[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 53 (Thursday, March 23, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H1337-H1345]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5, PARENTS BILL OF RIGHTS ACT

  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 241 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 241

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 5) to ensure the rights of parents are honored 
     and protected in the Nation's public schools. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed two 
     hours equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce or their respective designees. After general debate 
     the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
     minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to 
     consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
     under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     118-2. That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No 
     amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be in order except those printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in 
     order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bost). The gentlewoman from Indiana is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. 
Scanlon), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Last night, the Rules Committee met and reported out a rule, House 
Resolution 241, providing for consideration of H.R. 5.
  The Parents Bill of Rights is to be considered under a structured 
rule with 2 hours of debate, equally divided and controlled by the 
Chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, or their designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the 
underlying legislation. The Parents Bill of Rights would secure a 
fundamental right parents should always be guaranteed: their right to 
make informed decisions about their children.
  As my first time managing a floor debate, I couldn't think of a 
better bill to focus on. Our families in Indiana and across the country 
deserve debate on H.R. 5, and we plan to deliver.
  As a mother of three children in school, I know how important it is 
for parents to know what is happening in the classroom. Unfortunately, 
this bill is necessary because school districts across the country have 
failed to deliver basic transparency.
  That became painfully obvious to parents during the pandemic. Our 
living rooms became classrooms. Parents came to realize exactly what 
their children's days looked like.
  Many parents were surprised and disappointed by what they were 
learning about their children's educational experiences.
  Like many of my colleagues, I prefer that most decisions regarding 
education be made at the State and local level, and this bill does not 
change that.
  The actions over the past few years have compelled us to stand up and 
to act. There has been example after example of this becoming a bigger 
problem.
  In one example, a father from Virginia had to learn his daughter was 
assaulted in the high school bathroom from his child, not the school.
  Stories like this one shouldn't become the new normal.
  As I said in the Rules Committee during the hearing about the bill 
just last night: ``Sending a child to public school does not terminate 
parental rights at the door.''
  I worked in child services. I have cared for children in foster care. 
When foster parents are caring for their children who are in the 
custody of the State, they can't give those kids a haircut without 
getting permission from the child's biological parents. Shouldn't the 
same rules apply to the students' safety and well-being in our schools?
  Yet, parents are left pleading. They are left to plead for 
information; to plead for the safety of their kids in public restrooms; 
to plead for the quality of their kids' education; and to plead for 
anyone who would listen to help restore their parental rights.
  This bill would restore transparency, consultation, and notification 
requirements to existing law. In doing so, it would give parents the 
right to obtain critical information more easily from school 
administrators, boards, and teachers to make informed decisions 
regarding their children's education.
  The bottom line: It gives power back to parents.
  As the Republican Education and the Workforce Committee members have 
said, the Parents Bill of Rights contains five basic principles: That 
parents have the right to know what their children are being taught; 
that parents have the right to be heard; that parents have the right to 
see the school budget; that parents have the right to protect their 
children's privacy; and that parents have a right to keep their 
children safe.
  Now, these goals are hard to fight against, but we have heard critics 
say this bill is somehow politicizing education or that bureaucrats 
know better than parents or that we are encouraging the banning of 
books.
  Let me be clear. Nothing in this bill has anything to do with banning 
books or even that parent engagement is somehow a better model than 
parental rights. That is simply not true.
  Instead, this bill provides an opportunity to ensure our kids are 
prepared to contribute to this great country of ours. It aims to 
strengthen parent-teacher partnerships where they exist and close 
information gaps where parent-teacher partnerships could be improved.
  While there are many challenges in our schools, one we should all be 
able to agree on tackling is that administrators, educators, and 
parents should be on the same page. The first step in achieving that 
goal is improving our parents' access to information about their kids' 
experiences.
  One example of this is an amendment I was able to offer during the 
markup a few weeks ago. The amendment required notification of parents 
when a

[[Page H1338]]

student isn't reading at grade-level proficiency by the end of the 
third grade. Our child literacy rates are falling behind, and the more 
parents know, the more they can help, the better.
  In the end, by passing the Parents Bill of Rights, we are one step 
closer to what everyone wants, providing our students with the best 
learning experience inside and outside of the classroom and giving 
parents a proper say in their children's future.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1230

  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for 
yielding the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that public education plays a 
central role in our democracy, helping to ensure the Jeffersonian ideal 
of having an informed electorate to participate in the governance of 
our country. I think we can also agree that it is vitally important 
that parents, as their children's primary caregivers, play an active 
role in their kids' education in our public schools.
  That is why governance of our public schools is entrusted to local 
boards of education, where most school board members are, in fact, 
parents and are directly responsible to the communities they serve.
  In our fast-paced and online world, the glue that so often holds our 
communities together is our neighborhood schools, the parent-teacher 
and home and school organizations that support them, and the 
extracurricular athletics and activities that we all gather at.
  That is why it is so disappointing that the Republican majority has 
chosen to bring to the floor a bill that undermines those community 
values and does nothing to address the real issues facing America's 
schools today.
  Contrary to its title, this bill does not give parents any more 
rights than they already have. Even the conservative Cato Institute has 
criticized this bill for doing nothing to actually empower parents. In 
fact, many of the so-called rights this bill claims to establish, like 
parents' ability to meet with their child's teachers, testify at school 
board meetings, examine school budgets, or protect their children's 
privacy, are already enshrined in law and are things school districts 
nationwide already do and in which parents consistently participate in.
  What this bill does do is promote efforts to inject divisive D.C. 
politics and culture wars into our neighborhood schools and create 
burdensome new Federal mandates for those schools, dictating to our 
local communities and our local taxpayers how and when to perform 
certain tasks.
  To add insult to injury, this bill doesn't offer any funding to meet 
these new Federal mandates or propose resources that would actually 
help students and families or support our public schools, many of which 
are already struggling to make ends meet under inequitable funding 
formulas.
  This bill would force schools to invest already scarce time and 
resources toward onerous compliance requirements and administrative 
costs and away from crucial measures that actually improve student 
outcomes, all with no additional money and with no discernible benefit 
to our children.
  Ultimately, this bill is an act of Federal overreach that would 
hinder students' ability to learn and undermine the important work that 
educators, librarians, and other school professionals do every day. It 
would undermine the valuable relationships among parents and between 
parents, students, and teachers, relationships that are built on trust 
and shared goals.
  The truth is that the primary concerns for too many teachers and 
parents are to make sure that their children have enough to eat, a bed 
to sleep in at night, and can get to and from school safely. This bill 
does not address those critical needs or, for that matter, anything 
else that promotes student success and well-being.
  What this bill does is open the door to allowing a noisy minority to 
dictate what all students can and cannot read or learn, and that hurts 
both our kids and our communities.
  We have already seen in Florida and other States that have passed 
versions of this bill that the provisions buried in this legislation 
have allowed rightwing bullies to ban books, gut history lessons, and 
marginalize some of our communities.
  The beauty of our public schools is that they help our children 
become critical thinkers and functional adults by meeting and learning 
about the diversity of people, viewpoints, and experiences in the world 
around them.
  Allowing some parents to dictate their worldview to all parents and 
students in our public schools does a disservice to our schools, our 
children, and our communities, particularly when, as has been so often 
the case recently, those efforts have sought to marginalize people of 
color and the LGBTQ community.
  Perhaps my Republican colleagues are discounting the opportunities 
for parental engagement that are already baked into our public 
education system because the views they are pushing, to ban books and 
whitewash history, are not accepted by the overwhelming majority of 
Americans.
  I know how much children benefit when parents and teachers work 
together to help them reach their full potential. I know this from 
experience. I spent a decade providing training and representation for 
parents and students in the public school system. I spent two decades, 
while my children attended public schools, as a home and school parent, 
a classroom volunteer, and, like my father and sister before me, a 
school board member to help not only my kids but all the kids in our 
district to succeed.
  I often think that school boards are one of the purest forms of local 
representative democracy. Unpaid members from the community--most of 
them, like myself, parents--spend endless hours working together with 
school administrators, educators, and parents, all united by a common 
goal to do what is best for all of our children.
  Over the years, I had countless conversations with involved parents 
and constituents in grocery stores, at school concerts, on soccer 
fields, and at formal board meetings about how our schools could best 
serve our children and taxpayers, where we could do better, and where 
our options were limited, usually by financial constraints.
  Those discussions were sometimes emotional or passionate, and people 
didn't always agree, but everyone respected our democratic processes 
and the boundaries of protected speech as we sought to reach the best 
possible solutions for our community.

