[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 53 (Thursday, March 23, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H1348-H1383]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       PARENTS BILL OF RIGHTS ACT


                             General Leave

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 5.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 241 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 5.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Flood) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1420


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 5) to ensure the rights of parents are honored and protected in 
the Nation's public schools, with Mr. Flood in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 2 
hours equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce or their 
respective designees.
  The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) and the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) each will control 1 hour.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today to recognize the profound importance of H.R. 
5, the Parents Bill of Rights Act, and what it means for families 
across the country.
  Over the past several years, parents witnessed the consequences of 
lessons taught in classrooms firsthand. Math scores declined by the 
largest margin ever, and reading scores plummeted to the lowest levels 
in over three decades. These results are devastating.
  Teachers' unions and education bureaucrats worked to push progressive 
politics in classrooms while keeping parents in the dark. The Parents 
Bill of Rights Act aims to end that and shine a light on what is 
happening in schools. This bill will reaffirm a parent's right to 
review course curriculum, meet with the child's teacher, and be heard 
at school board meetings without fear of reprisal.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem convinced 
Republicans are using this bill to punish teachers or push an extreme 
rightwing agenda. This is false.
  Our education system is spiraling out of control as parents are 
pushed further outside the classroom. This bill will restore the role 
of parents in schools and provide new mechanisms to promote parent-
teacher partnerships.
  When parents are involved in their child's education, students 
thrive. That is the guiding principle of this bill. With the Parents 
Bill of Rights Act, Republicans will help parents steer the education 
of their children back onto the correct path where they can learn the 
skills they need for a lifetime of success.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5, the politics over parents 
act.
  First, let me be clear. House Democrats believe parental engagement 
is central to student success. Parental engagement in schools is 
closely linked to better student behavior, higher academic achievement, 
and enhanced social skills.
  Unfortunately, the politics over parents act does not take meaningful 
steps to increase or support parental engagement. In fact, it lists so-
called rights and then declares that this allows the parents to control 
what is taught. Let's be clear: There is nothing in the bill to give 
parents the right to dictate what their children are taught.
  Instead, this bill is one of many attempts by Republican politicians 
to give a vocal minority the power to try to impose their beliefs on 
all parents and students. This extreme education agenda has real 
consequences for students and educators.
  According to PEN America, over 2,500 books were banned in schools 
during the school year 2021-2022, and nearly 140 additional book bans 
have taken effect since July 2022.
  Let me just list some of the books that Republican politicians have 
gotten banned under the guise of parental rights: ``Diary of a Young 
Girl,'' the stories of a Holocaust survivor, by Anne Frank; ``The Kite 
Runner,'' a novel on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, by Khaled 
Hosseini; ``Beloved,'' a novel about slaves during the Civil War, by 
Toni Morrison; and on and on. Books like that have been banned because 
of efforts like what we have before us today.
  Let's be clear. These books are taught at age-appropriate levels. If 
you have a problem with it, you should call the librarian. Yet, 
Republican politicians are actually having them removed from classrooms 
and school libraries.
  Simply put, the politics over parents act is an educational gag order 
across the Nation which will prevent students from learning and prevent 
teachers from teaching. These efforts seek to score political points 
and scare parents into thinking that schools do not have their best 
interests at heart. Instead, we should be talking about the support 
that schools and families actually need to improve parent-teacher 
engagement.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the politics over 
parents act and join House Democrats in an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to deliver real solutions to build partnerships between 
schools and families.

  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Louisiana (Ms. Letlow).
  Ms. LETLOW. Mr. Chair, I rise today to join my voice with millions of 
American parents as the House considers H.R. 5, the Parents Bill of 
Rights Act.
  H.R. 5 is about one simple and fundamental principle: Parents should 
always have a seat at the table when it comes to their child's 
education.
  We believe that learning is a partnership between a family and their 
child's teachers. This bill is the vehicle by which we can put parents 
and educators together at the same table to have a productive dialogue.
  This bill is not complex or complicated, nor should it be partisan or 
polarizing. Contrary to what you may hear from my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, it is not an attack on our hardworking 
teachers, who will always be the heroes in my eyes. It is not an 
attempt to have Congress dictate the curriculum or determine the books 
in the library. Instead, this bill aims to bring more transparency and 
accountability to education, allowing parents to be informed and, when 
they have questions and concerns, to lawfully bring them to their local 
school boards.
  Over the past 2 years, we have seen too many instances where rather 
than opening their doors to welcome parents in as partners, some 
schools instead slammed them shut and said that government bureaucrats 
know what is best for our children.
  Parents across this country have overwhelmingly spoken out that they 
have had enough. They want a seat at the table because, at the end of 
the day, these are our children, not the government's.

