[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.
____________________