  Those conversations and deliberations also reflected a core principle 
of our civil society, one that is important to remember as we struggle 
to reduce the hyperpartisanship and lack of civility in our politics 
and to model good behavior for our children. That is the principle of 
cooperation and compromise, that having the loudest voice or being a 
bully doesn't mean that you always get to win.
  This bill, H.R. 5, does not help parents, educators, and school 
districts to work together more effectively. Instead, this bill pits 
parents against each other and against teachers in a way that creates 
more chaos and community discord. That hurts students and families, 
disregards talented educators, undermines public schools, and detracts 
from what should be our ultimate goal, providing the best possible 
public education for America's children.
  Our national motto is ``e pluribus unum,'' ``out of many, one,'' not 
``my way or the highway.'' We form a stronger and more perfect 
community when we bring our diverse talents and strengths together, and 
this bill undermines that goal.
  I now represent a congressional district with 21 school districts in 
it, including one of the largest in the country, and I talk to a lot of 
parents in my community.
  Parents in my district want to talk about how to help our kids 
succeed. They want to talk about hiring enough teachers, librarians, 
and guidance counselors. They want to talk about fixing crumbling 
school buildings and preparing our children for the jobs and challenges 
of the 21st century.
  They want schools in our communities that serve the healthy food kids 
need to learn and grow, offer mental health resources, and teach the 
skills

[[Page H1339]]

that every American needs to be engaged and informed citizens and 
taxpayers to ensure our long-lasting democracy.
  Overwhelmingly, these parents are appalled that bills like H.R. 5 
threaten to open the floodgates to book bans, more restrictions on what 
can be said in the classroom, and attempts to rewrite history and 
censor facts, all at the expense of our students.
  While it sounds benign, this bill will be used to eliminate classroom 
conversations about racism in the American story or portrayals of LGBTQ 
people in books, all while refusing to deliver on what parents are 
actually asking for to keep their children safe, the kind of policies 
that House Democrats are bringing to the table to keep children safe 
from dangerous toxins like asbestos and lead that are still prevalent 
in too many schools and to keep children safe from gun violence, now 
the leading cause of death for American children.
  We need commonsense gun safety laws that keep weapons out of 
classrooms and out of the hands of children so parents aren't scared 
that one day they will send their kids to school and they will never 
come home.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle often talk about being 
the party of small government and local control. They condemn the 
intrusion of the Federal Government into local affairs, but this 
legislation is nothing more than an attempt to nationalize our 
education system and mandate a one-size-fits-all approach across the 
country, assuming that the size that fits is a rightwing straitjacket.
  Even the conservative Cato Institute has said that H.R. 5 suffers 
from a fundamental flaw: It is not constitutional.
  We should give young people the resources they need to learn and 
grow, not stifle their ideas, threaten their civil rights, censor their 
classrooms and teachers, or take books off library shelves. We should 
not promote chaos and bullying in our communities.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Norman).
  Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Houchin for bringing 
this important bill to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise and fully support H.R. 5. Folks, this bill could 
be called the parents bill of rights transparency bill because that is 
all it is, transparent.
  As I look to the balcony, I see a lot of young people, middle-aged 
people, people with children and maybe grandchildren. Nowhere in this 
bill is it banning any books. Nowhere.
  As my good friend from Texas yesterday pointed out during rules 
debate, my friends on the other side of the aisle had one book. I see 
they have a stack of books now. Let me see if they will give you an 
example of books that you can pull up on the internet that are taught 
in public schools all over the country.
  Let me see if they are going to recognize the book ``Beyond 
Magenta.'' It documents stories on LGBTQ youth. It has very sexually 
explicit passages: I was sexually active from the time I was 6.
  I won't go on to say the other things that they have. Are you going 
to highlight these books?
  Another book, ``This Book Is Gay,'' discusses orgies and kinky sex 
acts. Are you going to highlight that?
  ``Gender Queer'' is a novel, and it had a debate in the libraries. It 
had explicit images of oral sex. Are you going to highlight that book?
  Let's take ``Juliet Takes a Breath.'' This book discusses a woman's 
journey coming out as a lesbian and contains graphic descriptions of 
sexual encounters.
  Folks, I could go on and on. It lists I don't know how many different 
books.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask parents if this is something they want their 
children to read? Is this something that encourages academics and 
allows that child to compete in the 21st century? Is this a book that 
promotes what their child needs to know?

  It is sad that this bill is even needed, but it is estimated that 
between kindergarten and the 12th grade, a student will spend over 
15,000 hours at school. That is 15,000 hours when parents are trusting 
other people to do what is in the best interest of their child.
  It is good that America's parents are taking a stand now. They are 
pushing back on these kinds of books that I don't think they are going 
to mention.
  I have 4 children and 17 grandchildren. We got a notice a week ago 
where the parents are upset because the school is allowing boys to go 
into-- The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, bottom line: The school was allowing males 
to go into female bathrooms. This is intolerable.
  This bill is needed. It gives parents the control, and it gives 
parents the right to know what their child is being taught.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the 
Record a letter from the American Library Association opposing H.R. 5, 
saying that the bill would create a catalyst for more book banning and 
censorship.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.


                                 American Library Association,

                                                   March 16, 2023.
     Re H.R. 5, ``Parents Bill of Rights Act''--OPPOSE.