[[Page H1349]]

  Mr. Chair, I worked in education before I came to Congress, and I am 
also a mom. I have seen firsthand how when you educate a child, you 
give them a future.
  We know that when parents are involved, it is the students who 
succeed. We also know that when a family is shut out of their child's 
education, it will lead to disastrous results.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. Chair, let us give parents that voice in the learning process. 
Let schools open the doors and welcome them in as partners. Let us work 
together to build a brighter future for America's children.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wilson), the ranking member on the Higher 
Education and Workforce Development Subcommittee.
  Ms. WILSON of Florida. Mr. Chair, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 
5. As an educator, I believe parent voices should be honored in 
schools. All educators believe this.
  We know that this bill is not about that at all. We have always had 
parents involved in our schools, so stop being foolish and divisive. We 
always need their input.
  This bill is nothing more than a talking point of the extreme MAGA 
agenda that will hurt children and hurt our schools. Let's face it--
there has been a movement to eliminate public education since the 1954 
Brown v. Board of Education decision.
  With the election of our President 7 years ago, it pulled the scab of 
a wound that never healed. Now it is an open, gaping wound, and it is 
out of control. They are throwing everything at public schools but the 
kitchen sink: vouchers, excessive testing, poorly paid teachers, 
banning books, and now they are trying to drive a wedge and create an 
antagonistic relationship between schools and their parents. How 
pathetic. How dreadful.
  Parents love teachers. Everybody loves teachers. Every parent has an 
``I love and remember a teacher'' story. How disgraceful that we want 
to terrorize the very people who love our children, keep them safe, and 
educate them for over 8 hours daily. Our teachers are sacrificial 
lambs.
  You will never eliminate public schools. We will fight you as long as 
it takes. This is all that the little children who look like me have. 
Public schools are the bedrock of this Nation.
  Let me tell you what a parent's bill of rights should include. I will 
call it the parents' 10 commandments:
  Thou shalt restore the Child Tax Credit; provide free, hot breakfast 
and lunch; provide free pre-K and free community college.
  Thou shalt end the school-to-prison pipeline; put a nurse in every 
school; offer after-school activities; provide intensive counseling 
services, particularly to address school shootings.
  Thou shalt offer parents the right to improve their education and job 
skills, love and respect every child's individuality, guarantee that 
every child's teacher will make a minimum of $60,000 a year.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Bean), chair of the Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary 
Education Subcommittee.
  Mr. BEAN of Florida. Mr. Chair, should parents have the right to be 
involved in their child's education?
  That is the question before us. Seventy-two percent of Americans have 
answered ``yes'' to that question. Parents should be and want to be 
involved in their child's education.
  According to numerous studies, students who have involved parents 
have better behavior, better grades, better attendance, and develop a 
lifelong love of learning, which is the key to long-term success.
  Today, American parents are fed up, largely because they have 
experienced 2 years of school closures, misguided COVID policies, 
disastrous remote learning, and a curriculum focused on what is woke 
rather than what is essential academic instruction. They have been 
branded ``domestic terrorists'' for speaking out at school boards. Some 
were even arrested for having the nerve to plead with school boards 
about the safety of their child at school.
  Mr. Chair, it is time to re-welcome parents back into education. It 
is time for parents to have the right to know what is going on in 
American education today. That is why I--and I encourage everybody--to 
support H.R. 5, the Parents Bill of Rights Act, critical legislation 
that empowers parents and prioritizes the needs of students over 
entrenched special interest groups.
  Today, this body has an extraordinary opportunity to reclaim the 
moral high ground in America and usher in a newer era of K-12 education 
that empowers parents, protects kids, and expands educational freedom.
  American parents have said they want to be a part of their children's 
education. It is time for this body to say ``yes'' and support parents.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), the ranking member of the Early 
Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education Subcommittee, which has 
jurisdiction of the bill.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
5, which should be called the politics over parents act.
  After spending 15 years as a very involved public school parent, I 
can say without hesitation that I strongly support parental involvement 
in education. You won't meet a Member on this side of the aisle that 
disagrees with that. The bill before us today misses the mark.
  This could have been an opportunity to address the real challenges 
facing education, to make changes that would involve parents in a 
constructive way, and also make a positive difference in education. I 
am disappointed that we aren't doing that.
  House Democrats have shown time and time again that we are committed 
to providing all parents--including those who traditionally face 
barriers to engagement--with meaningful involvement in their kids' 
schools. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Democratic 
Party is the party of parental rights and family values.
  We have put forward a substantive plan that will actually increase 
the frequency, quality, and accessibility of parental involvement and 
engagement in schools; a substantive plan that invests in evidence-
based models and support systems that have been shown to increase 
family engagement and improve student achievement; a substantive plan 
that encourages parents to be partners, not adversaries, in their 
children's education; a substantive plan that roots out discrimination 
based on race, disability, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, or 
gender identity in our public schools; a substantive plan that, unlike 
H.R. 5, doesn't carry dangerous, authoritarian undertones encouraging 
book bans, discouraging the teaching of scientifically and historically 
accurate curricula, and leading to the micromanagement of the work of 
educators.

