alarming.
    To our three witnesses, Ms. Justice, Mr. Langhofer, Ms. 
Neily, thank you so much again, to your point earlier, Ms. 
Neily, we are going to talk to these people. We talked to Ms. 
Garcia today. We had a transcribed interview with her.
    Mr. Slaven is coming in next week. We're trying to talk 
with Ms. Wall and a host of other folks who concocted this 
whole thing as our report that we released two days ago points 
out--concocted this whole thing and the key line in that 
report, not from Republicans, not from Mr. Johnson, not from 
Republicans on the Committee, but from a U.S. Attorney--
Democrat U.S. Attorney in the Biden Administration when he said 
this appeared to be a manufacturing crisis. It was all put 
together for politics and that's what we all know.
    With that I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I thank the gentleman.
    The Chair recognizes gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson 
Lee, for five minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. When I think of education--I thank the 
gentleman for yielding--I think of children, and I just left 
the floor in the midst of the discussion of legislation, H.R. 
5, that is labeled Parental Bill of Rights.
    Even in that debate I refuse to engage in who was more for 
parents than who was not for parents, who had the upper hand, 
friends on the other side of the aisle or Democrats?
    I did speak for myself and what I believe is the view of 
Democrats who happen to be parents as well that the rights of 
parents are paramount with the rights of children and teachers, 
and even support staff, all who contribute to the education of 
our number-one priority, our precious priority, and that is our 
children.
    So, I think as I look at this particular hearing, back of 
my mind I'm wondering what cause are we here for? Are we trying 
to enhance a greater opportunity for our children to be 
educated, to be safe and secure?
    When I think of where we are in this hearing, I would 
wonder whether or not the vast majority of everyday Americans 
would think that they could not be heard. Their parents cannot 
be heard before school boards, and we know that they have the 
right to debate vigorously all aspects of any disagreement that 
they may have with a school board.
    I'm not sure why the letter that was sent was then 
withdrawn. May have been some form of intimidation. Who knows? 
It is hypocritical to complain about the Federal government 
chilling parents' free speech while cheering on book bans.
    If the majority is truly concerned with protecting free 
expression, then it should focus on the efforts of some 
Republican State legislators to ban books. I was just on the 
floor with a book about Professor deGrasse. That book--he is an 
astrologist, banned book. Looks like a lovely book to me with 
pictures.
    A story about Nelson Mandela that brought together South 
Africa peacefully after a tumultuous civil war--banned book. 
Diversity, equity, and the inclusivity banned by the Governor 
of the State of Texas.
    We should all be free to speak with free expression, but at 
the same time as we do so, I think we have to recognize, again, 
the importance of being fair and balanced. Banned books, 
intimidating language, which I think is important to note.
    The Supreme Court, for example, though we do have a 
question. What is obscenity, obscenity as it relates to a 
Supreme Court justice, but obscenity, defamation, fraud, 
incitement, truthers, speech integral to criminal conduct and 
child pornography?
    So, White supremacy bias may result in someone's death. 
Should that not be questioned? Not eliminated. If it results in 
someone's death or assault, it is destructive.
    Ms. Johnson, in acknowledging the other witnesses, and I 
appreciate your presence here today, I do want to hear your 
answer that you have probably repeated before.
    This is in the backdrop of board members being viciously 
attacked by words by very angry parents in the midst of the 
pandemic. Most of that was there. How do you frame the value of 
free speech juxtaposed against the safety of individuals who 
are in responsible positions who likewise have rights?
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you for the question.
    I think it's important to have both. I think that we can 
achieve a safe environment, a safe public forum in which public 
servants such as school board members and others can receive 
commentary, feedback, information, and share it as well, and 
have a situation in which community members from parents, 
teachers, and other others in the community can also engage.
    I want to be really clear here that parents are free. 
Community members, broadly, are free under the First Amendment 
to criticize their schools, their administrators, and 
governments. That's part of what makes America ``America,'' and 
they can do so even in offensive and vitriolic ways.
    There is a limit, as we know, and that is when we are 
talking about incitement or a true threat. So, I do believe 
that we can have both and we should have both. I think it's 
critically important that we do.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentlelady's time has 
expired. The Chair--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you.
    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 
Bishop.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Johnson, I'm 
interested in pursuing that little bit. The Chair titled this 
hearing ``Free Speech: The Biden Administration's Chilling of 
Parents' Fundamental Rights,'' and, of course, they're talking 