     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Speaker, House of Representatives.
     Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
     Democratic Leader,
     House of Representatives.
       Dear Speaker McCarthy and Leader Jeffries: The American 
     Library Association (``ALA'') writes to express our 
     opposition to certain provisions of H.R. 5. (``Parents Bill 
     of Rights Act'') and to urge a NO vote on H.R. 5.
       Unquestionably, parents should have a voice in their 
     child's education. However, we must oppose H.R. 5's school 
     library provisions, which ironically would lead to more 
     government interference in family decisions regarding 
     voluntary reading. These provisions:
       Are unnecessary and unwarranted;
       [Would create a catalyst for more book banning and 
     censorship;] and
       Would create unfunded federal mandates and regulation where 
     none are needed, at the cost of educating students.
       This letter explains each of these concerns below and 
     provides background information about school libraries and an 
     analysis of the bill's school library provisions.


       School Libraries are Essential to Educational Achievement

       According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 
     88 percent of all public schools had a school library in 
     2020-21. School libraries and librarians play essential roles 
     in promoting educational achievement, including by fostering 
     a love of reading which encourages students' development of 
     key literacy skills. School libraries offer a variety of age-
     appropriate materials for voluntary reading, which is central 
     to helping students discover the joy of reading. School 
     library collections are typically overseen by school 
     librarians who hold a Master's in Library Science or 
     comparable degree from an ALA-accredited graduate program, 
     and who in many states are required to hold a state 
     certification. Library collections are developed in 
     accordance with professional standards, the school's 
     collection development and reconsideration policies, and the 
     requirements of applicable law, including the U.S. 
     Constitution.


             Analysis of H.R. 5'S School Library Provisions

       The following provisions, as contained in Rules Committee 
     Print 118-2, would impose new federal requirements on local 
     school libraries.
       Section 104 would require local educational agencies that 
     receive funding under federal Education Department programs 
     to notify parents that they have the right to a ``list of the 
     books and other reading materials contained in the library of 
     their child's school'' and to ``inspect such books or other 
     reading materials,'' and to provide parents with such list 
     and opportunity to inspect such materials at the beginning of 
     each school year.
       Section 202 would require local educational agencies that 
     receive funding under federal Education Department programs 
     to make available for inspection by parents ``any books or 
     other reading materials made available to students in such 
     school or through the school library of such school,'' and to 
     adopt a policy providing for such inspection upon the request 
     of the parent.
       Section 202 also contains reporting provisions, which would 
     require:
       Local educational agencies that receive funding under 
     federal Education Department

[[Page H1340]]

     programs to annually ``report to the State educational agency 
     any enforcement actions or investigations carried out for the 
     preceding school year to ensure compliance with this 
     section'' and to ``publish such information on its website;''
       State educational agencies, in turn, to annually report 
     information received from local educational agencies to the 
     federal Education Department, as well as ``a description of 
     the enforcement actions the State educational agency took to 
     ensure parents' rights were protected;'' and
       The federal Secretary of Education to annually report 
     information received from states to Congress, along with ``a 
     description of the enforcement actions taken by the Secretary 
     [ . . . ] to ensure full compliance.''
       Finally, Section 202 directs the Secretary to ``take such 
     action as the Secretary determines appropriate to enforce 
     this section,'' including the authority to terminate federal 
     funding ``if the Secretary determines that there has been a 
     failure to comply with such section, and compliance with such 
     section cannot be secured by voluntary means.''
       The bill would not provide funding to implement these 
     requirements.


  The Bill's School Library Provisions Are Unnecessary and Unwarranted

       The bill's school library provisions appear to be a 
     solution in search of a problem. We are not aware of any 
     situations where parents were not allowed access to the 
     school library's catalog or materials. It is standard 
     practice in today's school libraries to maintain online 
     catalogs of their library materials and make such catalogs 
     available to parents and students. School librarians welcome 
     the opportunity to engage with parents in support of the 
     student's education and fostering a love of reading. That is 
     precisely why school libraries exist, and why school 
     librarians have chosen their profession.
       Furthermore, these provisions are unwarranted. As described 
     above, school libraries provide access to a variety of age-
     appropriate materials. Notably, these are not mandatory 
     instructional materials, but voluntary choices for student-
     directed reading. If a student isn't interested in a 
     particular book, they can simply choose another book.


 The Bill's School Library Provisions Would Create a Catalyst for More 
                      Book Banning and Censorship

       We are very concerned about the potential negative 
     unintended consequences of book banning and censorship of 
     viewpoints if these federal requirements are imposed on local 
     schools.
       The federal government should not dictate which materials 
     local school libraries can or cannot offer. Indeed, current 
     federal law prohibits the Education Department from 
     exercising ``any direction, supervision, or control
     [ . . . ] over the selection or content of library 
     resources'' by local schools (20 U.S.C. Sec. 3403(b)). 
     However, the school library provisions of H.R. 5 would expand 
     federal involvement in that quintessentially local decision 
     and invite more attempts to censor information and ban books.
       Imposing new federal regulation--including a federal 
     mandate for local schools to adopt new policies--would be 
     weaponized by a small minority who seek to censor what other 
     parents' children can read. The sad reality is that an 
     increasing number of state and local politicians in recent 
     years have acquiesced to extreme demands to censor reading 
     choices, and we fear that censorship may become even more 
     prevalent if these provisions are enacted.
       We have already seen how destructive censorship can be with 
     the banning of books in many communities. Book bans now 
     include many shocking examples, including the banning of 
     children's books regarding the contributions to society by 
     individuals like Condoleeza Rice, Rosa Parks, and Malala 
     Yousafzai. We cannot support provisions that will, even if 
     unintentionally, lead to greater censorship and the banning 
     of children's books that contain subjects such as the 
     contributions of these historic figures.


  The Bill's School Library Provisions Would Create Unfunded Federal 
Mandates and Regulation Where None Are Needed, At the Cost of Educating 
                                Students

       As described above, the bill's requirements for school 
     libraries are essentially duplicative of standard local 
     practice. Nonetheless, by imposing new federal regulation on 
     local schools, the bill would create new paperwork 
     requirements, compliance burdens, and administrative costs, 
     including for rural and small schools that can least afford 
     them. These unfunded mandates will be another distraction 
     from schools' fundamental work to educate students. These 
     same provisions would hand the federal Education Department 
     new, broad authority to defund schools deemed to have 
     inadequately complied with these new federal regulations. If 
     enacted, these provisions would take dollars that should be 
     used to pay for books, librarians, and teachers, and require 
     that they instead be spent on administrators, bureaucrats, 
     and paperwork--to the detriment of the students our schools 
     should be focused on serving.


                               Conclusion

       We believe that parents should be partners in their 
     children's education. However, H.R. 5's school library 
     provisions do nothing to advance that goal. Instead, they 
     would create unnecessary and unfunded federal mandates on 
     local school libraries that likely would result in more 
     government censorship of reading choices.
       Congress should support freedom for parents and students to 
     choose what they want to read. Inspired by the wisdom of our 
     country's Founders, the First Amendment must be our guide 
     star. If anyone is to tell a child that they can't read a 
     book, it should be the child's parent, not a politician. 
     Congress should support students by strengthening school 
     libraries and protecting the freedom to read--not imposing 
     more bureaucratic burdens and invitations to censorship.
       We are confident that parents want more books, not fewer, 
     in their children's school libraries.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
     Alan S. Inouye, Ph.D.,
       Senior Director, Public Policy & Government Relations and 
     Interim Associate Executive Director, American Library 
     Association.