  We welcome a conversation about how to empower parents, and urge our 
friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle to abandon their 
politically motivated attacks on schoolteachers and students. We should 
instead be working together on these issues in a bipartisan manner. Our 
Nation's students and families deserve that.
  We need more parents, including those from diverse backgrounds, to 
feel included, supported, engaged, and welcomed at their kids' school. 
This bill does not even begin to do that.
  I am leading more than 45 of our colleagues on a Bill of Rights for 
Students and Parents, a resolution that is supported by more than 250 
education, civil rights, and parents' groups, including the National 
PTA.
  I have heard colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that 
history will judge us on how we respond to the needs of students and 
families at this moment, and I agree with them.
  Will we succumb to an extremist, discriminatory, narrow-minded, anti-
public-education agenda, or will we work together to advance 
commonsense, meaningful policies that will support parents, students, 
and educators?
  Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to take the approach that 
still sees public education as the great equalizer for all students 
regardless of who they are or where they are from, essential to our 
communities, the economy, and our democratic Republic.
  Please join me in rejecting this bill.
  Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a statement from the National PTA 
in opposition to H.R. 5.


[[Page H1350]]


       Dear Representative Bobby Scott: National PTA and our 
     network of millions of parents and educators across the 
     country urge you to support adoption of the Bonamici 
     Substitute Amendment and oppose the underlying legislation, 
     H.R. 5, on the House Floor tomorrow.
       PTA opposes the underlying bill, H.R. 5, because it has the 
     potential to cause significant harm to children and families. 
     If passed as written, H.R. 5 could:
       Prevent mental health support for students in need;
       Limit access to learning-enhancing technology and 
     educational materials;
       Lead to inappropriate and harmful book bans and curriculum 
     censorship;
       Create confusion for school staff and burdensome opt-in 
     requirements for families;
       Impair relationships between educators and parents; and
       Undermine efforts to create safe, welcoming, supportive, 
     and inclusive learning environments for all students and 
     families.
       PTA supports Representative Bonamici's Substitute Amendment 
     to H.R. 5 as the ONLY PATH forward to ensuring supports and 
     services are in place for true family-school partnerships. We 
     stand behind our National Standards for Family-School 
     Partnerships that have been in place for over 20 years. The 
     Substitute Amendment provides the opportunity for meaningful 
     and inclusive family engagement in K-12 education and if 
     adopted would replace the current H.R. 5 and enable our 
     Nation's public schools to:
       Create a parent coordinator position in public schools;
       Reinforce existing parents' rights under federal law;
       Prohibit the federal government from curriculum censorship 
     and banning books; and
       Invest in full-service community schools and Statewide 
     Family Engagement Centers Program (the new authorization 
     level of $60 million would allow all states to participate).
       As the Nation's oldest and largest child advocacy 
     association, we know what meaningful family engagement looks 
     like and what parents want from their policymakers. We ask 
     you to join us in supporting the Bonamici Substitute 
     Amendment and opposing the underlying bill, H.R. 5 on the 
     House Floor. We thank you for consideration of this request 
     and if you have any questions, please reach out to our 
     Director of Government Affairs, Kate Clabaugh.