about the Attorney General's memo.
    Folks on the other side of the aisle have been interested 
in talking about what you've described as book bans and 
educational gag orders.
    I just wondered and, of course, you're free to put anything 
you want to in your testimony. Did you consider that the 
subject the Attorney General's memo--well, let me ask it this 
way. Did PEN America condemn the Attorney General's memo?
    Ms. Johnson. We did not put a statement during the time 
that I know, sir.
    Mr. Bishop. So, and you have said you were very carefully--
and you are a lawyer, a First Amendment lawyer and you know 
this stuff. You laid out earlier what the First Amendment 
doesn't protect if there is actual incitement of imminent 
violence.
    Ms. Johnson. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Bishop. So, does it matter of concern to you whether 
the Attorney General of the United States, the highest law 
enforcement officer, issued a memorandum for action in every 
judicial district in the concerning activism relating to school 
boards? It matters a great deal, doesn't it, whether there was 
a sufficient factual predicate of actual threats or incitement 
of violence as opposed to that even rambunctious advocacy that 
you made reference to?
    Ms. Johnson. I think it's critically important that people 
have a right to speak out and I do believe that. We would 
oppose efforts to restrict protected speech, absolutely.
    Mr. Bishop. So, why do you deem that subject unworthy of 
comment?
    Ms. Johnson. I can't speak to what--
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Bishop. Did you engage in a wide gamut of free 
expression issues, is what your testimony says.
    Ms. Johnson. That's true. Yes.
    Mr. Bishop. That is what you do.
    Ms. Johnson. That's what we do.
    Mr. Bishop. Here the highest law enforcement officer in the 
country did something that can only be described as chilling. 
What it appeared to me when I went through every footnote in 
that NSAB letter that the Attorney General relied on. I 
couldn't find--there is maybe two across the country acts 
involving busting a door in one case. I didn't find--and a lot 
of these responses coming back from the United States attorneys 
and all these meetings that they summoned said there weren't 
any--then local officers, when they got in touch with them, 
said you guys are doing something you have no business doing. 
Is that not a matter of concern to you as an advocate for free 
expression?
    Ms. Johnson. I appreciate that question, sir, and I'm happy 
to go back and look at it. I cannot tell you at this moment 
why--
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Bishop. So, for whatever reason it didn't arise to a 
level of significance for you?
    Ms. Johnson. I wouldn't--
    Mr. Bishop. Not enough to talk about in your testimony 
anyway, right?
    Ms. Johnson. No, sir, I wouldn't put it that way. I would 
put in the way that we are really focused on ensuring that 
people do have the right to access. We have been focused, as 
you know and my testimony reflects, about this wave of 
censorship that's happening at the State and local level.
    Mr. Bishop. OK.
    Ms. Johnson. That does not mean we don't care, sir--
    Mr. Bishop. All right.
    Ms. Johnson. --but, I appreciate the question.
    Mr. Bishop. How about this? Have you read the Twitter 
files?
    Ms. Johnson. I'm sorry?
    Mr. Bishop. Have you read the Twitter files? Not familiar 
with that? You know about Matt Taibbi, Michael Shellenberger, 
and the others?
    Ms. Johnson. Oh, yes. Yes. OK. I'm sorry.
    Mr. Bishop. They have issued 19--they describe the use of 
the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, the Cyber 
Infrastructure and Security Agency, the Global Engagement 
Center of the State Department, the ODNI, the CIA to act 
directly with social media platforms and through private so-
called disinformation researchers. I noticed on PEN America's 
website you guys talk a lot about reacting to disinformation. 
On the pretext of reacting to disinformation they got with 
social media companies. They took down millions of social media 
posts and they really--and then they used things like Hamilton 
68 that purported to tie them to Russia. It was all BS. Is that 
not a matter of concern to you?
    Ms. Johnson. Sir, I can go back and take a look at what 
we've actually--
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Bishop. I mean that is extraordinary. That is what I am 
saying. I think what is interesting where we are in this--the 
weapon--the Subcommittee on Weaponization, which is not this 
Subcommittee, is that you took pains to say that your 
organization--it doesn't care about which side of the aisle it 
is on, that free expression ought to be of concern to 
everybody. We are talking about, as one witness called it, the 
largest censorship exercise in the history of the U.S. 
Government. That wasn't a subject that you chose to talk about 
either. Are you a partisan or are you just interested in free 
expression across the political spectrum?
    Ms. Johnson. Sir, we are a nonpartisan organization and we 
have engaged in a lot of defenses of people from both sides of 
the aisle from our Campus Free Speech to looking at protest 
rights. We are definitely engaged on this from a nonpartisan 
perspective. I do appreciate the question. I am more than happy 
to take a look and respond for the record, but at this point I 
just don't have the response on those particular Twitter files 
right now.