  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished ranking member of 
the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me get something straight here: 
Republicans keep saying, as they just did, that nothing in this bill 
has anything to do with banning books. We keep hearing it over and over 
and over. We have heard the same thing in State after State as 
Republicans have passed bills like this.

                              {time}  1245

  Now, we have over 1,600 books--and more every month--pulled from the 
shelves. They are banned. Democrats put forward amendments to prevent 
politicians from banning books. They all voted ``no.'' Democrats put 
forward six amendments to prevent censorship. They all voted ``no.'' 
Now they are trying to pretend like they have no idea why we would be 
concerned about book bans. Give me a break.
  I am a parent. My wife, Lisa, and I have gone to countless parent-
teacher conferences when our kids were in public school. Both of my 
sisters are public school teachers. I know how hard they work to 
involve parents in their kids' education. Don't lecture us. We are 
parents. We know what this is about. It is about banning books.
  This bill is going to be weaponized by far right groups and used to 
threaten schools with legal action if they don't pull books off the 
shelves. It is going to force teachers to decide between staying silent 
and teaching something that certain politicians in their State don't 
like. It is already happening, for God's sake.
  Ask the teacher in Iowa who was told that they cannot teach that 
slavery was wrong.
  Ask the teacher in Texas who was told that they have to teach the 
opposite perspective on the Holocaust.
  Ask the teacher in Florida who was fired for exposing a book-banning 
spree at the hands of Ron DeSantis that would make the Chinese 
Communist Party blush.
  I have a few books that Republicans want to ban--too many to go 
through now, but let me recite a few. ``The Life of Rosa Parks.'' ``Who 
was Sojourner Truth?'' ``Biography of Nelson Mandela.'' ``The Story of 
Harvey Milk.''
  Now, do you notice any pattern here? They want to ban books about 
Black and Brown people, and they want to ban books about LGBTQI+ 
people. It is sick. It is hateful. What is wrong with them, Mr. 
Speaker?
  If you don't like a book, don't let your kid read it. But you don't 
get to tell the rest of us parents what our kids should be allowed to 
read. Talk to your kids' teachers. Run for school board. Don't take 
away money from schools that fall on the wrong side of the MAGA culture 
wars.
  We gave Republicans dozens of chances to amend this bill and make it 
better to address the actual issues that our schools face. They voted 
``no'' on all of them. Get this, they voted ``no'' on getting lead 
pipes out of schools. They voted ``no'' on that. They care more about 
getting Rosa Parks out of our schools than lead pipes. I think that 
says it all.
  Never in my life did I think I would see such a reprehensible, 
disgraceful bill come to the floor. We should trust parents and 
teachers and students to think for themselves without having toxic MAGA 
culture wars shoved down their throats by Republicans in Congress.
  Vote ``no'' on this awful rule and on this awful bill.

[[Page H1341]]

  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Roy).
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, let's just make sure the American people know 
the truth. Parents have the right to know what their children are being 
taught. Parents have the right to be heard. Parents have the right to 
see the school budget and spending. Parents have the right to protect 
their child's privacy. Parents have the right to keep their children 
safe.
  That is what my Democratic colleagues are objecting to. Notice how 
they are objecting. Notice what they are trying to do. It is a page as 
old as time in the Democratic playbook--fearmongering, racial division, 
peddling the lies of hatred, saying that somehow the legislation that 
would empower parents and give parents the right to know what their 
child is being educated with, know what they are being told, that 
somehow that is going to lead to banning of books.
  What they are afraid of is they are afraid of a parent being able to 
come in, armed with the information of what is being taught to their 
children, armed with what is in the library, and holding school boards 
accountable, holding their educators accountable. That is precisely 
what my Democratic colleagues do not want to occur.
  They are afraid of the Sunshine going into the classroom because they 
know that after COVID the veil has been lifted on a corrupted education 
system that has for too long been indoctrinating our children with 
racial division and hatred. Parents are now awakened. They have seen 
what is occurring behind the veil because the veil was lifted.
  My colleagues go around peddling the fears of banned books, 
completely inaccurately trying to claim that books were banned in Duval 
County that weren't banned, books that were either not ordered--when, 
in fact, there are on average 13 books about Rosa Parks in every 
elementary school in Duval County. That is the truth. Nobody wants to 
pull books about Rosa Parks. Nobody wants to pull books about Roberto 
Clemente.
  If there is legislation passed to make sure that we stop the 
ridiculousness of what books are being put in front of our kids, then 
people go: Let's pull books and look at it to make sure what is in it, 
and then they decide to put those books back when they pass muster. 
That is what my colleagues want to say are being banned.
  What they do not want to talk about are the books that my colleagues 
from South Carolina just talked about. They don't want to talk about 
``Flamer,'' a graphic book about young boys performing sexual acts at a 
summer camp. They don't want to talk about that.
  Who does?
  A bunch of fringe leftist groups that want to stick that stuff in our 
schools for our kids to read.
  How about ``This Book is Gay,'' a book containing instructions on the 
ins and outs of gay sex.
  This is what we want being put in the schools for our children?
  Our Democratic colleagues do not want the American people, the 
parents, to know this. That is what this is about. My Democratic 
colleagues do not want parents to know that information. They don't. 
They have a bill in front of them that literally gives parents the 
right to know that and they are opposing it and opposing it with force.

  To my colleagues who say: Well, this is sticking the Federal 
Government into the tent of local government, I say to them: Well, 
welcome to the club of actually being concerned about Federal 
Government overreach. I agree.
  So I hope they will support my amendment then that would strike all 
the language and block grant the dollars to the States. They don't want 
to do that, ladies and gentlemen, because they want to meddle. They 
just want to meddle the way they want to.
  They don't want to have a clean elimination of the Department of 
Education. I support my colleague   Thomas Massie's bill to do that. My 
Democratic colleagues do not.
  My Democratic colleagues will not support a block grant to States 
because they want to meddle. They want to interfere. They just don't 
want parents to know the truth. That is a dirty little secret.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take a minute--or not even a 
minute--to correct a couple statements that were made.
  First of all, I include in the Record an article from Jax Today 
titled: ``Duval Schools to keep 73 `diverse, inclusive' books out of 
classrooms.''