  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman's time has expired. The gentlewoman is no 
longer recognized.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Was the gentlewoman's request to introduce a 
statement recognized?
  The CHAIR. That request is covered under general leave.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), the chair of the Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong 
support of the Parents Bill of Rights Act. This legislation is just one 
of many promises we intend to keep in our ``Commitment to America.''
  As a recovering school board member, I know firsthand the importance 
of hearing from parents and encouraging them to be engaged in their 
child's education.
  The Parents Bill of Rights Act provides parents an expanded 
opportunity to engage with their children and the teachers who educate 
them. This bill implements clear, commonsense protections allowing 
parents to easily review curriculum information, academic standards, 
and see how schools are spending our tax dollars.
  Parents deserve the right to be heard and should be able to raise 
concerns and address their school board without fear of harassment or 
retribution.
  This bill includes simple protections to keep our children safe, from 
protecting their privacy to requiring parents to be notified of violent 
activity in the school.
  As a graduate of the public school system and having raised three 
sons in the very same school district, I know parental involvement is 
critical to fostering a successful educational environment.
  Mr. Chair, quite simply, this bill is common sense. I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation that ensures parents are at the 
center of their child's educational experience.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
politics over parents act as a member of the Education and the 
Workforce Committee, as a member of the LGBTQ community, but above all, 
as a teacher.
  I am an educator and I know how important parental involvement is. 
All parents, including the parents of LGBTQ kids, have rights. They 
have rights to send their children to schools where they will be 
affirmed, protected, and free from harassment, and given the 
opportunity to thrive. They have a right to be free from bullying and 
humiliation.
  Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter from a million 
MomsRising.

                            [Mar. 21, 2023]

  So-Called `Parents Bill of Rights' Is All Wrong for America's Moms, 
 Families--A Toxic Plan That Will Create More Division, Damage to Our 
                          Kids and Communities

       Statement of Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, Executive Director 
     and CEO of MomsRising, the online and on-the-ground 
     organization of more than one million mothers and their 
     families, on the so-called `Parents Bill of Rights' (H.R. 5) 
     House Republicans are poised to pass this week:
       ``The badly misnamed `Parents Bill of Rights' the House GOP 
     plans to vote on this week is all wrong for America's moms, 
     kids, families, and educators. It is a recipe for censorship, 
     bullying and book bans, and for division based on race, 
     sexual orientation, and gender identity, masquerading as a 
     bill of rights. If it were to become law, the Parents Bill of 
     Rights would create more division by pitting educators 
     against parents. It would do enormous damage to our kids, 
     schools and communities.
       ``America's moms want schools to be safe and inclusive and 
     to value diversity; for parents to be respectful; and for 
     educators to be able to be honest about their identities and 
     allowed to teach our country's truths, good and bad, and the 
     values that got us to where we are today. We want our 
     children to learn about the history and obstacles faced, and 
     overcome, by members of our Black, Brown, AAPI, Native 
     American, immigrant, religious-minority, LGBTQ+, and other 
     communities. We want our students to be able to access 
     unbiased health information. We want all our youth, 
     regardless of income, disability, race, ethnicity, religion, 
     sexual orientation, and gender identity, to be safe and 
     included in schools that prepare them to contribute to and 
     succeed in our society.
       ``And we want a society that rejects `us vs. them' and puts 
     in place the caregiving and other supports that will allow 
     all families to succeed. MomsRising has more than a million 
     members and we have been working closely with moms in every 
     state for more than a decade. What this country's moms want 
     from Congress is affordable child, elder and disability care; 
     paid family and medical leave; fair pay; health care and 
     medications we can afford; vastly improved maternal health 
     care for all of us; the ability to make our own decisions 
     about if, when and how many children to have; and laws that 
     will end the scourge of gun violence and keep our children, 
     streets, schools and communities safe.
       ``Coming soon, we will release the Moms Rising for Freedom 
     Agenda with ten key policies lawmakers should support that 
     moms across the Nation really want, instead of the divisive 
     and harmful policies in the `Parents Bill of Rights.' That is 
     how we build a society in which we can all flourish and 
     thrive.''
  Mr. TAKANO. In committee, my Republican colleagues have preached 
about parents' God-given rights. I will tell you now that children have 
a God-given right not to be physically or emotionally harmed.
  As a teacher, I know of instances where children were outed by staff, 
and as a consequence those children faced severe punishment at home. 
One student was viciously beaten by his father and transferred out of a 
district after his family was informed that he was caught being 
physically affectionate with another boy.
  Imagine the situation in which educators are placed when government 
requires them to out their student to an unsupportive family. I will 
tell you what happens to those kids:
  73 percent of LGBTQ youth report anxiety.
  58 percent of them report depression.
  40 percent of homeless youth are LGBTQ, and
  46 percent, nearly half of them, have seriously considered suicide.
  Good teachers care about their kids. Good teachers know that a 
relationship with parents is important. But when a home is not safe for 
LGBTQ kids, school becomes their safe place, and teachers need to be 
their cheerleaders, not their first bullies.
  This bill forces good teachers to do bad things. It alienates 
students from their parents. It outs kids. It forces kids back into the 
closet. It is a fundamental invasion of privacy that puts children in 
danger.
  In the first 3 months that this Congress has been in session, this is 
what