    Mr. Bishop. I hope we can all get together because I think 
they are really important issues, and they don't matter what 
your party is. I hope we will cover a lot of ground on those 
subjects.
    Mr. Chair, my time is expired.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you.
    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 
McClintock for five minutes.
    Mr. McClintock. I agree with Mr. Bishop. I think we are 
arguing past each other on a lot of the points that have been 
made today. This hearing specifically calls into question the 
use of government authority to intimate parents who petition 
their elected school boards.
    Now, surely the Democrats are not arguing in favor of this 
practice. I think what they are questioning is whether this is 
actually happening, and yet, we are hearing not only from 
parents who are in the receiving end of this practice, but also 
whistleblowers within the FBI who are telling us this is 
exactly what is happening.
    The Ranking Member assures us, well, it is no problem; 
nobody has actually been prosecuted let alone convicted. Well, 
wait a second. If no one has been prosecuted, that tells me 
that the allegations of inciting violence are completely false. 
Not a single allegation is true. The insidious thing about the 
Ranking Member's comment is that intimidation doesn't require 
prosecution; only the threat of it.
    How terrifying to come to your local school board meeting, 
strongly express your opinions over matters that fundamentally 
affect the upbringing of your kids, only to get a call from the 
FBI the next day asking about everything you said, your 
political and religious views, and whether you own a gun. These 
facts speak for themselves. Every person regardless of their 
political viewpoint can understand how intimidating and 
terrifying and chilling such an experience could be.
    Now, I know Tea Party activists who were singled out for 
intimidation by the IRS under the Obama Administration years 
ago who still won't go near politics out of fear. If the 
Democrats are actually defending such a practice, then they 
have completely removed themselves from the fundamental 
principles of a free society that define Americans as a people. 
I can't believe that is true of anyone but a lunatic fringe in 
their party.
    Now, the Democrats shift to a question's more complex 
elements, and that is who has the right to direct the education 
of their children? Well, I think that should be pretty clear. 
Parents have that right and responsibility to determine how 
their children are raised and what ideas they are exposed to 
and what ideas they are not exposed to.
    The conflict arises when parents in a school system have 
different views on that subject. A Marxist family may want 
their children schooled in their viewpoints. A conservative 
family may want something very different. Full school choice, 
of course, would resolve that conflict completely. When parents 
don't have that choice their wishes have to be expressed 
through and elected school board.
    A liberal enclave may have different views on curriculum 
than a conservative one. That is why we have local school 
boards and why we ought to hold sacred the right of parents to 
petition those school boards.
    I thought Ms. Johnson put it beautifully in response to Mr. 
Kiley. She says, quote, ``As a parent there are some books I 
would not want my children to read.'' Well, parent to parent I 
will defend your right to make that decision for your children 
and hope that you would defend to make it for mine. That is not 
book banning. That is just raising our kids according to our 
own best lights.
    Now, once those children reach the age of majority, well, 
then that is a whole different matter. Then the right of 
parents to control their child's upbringing passes to their 
offspring. Institutions of higher education have the right to 
choose what to include, what not to include in their curricula 
and college students can choose among them.
    Let me just pause right there. Is there any disagreement 
across the spectrum on these principles?
    Well, good. Then I think we have reached agreement on 
everything except maybe a few Members in the minority.
    I think censorship over any idea that grownups choose to 
pursue and express are antithetical to a free society. At that 
point Jefferson's maxim takes hold that I've sworn eternal 
hostility to every from of tyranny over the mind of man, and I 
think that all the panelists here would agree with that.
    I have got two grown children. They are very independent, 
very different in their viewpoints, and I am very proud of both 
of them. I want them to live in a country where they feel 
entirely free to express their views without censorship or fear 
of official retribution or a knock on the door from the FBI 
because they expressed a viewpoint that upset some elected 
potentate and without anyone telling them what they can or 
cannot read or think or speak.
    So, if we are all in agreement on that, Mr. Chair, I think 
this has been a successful hearing.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you to the gentleman for 
yielding back.
    The Chair recognizes myself for five minutes.
    I am playing cleanup here. Let me address a couple of 
things. First, in response to the question and answer provided 
earlier, the NSBA letter, the National School Boards 
Association letter dated September 29, 2021, does indeed 
specifically equate the actions of concerned parents at school 
board meetings with domestic terrorism. Here is the quote from 
page 2 of that letter:

        These actions could be the equivalent to a form of domestic 
        terrorism and hate crimes.

I am going to read you one other excerpt, and this is also from 
page 2 of another document. This has been entered into the 
record. This is the Interim Staff Report,

        Committee on the Judiciary on a manufactured issue and 
        misapplied priorities subpoenaed documents show no legitimate 
        basis for the Attorney General's anti-parent memo.

The excerpt I am about to read you explains the why, because a 
lot of people have wondered why. Why would the Biden 
Administration and the Department of Justice act when it did on 
that infamous now school board memo? Quote, page 2,

        The documents received pursuant to this Committee's subpoena 
        show the absence of a legitimate nationwide basis for the 
        Attorney General's directive to insert Federal law enforcement 
        into local school board matters.

The documents also shed light onto how the administration 
worked with education special interests to generate the 
predicate for the Attorney General's directive.

        It appears from these documents and the information received 
        that the administration's actions were a political offensive 
        meant to quell swelling discord over controversial education 
        curricula and unpopular school board decisions. The Attorney 
        General's directive . . .

Here it is,

         . . . came just weeks before a pivotal gubernatorial election 
        in Virginia in which education policies were hotly debated and 
        a local school board's actions were under intense scrutiny. The 
        inference from the initial tranche of subpoenaed documents is 
        that the Justice Department's actions were a reaction to these 
        political circumstances rather than a legitimate law 
        enforcement response to any serious nationwide threat.

    The administration's goal seems to have been silencing the 
critics of its radical education policies and neutralizing an 
issue that was threatening Democrat Party prospects in the 
close gubernatorial race in Virginia. This weaponization of law 
enforcement powers against American parents exercising their 
First Amendment rights is dangerous.

        The Justice Department subjected moms and dads to the opening 
        of an FBI investigation about them, the establishment of an FBI 
        case file that includes their political views and the American 
        people of a threat tag to their names as a direct result of 
        their exercise of their fundamental constitutional right to 
        speak and advocate for their children.

    I have got 2\1/2\ minutes left. I want to ask each of our 
gracious witnesses: Mrs. Neily, Mr. Langhofer, Ms. Justice--I 
would ask each of you to answer quickly one or both these 
questions:

    (1)  What would you like to say to those who don't see 
parental rights as something that needs to be fought for?

    (2)  What do you think are the next big challenges your 
groups and all of us may face in the battle to protect parental 
rights?