                    [From Jax Today, Dec. 22, 2022]

 Duval Schools To Keep 73 `Diverse, Inclusive' Books Out of Classrooms

                          (By Claire Heddles)

       Dozens of books the Duval County school district ordered in 
     the summer of 2021 will never hit classroom shelves. That's 
     the result of an ongoing review after the district pulled 
     almost 200 books this spring while the Florida Legislature 
     passed limits on what teachers can say about race, gender and 
     sexual orientation in classrooms and set new rules for 
     purchasing classroom materials.
       After a 10-month process--delayed by staffing shortages, 
     according to the district--47 titles are being returned to 
     the distributor. Twenty-six others will remain in storage, 
     awaiting further state guidance.
       Among the rejected titles are a book about Martin Luther 
     King Jr. intended for fourth graders; a biography of Rosa 
     Parks for second grade classrooms; a first grade Berenstain 
     Bears book about God; and multiple titles including LGBTQ+ 
     characters and families. District staffers are sending the 
     rejected books back to the distributor, Perfection Learning, 
     for exchange.
       The rest of the 179 books that had been held for review 
     were determined to meet ``statutory guidelines and are useful 
     toward our reading goals,'' and were distributed to 
     classrooms in October, a district representative tells 
     Jacksonville Today in an email.
       All of the books are from the Essential Voices Classroom 
     Libraries collection, which the distributor says are meant to 
     engage students in ``independent reading through these 
     diverse, inclusive'' stories.
       Explore the full list of books that were pulled for review:


                             `Banned books'

       In September, PEN America, an organization advocating for 
     free speech, released a tally of books they said were banned 
     across the country, including more than 550 in Florida, the 
     second-most of any state. Only Texas banned more.
       The list included the Essential Voices books the district 
     withheld from classrooms. Duval Schools contested the 
     characterization as a book ban because none of the books was 
     challenged by the public--the district pulled them before 
     they ever went on shelves.
       Ami Polonsky is the author of one of the recently rejected 
     books, Gracefully Grayson, a transgender coming-of-age novel 
     intended for fifth grade classrooms. A teacher herself, 
     Polonsky believes books like hers are blocked to appease a 
     small subset of parents.
       ``Books can save kids' lives, and to know this, but still 
     refuse to take them out of storage is nonsensical, it's 
     immoral. A parenting perspective cannot outweigh a national 
     mental health crisis among trans children,'' Polonsky told 
     the School Board this month. ``Books that are ordered with 
     the best of intentions gather dust, and the LGBTQ children 
     continue to receive the message that their existence is 
     controversial.''
       Polonsky and two other authors came to Jacksonville to 
     address the Duval School Board in early December at the 
     urging of national free speech organizations PEN America, We 
     Need Diverse Books and Freedom to Read. At the time, the 
     district had not yet publicly released the list of 106 books 
     it now says were distributed to classrooms in October.


                             New state laws

       Another of the authors, Linda Sue Park, wrote a book about 
     South Sudanese sisters on a two-hour walk to get water for 
     their family called Nya's Long Walk. Her book was among the 
     179 titles initially pulled, but it was since distributed to 
     kindergarten classrooms, according to the district.
       Park was in Jacksonville advocating for all the books in 
     the Essential Voices collection, many of which are written by 
     authors of color with main characters of color.
       ``You never know what book is going to do it for them, what 
     book is going to hit them, and that's why more choice, more 
     access, more variety is so important,'' she said.
       Duval decided to pull the books for review as it grappled 
     with limited state guidance for how to implement at least 
     three new Florida laws that restricted school curricula: HB 
     1467, HB 7 and HB 1557.
       HB 1467, sponsored by Rep. Sam Garrison, R-Fleming Island, 
     requires school districts to maintain a list of library 
     materials and make it easier for the public to contest school 
     books. Districts are also required to have a state-certified 
     media specialist sign off on new materials.
       Starting in January 2023, school librarians and media 
     specialists will have to complete an online training program 
     developed by the state Department of Education. In an email 
     this week, a Duval Schools spokesperson said the remaining 26 
     Essential Voices book reviews will be the first use of this 
     training.
       ``Once that training [is] released, the district will use 
     this as a great opportunity to go through this process 
     applying the required training,'' the spokesperson wrote.
       Another new law, HB 7, which Gov. Ron DeSantis nicknamed 
     the Stop WOKE Act, limited how teachers can talk about race 
     and

[[Page H1342]]

     racism and in the classroom. A federal judge blocked the law 
     from taking effect last month, calling it ``positively 
     dystopian.'' The DeSantis administration is appealing the 
     ruling in federal court.
       Though HB 7 is not currently in effect, Duval Schools 
     blocked multiple books that deal with race and history, 
     including a Memphis, Martin, and the Mountaintop by Alice 
     Faye Duncan, about Martin Luther King Jr. and the 1968 
     sanitation strike; Other Words for Home by Jasmine Warga, 
     about a 12-year-old Syrian refugee in the U.S.; and Separate 
     Is Never Equal: Sylvia Mendez and Her Family's Fight for 
     Desegregation by Duncan Tonatiuh, a children's book about the 
     fight to end segregation in California schools seven years 
     before Brown v. Board of Education--the Supreme Court 
     decision that found school segregation unconstitutional.
       A third new law, HB 1557, or Parental Rights in Education, 
     bans instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity 
     in first through third grade, ``or in a manner that is not 
     age-appropriate'' in older grades. Rather than define ``age 
     appropriate,'' the law that critics call ``Don't Say Gay'' 
     allows parents to sue districts if they believe something is 
     not.
       Polonsky's rejected book, Gracefully Grayson, was intended 
     for fifth graders. Other books meant for older grade levels 
     with LGBTQ+ stories are also being sent back, including the 
     fourth grade book, Rainbow Revolutionaries: Fifty LGBTQ+ 
     People Who Made History, by Sarah Prager, and The Stonewall 
     Riots: Coming Out in the Street, by Gayle E. Pitman for fifth 
     graders.
       Also in response to HB 1557, the Duval school district 
     dramatically shrank its LGBTQ+ support guide, removed rainbow 
     stickers and posters that supported LGBTQ students from 
     classrooms and took down a 12-minute anti-bullying video that 
     taught middle and high school students how to support their 
     gay and transgender peers.
       Ellen Oh, author and CEO of the national nonprofit We Need 
     Diverse Books, says Duval's actions are particularly 
     concerning because the decisions were made before any parent 
     complained about the books.
       ``It's the secretive, the silent censoring part of it that 
     is so troublesome to us,'' Oh said ahead of the Dec. 6 School 
     Board meeting. ``Books that have been banned have been done 
     publicly. People have challenged books. In this case, these 
     books were pulled because of fear. We can't live in a society 
     like that.''