[[Page H1351]]

Republicans have chosen to spend our time and taxpayer dollars on. The 
so-called Parents Bill of Rights Act is the exact type of Big 
Government overreach my colleagues across the aisle proclaim they are 
against, and puts the cost of their pursuit of political gain on the 
backs of students and teachers.
  This is worse than simply bad legislation. It is a concerted attack 
on children, parents, and teachers.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the bill.

                              {time}  1445

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 5, the 
Parents Bill of Rights Act. I thank Representative Letlow and Chair 
Foxx for their leadership in defending the God-given rights of parents 
and protecting kids as well.
  Parental involvement in their children's education is paramount to a 
student's success. However, in recent years, we have seen a push by 
some to exclude parents from their children's education. This is why I 
recently introduced the PROTECT Kids Act with Senator Tim Scott which 
has been included as an amendment to H.R. 5.
  The PROTECT Kids Act would require any Department of Education-funded 
elementary or middle school to seek and acquire parental consent before 
changing their child's pronouns or preferred name on any school form.
  This provision is straightforward, common sense, and will safeguard 
the critical relationship between parents, schools, and children.
  When a child goes on a field trip or fails a test, their parents are 
told and are often required to sign an acknowledgment or a permission 
slip.
  Why should relatively small things require notification but something 
as significant as a child's pronouns or a change in accommodations can 
be withheld from the people who raise and love them?
  Recent polling shows this has the broad support of the American 
people. Three-quarters of Americans believe schools should be required 
to obtain consent from parents.
  Parents have a fundamental right to raise and educate their children 
how they choose. We must pass the Parents Bill of Rights Act to help 
mitigate issues we have seen nationwide and to support parents who need 
the support to do right by their kids as well.
  On this side of the aisle, we believe this is the right way to go, 
and we believe that in the end it will promote education, family, and 
individualism as well.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), who is a member of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, Congress should be supporting parents, 
students, and teachers, not advancing this politics over parents act 
which would punish teachers for giving history lessons, ban books, and 
sow hate and divisiveness against trans kids.
  Parents have the utmost confidence in their kids' teachers. When it 
comes to writing curricula, 76 percent of parents trust their child's 
school. But when it comes to writing laws, political gimmicks, like 
this bill, keep them from saying the same thing about this very body.
  Instead of manufacturing outrage over curricula and books, why don't 
we just listen?
  Mr. Chairman, 84 percent of parents would rather Congress give free 
school meals, and 79 percent want support for mental health services. 
In a survey of parents' top concerns by The Pew Charitable Trusts, 40 
percent said they were extremely or very worried about their children 
struggling with depression, 35 percent said they were concerned about 
bullying, and 22 percent were worried about their kids being shot.
  Not a single one of those issues on the top list of parental concerns 
is addressed in this bill. So don't tell me this is a parents' bill of 
rights. This is not addressing gun violence. It is not addressing 
mental health. It is not addressing childcare, pre-K, and all of the 
other things that would be a part of a parents' bill of rights.
  Instead, we are spending time on a bill that sows doubt about public 
education and our teachers and also targets our very vulnerable trans 
kids who are absolutely no threat to anyone in this body.
  Please understand that the provisions in this bill that out trans 
kids are cruel and dangerous. I say that as a mom of a trans kid. I was 
very embracing to my daughter when she came out, but not every family 
is. The reality is that 75 percent of trans kids experience 
discrimination and harassment.
  So why do Republicans want schools to require outing LGBTQ students?
  That does not make them better students.
  Congress has the constitutional authority to write laws. What a 
mockery and betrayal of that duty it would be to pass this stunt of a 
bill that doesn't address a single priority of parents, bans books, 
undermines teachers, and hurts our kids.
  Democrats are the party of parents and families. We reject this bill, 
and we commit to fighting for childcare, for universal pre-K, for a 
child tax credit, and for the ability of people to be free for who they 
are and express themselves.
  Mr. Chair, I include in the Record two letters. One is from the 
National Education Association, and one is from the American Federation 
of Teachers.