    Ms. Neily, I start with you.
    Ms. Neily. The chilling of parental rights is absolutely 
clear. Mr. Langhofer and I used to sue over campus free speech 
issues and what we found through biased response teams that it 
wasn't just the prosecution of one student; it was telling one 
student--getting one student in trouble for something that they 
may have said, often constitutionally protected speech. That 
then sent a message to every single other student on campus, or 
in this case K-12 schools, who holds the same people you say 
that thing out loud, we'll come for you, too.
    There is a reason there are not as many protests on college 
campuses these days, because students are not inviting 
controversial speakers whatsoever. We saw what happened to 
Judge Duncan two weeks ago at Stanford Law. I doubt that there 
will be very many Fifth Circuit judges invited to speak at law 
schools in the future, and that will be to the detriment of 
America's children.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I interviewed Judge Duncan, my 
former colleague, on my podcast and he has a lot to say about 
that.
    Mr. Langhofer?
    Mr. Langhofer. I think the most important threat to 
parental rights is the belief that government officials think 
that they know better about raising these children than their 
parents. I've had hearings where school officials indicate that 
they think they have the right and the knowledge to make 
important decisions about the transition of these young 
children without telling the parents, without having any kind 
of medical diagnosis, without having any kind of medical 
intervention, and then indicating that they're doing this 
across the board. There's no threat of any kind of parental 
problems here.
    So, this notion that government officials know better than 
parents are the biggest threat to the parental rights and it's 
something that every citizen, no matter your political beliefs, 
should absolutely be concerned about.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Well said.
    Ms. Justice?
    Ms. Justice. I want to be clear that there are private 
conversations happening between teachers and counselors and 
children behind the backs of parents without their consent or 
knowledge. I think that's one of the most dangerous things 
that's happening right now.
    The Department of Justice and the FBI made a fatal mistake 
when they decided to go against parents and to try to divide 
parents and their children. There is no power that supersedes 
the love of a parent for their child, and we will not be pushed 
out of the way in decisions about your children's education or 
their future.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Very well said.
    OK. I have got a couple unanimous consent requests.
    Ms. Scanlon. Yes. Thank you. Since we are discussing the 
memo, the Attorney General's October 4, 2021, memo, which does 
not mention parents, domestic terrorists, or the PATRIOT Act, I 
thought it was important that we put that in the record 
particularly the part that says it is focused not on protected 
speech, but threats.
    I also wanted to have unanimous consent to introduce a 
Politifact article entitled, ``FBI DOJ Tagged Threats Against 
School Officials, Not Parents for Attending School Board 
Meetings.''
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Without objection.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I have got a couple of them 
myself.
    I see, Ms. Justice, you have some letters that I wanted to 
enter into the record. Can you just say briefly for the record 
what that is in your file there?
    Ms. Justice. Yes, sir. Representative Jackson Lee said at 
an Education Committee meeting recently that we couldn't bring 
100 parents here to say they were dissatisfied with the 
education their children are receiving in public schools. This 
is a couple 100 letters that have been handwritten by members 
that I've brought. We will make very good use of the impact 
statement from that the Ed. Committee has set up for us to give 
input.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you for doing that. Without 
objection we enter that into the record.
    Also, enter into the record for Mr. Langhofer and my own 
benefit--this is an article from Bloomberg dated September 7, 
2017, entitled, ``Southern Poverty Law Center Gets Creative to 
Label, `Hate Groups,' '' subtitled, ``Principled Conservatives 
are Lumped Together With Bigots.'' Here is an excerpt:

        Unfortunately, it also has an incentive to apply their term 
        broadly when people see that the PLC lists over 900 hate 
        groups. Nine hundred. This seems like good reason to panic and 
        maybe write a check to the SBLC.

    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. This concludes today's hearing. 
We want to thank our witnesses for appearing before the 
Committee today.
    I also want to thank the Ranking Member Ms. Scanlon and 
congratulate her formally for her appointment to this position 
and for making history as the first woman in Congress to serve 
in this important post.
    So, congratulations to you.
    Without objection, all Members will have five legislative 
days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses 
or additional materials for the record.
    Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:38 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

    All materials submitted for the record by Members of the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government can be 
found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent. 
aspx?EventID=115531.

                                 [all]