  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, also, it is not the first time my colleague 
mentioned the book ``Flamer,'' which he described as a graphic book 
about a child at summer camp. In fact, it is a graphic novel, which is 
kind of a trend that he may not be familiar with.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Correa).
  Mr. CORREA. Mr. Speaker, all of us can agree that the most precious 
gift God can give us is our children. I am a parent of four children--
four children--who all attended public education, K-12. As a parent, I 
was active and participated in the local school board meetings, 
teacher-parent conferences, and I was involved with the local PTA 
because it was my responsibility to know what was going on in my 
children's life, especially educational life.
  All of us here as Americans, regardless of party affiliation, can 
agree that protecting our children is one of our most important 
responsibilities here in Congress. I agree with my colleagues across 
the aisle that we need to protect all students, especially, I would 
say, undocumented students, some of the most vulnerable students in our 
society.
  Last night, I introduced an amendment that would bar any local 
educational agency, State agency, elementary school, or secondary 
school from requesting or disclosing a student's immigration status. 
Schools, I would say, are the one place in our society that students 
should feel safe. My amendment would advance this principle. It would 
say that our students are safe in their schools.
  Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues across the aisle would have voted for 
my amendment last night, then they would have voted for safety for all 
of our students in school. Yet, they didn't do that. By failing to vote 
for my amendment, they left our most vulnerable students hanging.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Alford).
  Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Speaker, how dare they. How dare they conflate the 
names of two great people: Nelson Mandela and Rosa Parks--books about 
these heroes--and conflate them about books about sexual promiscuity of 
our children. How dare they.
  I am starting to see in my short time here in the U.S. Congress how 
this game is played. It is a conflate and confuse and baffle the 
American people.
  We are here to set the record straight.
  Mr. Speaker, if one good thing came out of COVID, when our kids were 
forced to stay home, it is that parents saw exactly what they were 
learning and what they were being taught. The parents didn't like it. 
The parents raised their voices. And because of that, they were 
condemned as domestic terrorists. That was wrong, Mr. Speaker. That was 
just plain wrong.
  As a father myself, I understand. I understand that our children are 
the most important things in our lives. It is our job to put them in a 
position to have a better life than we did. Raising and rearing 
children to be smart, capable, contributing members of society should 
be our number one objective. Of course, we all know this starts at 
home. Make no mistake, it does continue at our schools and in our 
classrooms.
  Schools are where our children spend the majority of their childhood, 
shaping the ideas, building the relationships, building the friendships 
they will have for a lifetime. This is exactly why parents deserve a 
seat at the table, and this legislation provides this seat.
  Parents have a right to know what is being taught. They have a right 
to be heard. They have a right to see how a school is spending their 
taxpayer dollars. Most importantly, they have a right to protect their 
children's privacy.
  When my Republican colleagues and I won back this Chamber, we swore--
we swore to the voters and constituents that we were going to defend 
these rights. The Parents Bill of Rights isn't the only step, but it is 
a great first step.
  This legislation ensures curriculum information, books, reading 
material, and learning standards are made public to parents. Parents 
will now have an open line of communication with teachers and school 
board officials. They will not be condemned as terrorists.
  Folks, this is common sense. To my good friends on the other side of 
the aisle, this really shouldn't be a debate.
  Then again, I never thought weeks ago that I would have to stand here 
and condemn socialism that they voted for.
  I never thought I would have to stand here and defend the rights of a 
baby that survived abortion, and yet we had to do that. I thought that 
was common sense as well, and I was wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not about changing history, this is about 
preserving our future as a Nation. This is not about banning books. 
This is about promoting transparency.

                              {time}  1300

  It is our job and it is our responsibility to protect our children 
from the evils being taught in some classrooms across the country--not 
all.
  I am proud to be a voice for the parents of Missouri, for our 
district, and for parents across this great land. I am here to tell 
you, Mr. Speaker, it is time to take a stand. It is time to take a 
stand for our children. It is time to take a stand for our families. It 
is time to take a stand for our schools. It is time to take a stand for 
our great Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rules 
package of this critical piece of legislation.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes), who is a teacher.
  Mrs. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and the 
underlying bill, H.R. 5.
  I look around this Chamber, and I think that arguably I have spent 
more time in a classroom than anyone in this Chamber. I was a classroom 
teacher for 15 years. I ran before and afterschool programs and summer 
programs. I led programs for parent engagement. I am also the mother of 
four children. One of them is a public school student right now. As a 
teacher and a parent, I know that parent-teacher partnerships are 
critical to student success.
  I know that when a teacher can reach out to parents and discuss 
challenging curriculum and come up with strategies to support their 
child, students thrive. I know that when parents can reach out to their 
child's teacher and ask questions and voice their concerns, or even 
more, offer their personal perspectives, students benefit.

[[Page H1343]]

  But this bill does not do that. It does not promote parent-teacher 
partnerships. It just creates division in our schools at a time when 
both parents and teachers need all the help they can get.
  I have served on curriculum committees, and it is a requirement that 
there be a parent representative on those committees. These are the 
committees that select the books that will be read in classes. Teachers 
don't arbitrarily do that. I have addressed my local board of 
education. There was always time for public comment, and parents were 
encouraged to join. Parents of varying opinions were asked to show up 
and give their input on what we were doing in our schools.
  I have gone to a student's home because their parents could not 
attend a parent-teacher conference, but I knew that they cared deeply 
about their child and wanted to have conversations with me. So after 
school, on my own time, I reached out to connect with those parents. 
That is what teachers do.
  All of this misguided direction is from people on the floor who have 
very little information about what actually happens on the ground 
level. During COVID it wasn't that teachers were exposed and parents 
got an inside look at what happens in classrooms. The best teachers are 
always inviting parents into the classroom.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Mrs. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, in our 16-hour markup, committee Democrats 
offered strategies for parent engagement. We offered amendments to 
provide videoconferences so parents could be involved, and we offered 
legislation to say that kids should have healthy meals in school so 
that they would be ready to learn. Every single one of them was 
rejected.
  This politics over parents legislation creates unnecessary reporting 
requirements in our schools and diverts resources.
  I am a parent, and this bill actually removes my rights as a parent 
at the local level and places them in the hands of Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill 
and listen to what parents are saying. They are saying that they want 
diverse curriculum, diverse books, teachers who are highly qualified 
and prepared, and for all students, not just some, but all.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is no longer recognized.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Landsman).
  Mr. LANDSMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and 
to this very controversial and very dangerous bill, H.R. 5.
  I am a former teacher. I am a parent. My wife and I have two children 
right now in public schools. This is the life we lead. This is our 
reality right now.
  I can tell you that I offered several amendments because I know what 
I am talking about. One of the amendments was to protect our schools, 
our teachers, and our parents from unnecessary, awful, and very 
expensive litigation. That is what this is going to do. This is going 
to drown our school districts, our schools, our teachers, and maybe our 
parents in lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit.
  I offered amendments because everyone in my district believes in 
local control. One amendment just said: Hey, if you are a believer in 
local control, then allow school districts to opt out of this very 
dangerous bill. That is a local control issue. That amendment and the 
other amendment was not ruled in order so there will be no vote on it.
  I believe that this government that they are proposing has become too 
big for most Americans. It is too intrusive. They are banning books. 
You can't say this, you can't say that. They are in doctors' offices, 
and they are in classrooms. They are going too far and trampling on our 
freedoms.
  If they want to help, then invest in preschool, invest in childcare, 
invest in prenatal care, invest in stable housing, invest in 
afterschool programs, and invest in all kinds of things that are going 
to help children and parents.
  Stop telling us what to do with our lives and with our children.

  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Roy).
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, again, the facts are completely irrelevant to my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle--completely irrelevant.
  Introduced in the Record a little while ago was a story from 
December, again, trying to perpetuate this myth about book banning. 
Again, the context here matters that we are talking about legislation 
in this body to just ensure that parents know what is in the libraries 
and what is in the curriculum. It does nothing more.
  Yet, that is the great offense. They are trying to perpetuate that 
myth about Federal perpetuation of so-called book banning. Let me be 
clear. Yes. Some local jurisdictions are removing certain books--
absolutely, and God bless them for it--books about explicit sex acts. 
Let that hang out over the Chamber.
  No, I do not want America's children to have to be subjected to that 
kind of terrible indoctrination in the schools--absolutely not--and 
parents should be empowered to stop it. Instead, they want to 
perpetuate this myth.
  The facts are true.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an 
article titled: ``Facts about library books in Duval County Public 
Schools.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.