                               National Education Association,

                                   Washington, DC, March 23, 2023.
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 3 million members of 
     the National Education Association, dedicated and trusted 
     professionals who teach and support nearly 50 million 
     students in public schools across America, we urge you to 
     vote NO on H.R. 5. Votes related to this bill, including 
     extreme amendments that would create a national private 
     school voucher program, may be included in the NEA Report 
     Card for the 118th Congress.
       H.R. 5 is unnecessary and ignores the partnerships that 
     exist between parents and educators. Parents and guardians 
     already have the right and the opportunity to partner with 
     educators to ensure students have the learning opportunities, 
     resources, and support for success. Across America, parents 
     are strategizing with educators when children face hurdles 
     and celebrating with them when students achieve milestones, 
     volunteering at events, chaperoning field trips, leading 
     PTAs, mentoring students, and actively engaging in many other 
     ways with students and educators.
       In a recent Gallup poll, 80 percent of parents with 
     children in public K-12 schools said they were satisfied with 
     their children's education. Instead of building on what 
     exists, H.R. 5 would stoke racial and social animosity. 
     Instead of bringing us together to focus on what will really 
     help students--an inspiring, inclusive, and age-appropriate 
     curriculum that prepares them for the future in schools that 
     are safe from gun violence--H.R. 5 would encourage parents to 
     view educators as the enemy. This us-versus-them mindset 
     hurts students, disregards educators' professionalism, and 
     diverts our attention from a basic American value: All 
     students--no matter their race, ZIP Code, gender orientation, 
     sexual identity, or background--deserve the support, tools, 
     and opportunity to learn and succeed.
       H.R. 5 dismisses educators' education, experience, and 
     dedication.
       The legislation tells educators that, despite their 
     expertise, they cannot be trusted to determine what materials 
     are appropriate for learning, design curricula that are age-
     appropriate and meet students' needs, or ascertain students' 
     progress. This will only exacerbate an educator shortage 
     that, from small towns to major cities, is now a five-alarm 
     fire. In an NEA survey last year, 55 percent of educators 
     said they are ready to leave the profession they love earlier 
     than planned. Congress should not pass laws that will 
     accelerate this trend.
       H.R. 5 will exacerbate book banning and censorship.
       The legislation's library requirements, including the 
     mandate that school libraries maintain online catalogs that 
     are available to parents and students, are redundant; this is 
     already standard practice. The real aim of the legislation is 
     to elevate the voices and power of a few who wish to foist 
     their ideas about what should be read and taught onto other 
     people's children. This is already leading to shocking 
     outcomes.
       The PEN America Index of School Book Bans lists more than 
     2,500 instances of book bans across the country from June 
     2021-June 2022, affecting more than 1,600 titles. Affected 
     books are most often those that look honestly at history and 
     the difficult events that have shaped America, or tell 
     stories of the struggle for self-acceptance in hostile or 
     oppressive circumstances. The banned or censored books 
     include:
       Maus, by Art Spiegelman, a graphic novel depicting the 
     experience of the author's father, a Holocaust survivor;
       Walk Two Moons, by Sharon Creech, about a girl of Native-
     American heritage coping with the disappearance of her 
     mother;
       The Bluest Eye, by Nobel Laureate Toni Morrison, about a 
     young African American girl's struggle to appreciate her 
     humanity in a culture that devalues her; and

[[Page H1352]]