                            [Feb. 17, 2023]

        Facts About Library Books in Duval County Public Schools

                  (By Tracy Pierce and Laureen Ricks)

       Feb. 17, 2023--Books about Roberto Clemente and Hank Aaron 
     from the Essential Voices collection are among approximately 
     10,000 books that have been reviewed and approved through the 
     new state-required book review process.
       This review process and the status of library books were 
     the subject of conversation and misinformation that appeared 
     in media and social media over the last few weeks.
       Much of this misinformation was due to two separate but 
     interdependent topics:
       1. The purchase of almost 1,300 books from Perfection 
     Learning (including almost 180 books from their Essential 
     Voices Collection)
       2. The current effort to review all media center and 
     classroom library books, which is now required under state 
     law.
       This Team Duval News article will address both topics 
     comprehensively to help clarify the misinformation that has 
     spread.


               Topic One: Books From Perfection Learning

       1. The district purchased almost 1,300 titles in 2021. When 
     we received that order, more than 1,100 titles went directly 
     to the classrooms.
       2. The order included almost 180 book titles from the 
     Essential Voices collection, which we purchased to increase 
     diversity of writers, characters, topics, and viewpoints in 
     our classroom libraries.
       3. When we received those books, we quickly became aware 
     that the delivery included titles we did not order. We 
     collected those books from schools and held them in district 
     storage until our media specialists and others could review 
     them. (Note: We have two media specialists at the district 
     level, and their primary responsibility is to support school 
     instruction).
       4. When we reviewed the books, we sent 105 titles from this 
     diverse collection to classrooms last fall.
       5. We sent 47 book titles back to Perfection Learning. 
     Fourteen of these were because we didn't order them. Others 
     returned were titles that we ordered but upon review, we 
     determined they would not comply with new legislation or were 
     not appropriate for elementary aged children.
       6. We held 27 titles as we awaited state guidance to 
     determine the appropriate grade levels and placement 
     (classroom library or media center) for these books.
       7. Media specialists received training from the Florida 
     Department of Education in January 2023 after returning from 
     winter break.
       8. As of February 13, 2023, all 27 of those titles have 
     been reviewed and approved for designated grade levels, 
     including the books about Roberto Clemente and Hank Aaron.


        Topic Two: State-Required Review of Classroom Libraries

       1. State law now requires that every book in our classroom 
     libraries and school media centers be reviewed by certified 
     media specialists.
       2. Since the law passed, our small team of certified media 
     specialists (about 54 across all schools and the district) 
     have taken on the task of reviewing more than 1.6 million 
     titles.
       3. Based on state training on multiple laws dealing with 
     gender and racial ideology in books, we are reviewing for 
     three things:

[[Page H1344]]

       a. Material which could be considered pornographic is not 
     allowed. State trainers reminded our team throughout their 
     presentation that this is punishable as a third-degree felony 
     and that reviewers should ``err on the side of caution:''
       b. Material which could be considered instruction on sexual 
     orientation and gender identity is expressly forbidden in 
     state law for students in grades K-3.
       c. Material that could violate Florida Statute 
     1006.31(2)(d) and 1003.42(3) which, among other requirements, 
     includes material that might describe a person or people as 
     ``inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether 
     consciously or unconsciously, solely by virtue of his or her 
     race or sex.''
       (Sidenote on item c. above: Since Dr. Greene arrived in 
     2018, the district has invested more than $1 million in 
     classroom books from diverse authors and about diverse groups 
     of people. Our goal was--and continues to be--to put books in 
     the hands of children in which they can see themselves and 
     learn from a broad array of perspectives. What that now means 
     is that we have thousands of titles that we must review to 
     ensure our teachers do not unintentionally violate Florida 
     Statutes.)
       4. We did direct teachers to temporarily reduce their 
     classroom library collections to titles that were previously 
     approved while waiting for media specialists to curate a more 
     expansive list of approved titles. However, at no time should 
     a classroom have been without reading resources. At all 
     times, students should have had access to state approved 
     books, already approved civics literacy books, Benchmark 
     Advance small group books, Reader's Theatre, and extensive 
     online resources in our curriculum.
       5. We did have a small number of principals interpret 
     directions and guidance more intensely, out of an abundance 
     of caution. We have provided additional guidance to those 
     leaders and they have appropriately adjusted their message to 
     teachers. In their defense, the state training also stressed 
     the accountability of the school principal with respect to 
     the books and materials made available to students.
       6. We informed principals clearly that media centers should 
     not be closed. However, because we need all certified media 
     specialists to review books, hours of media centers open to 
     students, along with the availability of media specialists to 
     support teachers, has been considerably reduced in some 
     schools.
       7. Through this process, we now have almost 10,000 book 
     titles approved for classroom use, including aforementioned 
     books about Roberto Clemente and Hank Aaron. In addition to 
     our 2021 order from Perfection Learning, we already had 
     multiple titles in classroom libraries and media centers 
     about these historic figures, as well as dozens of books 
     about Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks and other icons of 
     the Civil Rights movement.
       8. Another new requirement is creating a searchable, online 
     database of all elementary classroom library books for each 
     of our schools so that parents and the public can see all 
     titles available to students. We also have a process and a 
     committee that will review books if they are challenged by a 
     member of the public. All of this is required by law and adds 
     to the effort and time it will take to comply with the law.
       Duval County Public Schools will continue this intensive 
     process of reviewing books both to comply with state laws and 
     to ensure teachers and school leaders do not have to worry 
     about jeopardizing their career because a book may be 
     construed to be in violation of Florida law.
       As an educational institution, the district's main goal is 
     this: To help children learn to read.
       There are thousands of books we can use to do that, and the 
     district will take the time and make the effort to ensure our 
     students and teachers have access to a diverse, legally 
     compliant set of books.

  Mr. ROY. ``February 17, 2023--Books about Roberto Clemente and Hank 
Aaron from the Essential Voices collection are among approximately 
10,000 books that have been reviewed and approved through the new 
State-required book review process.''
  The fact is there was a purchase of 1,300 books from Perfection 
Learning.
  ``The current effort to review all media center and classroom library 
books, which is now required under State law,'' was reviewed and 
completed. Those books were not banned.
  As I said earlier, there are, on average, 13 to 14 books about Rosa 
Parks per school in Duval County. Those are the facts. That is the 
truth. This is a complete misrepresentation designed to scare people 
when, in fact, we want to empower parents and provide Sunshine for the 
American people to protect their kids.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, my colleague from 
Pennsylvania, for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues here in this Chamber, I am 
blessed to be a parent. My wife and I are proud parents of a 4-year-old 
daughter, and we are deeply invested in her education and ensuring that 
she has the ability to be able to live her dreams. Mr. Speaker, you can 
imagine my surprise and my disappointment when I learned that the 
Republicans, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, would be 
spending our time today on this bill, the politics over parents act.
  It is a surprise because for so many years my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle have bemoaned the role of the Federal Government in 
public education.
  They have lectured us about local control time and time again, and 
yet here they stand with a bill to impose a variety of unfunded 
mandates on school districts across the country and eroding local 
control, as my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Landsman) articulated.
  I am disappointed because these unfunded mandates are so disconnected 
from the real concerns and fears that parents in my district back home 
in Colorado are experiencing every day.
  Just yesterday the Denver metro area in Colorado was frozen with fear 
at the news of another incident of gun violence in one of our schools. 
At East High School, two teachers were wounded, one of them critically. 
This came on the heels just 2 weeks ago of the tragic death of a 16-
year-old student at East High School as a result of gun violence. Our 
prayers, our thoughts, and our hearts go out to him, his family, his 
friends, and all the students and the parents who have been impacted in 
just the last 14 days as yet another incident of gun violence tears our 
community apart.
  That is what parents in Colorado are concerned about. They are 
concerned about their students--their children--coming home from school 
alive. They are concerned about the ability of children to be able to 
get a quality education and not go hungry, to not be poisoned by lead 
pipes in some of the dilapidated buildings in rural and urban 
communities across our country, and about the cost of childcare.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what they are concerned about.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, that is what parents and families are 
concerned about back in Colorado.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule so that we 
can get on to the business of addressing those concerns I have 
articulated on behalf of parents and families across our great country.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to make a few comments.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard about things embedded in this legislation. 
I want to reiterate this is a bill that says that parents have the 
right to know what their children are being taught, parents have the 
right to be heard, parents have the right to see the school budget and 
spending, parents have the right to protect their child's privacy, and 
parents have a right to keep their children safe.
  We have also heard our colleagues talk about how well school boards 
work, and for large swaths of the country, I am sure that is true. Just 
because things work well in some places does not mean they work well in 
all places. Tell that to Mr. Scott Smith who was arrested at a school 
board meeting in Loudoun County, Virginia, when he questioned whether 
the school might be trying to cover up his daughter's sexual assault by 
a gender fluid student.
  We have heard that this bill pits parents against teachers and 
against each other. We have heard a lot of those types of comments. The 
very fact that they characterize this bill as pitting someone against 
another when I have just stated the facts of what is in the bill should 
be a red flag.

  I sat through a 16-hour markup until the early hours of 2:30 or 3 
a.m. in this morning. We did hear dozens of amendments, but what I 
heard were dozens of chances to empower bureaucrats over empowering 
parents.
  Republicans are proud to stand up for parents on behalf of students.
  This is not politics over parents. It is parents over politicians and 
bureaucrats. We want what parents all across America want: schools to 
teach reading, writing, arithmetic, and science

[[Page H1345]]

with the utmost transparency. Parents want to be involved and informed 
without having to file 200 freedom of information requests only to be 
sued by the NEA and the school board, such as Nicole Solis.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, there are many issues that we should be 
dealing with here.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a resolution that 
states the House's unyielding responsibility to defend and preserve 
Social Security and Medicare for generations to come and to affirm that 
it is the position of the House to reject any cuts to these vital 
programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, Social Security and Medicare are 
foundational to our constituents' economic and health security. 
Republicans have demanded unconscionable cuts to these programs in 
exchange for raising the debt limit and paying our Nation's bills.
  Some of my Republican colleagues have recently changed their rhetoric 
and now say that they don't want to eviscerate Social Security and 
Medicare benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, I am offering my friends the opportunity to back up 
their newfound position.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1315

  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Rules Committee, I do feel compelled 
to comment upon the amendment process that we have with respect to this 
rule and bill.
  I am astounded that, once again, the Republican majority has reported 
such an imbalanced rule. This rule actually makes in order every single 
germane Republican amendment submitted before our meeting yesterday, 
but for Democratic amendments, the rule blocks 28 of the 31 germane 
amendments offered by the Democrats. That is a 90 percent suppression 
rate of the ideas submitted by the minority party, all of which were 
compliant with the rules of the House but have been blocked by 
Republicans from being debated or voted upon.
  The Rules Committee Republicans actually complained about amendment 
disparities during the Democratic majority, saying, ``There is no 
context in which such a stifling of minority voices is consistent with 
the designs of this institution or in the best interest of the American 
people we represent.''
  That complaint was written after we made in order 30 percent of the 
amendments submitted by Republicans to structured rule bills. When we 
do 30 percent, it is a crisis for the institution, but when they do 5 
percent this month, it is okay.
  Speaker McCarthy actually promised both sides ``. . . more openness, 
more opportunity for ideas to win at the end of the day.''
  Mr. Speaker, that promise has been broken. This Republican majority 
knows their bills fail to address real problems, so they continue to 
block our good ideas from coming to the floor rather than actually 
debating them. It is wrong, and they need to do better.
  Mr. Speaker, with respect to H.R. 5, it does not promote the rights 
of parents, but it does open the door to censoring teachers and 
textbooks, threatening the rights of students and their parents, 
imposing costly burdens on our neighborhood schools that they cannot 
afford, and infringing on core American values, including freedom of 
speech and ideas.
  It puts rightwing politics over parents and would let a noisy 
minority push their own agenda and impose their beliefs of what 
children can or should read or learn onto all parents and students.
  Our schools carry out important responsibilities of educating the 
next generation of Americans, and all children deserve access to an 
equitable and well-rounded education that equips them for the future.
  We should give our schools the resources to help young people feel 
supported and ready to reach their full potential. We should not create 
hostile environments for our most marginalized students. We should not 
pit parents against each other and against educators, and we should not 
drive wedges between families and their neighborhood schools. I want to 
do better than that for our kids, and I hope others today want the 
same.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous 
question and the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, we made a commitment to America, and delivering for 
parents is an important part of that promise.
  We must empower parents to be in the driver's seat with respect to 
their children's education. This isn't about banning books or 
politicizing education.
  How parents having a right to be informed about and involved in 
decisions regarding their own children's academic experience is being 
misconstrued by some is lost on me.
  Mr. Speaker, we did have a robust committee markup on this bill that 
I was part of. We were in committee markup, hearing and debating 
amendments on this bill, from 10:00 in the morning until 2:30 in the 
morning. In those many amendments, what I heard over and over again 
was: there is nothing to see here and that this bill is not necessary 
and that most schools in America are doing just fine.
  Well, most schools, Mr. Speaker, are not all schools. Our parents 
have a fundamental right to know what is happening in the classroom 
without having to file a public records request to find it. If things 
are going so well that our colleagues across the aisle believe that 
this bill is not needed, then they should stand and join Republicans in 
support of parents across America.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Scanlon is as follows:

   An Amendment to H. Res. 241 Offered by Ms. Scanlon of Pennsylvania

  At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     resolution (H. Res. 178) affirming the House of 
     Representatives' commitment to protect and strengthen Social 
     Security and Medicare. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question except one hour 
     of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or 
     their respective designees.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H. Res. 178.

  Ms. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed.

                          ____________________