       Separate is Never Equal: Sylvia Mendez and her Family's 
     Fight for Desegregation, by Duncan Tonatiuh, about a family's 
     efforts to desegregate California schools.
       We cannot prepare young people to succeed in our diverse 
     Nation and interconnected world by removing books from 
     library shelves and curricula. We prepare them for the future 
     by planting the seeds for lifelong curiosity and growth.
       H.R. 5 will impose several unfunded mandates on already 
     overburdened schools and school districts.
       Committee-passed amendments to H.R. 5 include one that 
     would require a ``review period,'' occurring at least every 
     three weeks for a minimum of three school days at a time, 
     during which parents could review any materials to be used in 
     the next three weeks, or that had been used in the past. 
     Districts would be required to find the money, and the time, 
     for this mandate within budgets and school days that are 
     already stretched thin.
       H.R. 5 suggests the federal government should be a national 
     school board.
       The bill would undermine local control and educators' 
     autonomy to do their jobs by inserting the federal government 
     as a national school board. In fact, the legislation actually 
     undermines the stated goal of H.R. 5. By utilizing the 
     federal government to pave the way for influencing what books 
     should be part of the curriculum and in libraries, H.R. 5 
     suppresses the voices of many parents and local communities 
     that want their children to receive an honest and accurate 
     education.
       While we urge a NO vote on H.R. 5, we support any 
     amendments that highlight the many real needs schools face, 
     including those that: provide more resources for school 
     counselors and parent engagement; ensure books remain 
     available for any student who wants to read them; highlight 
     H.R. 5's true costs to local schools and ensure those costs 
     are not passed on to already resource-deprived schools; and 
     remove extraneous requirements.
       We ask you to vote YES on the following amendments:
       No. 1 by Rep. Bacon (No. 52 in Rules): Requires Local 
     Education Agencies to provide parents of a student in 
     elementary or secondary school with the number of school 
     counselors in the school);
       No. 5 by Rep. Bonamici (No. 40 in Rules): Replaces H.R. 5 
     with new language regarding: public education and parents' 
     rights to access to public schools; creation of a parent 
     coordinator position in public schools; increased funding 
     authorization for Full-Service Community Schools; increased 
     funding authorization for Statewide Family Engagement 
     Centers; and establishing rules that prohibit bans on books 
     and curricular materials.
       No. 8 by Rep. Fitzpatrick (No. 2 in Rules): Requires a GAO 
     report on the cost of H.R. 5's requirements to State 
     Education Agencies, Local Education Agencies, and schools.
       No. 9 by Reps. Garbarino and D'Esposito (No. 37 in Rules): 
     Provides that nothing in H.R. 5 or its amendments be 
     construed as authorizing parents to deny any student who is 
     not their own child from accessing any books or other reading 
     materials otherwise available in the school library.
       No. 12 by Rep. Jacobs (No. 4 in Rules): Strikes ``at no 
     cost'' in the bill to ensure that some requirements in H.R. 5 
     do not fall on overburdened schools that already lack 
     sufficient resources to meet the needs of students.
       No. 13 by Rep. Jacobs (No. 6 in Rules): Strikes the 
     provisions relating to reviewing professional development 
     materials in sections 104 and 202.
       We oppose amendments that target transgender youth, 
     eradicate inclusive curricula, potentially open our public 
     schools to frivolous lawsuits, create a national private 
     school voucher program, and eliminate the U.S. Department of 
     Education.
       We ask you to vote NO on the following amendments:
       No. 2 by Rep. Foxx (No. 45 in Rules): Manager's amendment 
     to the bill that also directs courts to use the strict 
     scrutiny test to evaluate laws involving parents' rights.
       No. 3 by Rep. Boebert (No. 46 in Rules): Targets already 
     vulnerable transgender youth by amending Section 104 to 
     include Parent's Right to Know if their child's school 
     operates, sponsors, or facilitates athletic programs or 
     activities to permit a person whose biological sex is male to 
     participate in an athletic program or activity that is 
     designated for women or girls.
       No. 4 by Rep. Boebert (No. 47 in Rules): Targets already 
     vulnerable transgender youth by amending Section 104 to 
     include Parent's Right to Know if their child's school allows 
     a person whose biological sex is male to use restrooms or 
     changing rooms designated for women or girls.
       No. 6 by Rep. Crane (No. 54 in Rules): Adds a private right 
     of action for parents beyond current law that may lead to 
     more frequent lawsuits, costing taxpayers more.
       No. 11 by Rep. Hunt (No. 44 in Rules): Adds a provision 
     that targets diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in 
     schools.
       No. 15 by Reps. Massie, Boebert, Gaetz, and Self (No. 7 in 
     Rules): Adds a sense of Congress that the authority of the 
     Department of Education and the Secretary of Education to 
     operate or administer any office or program related to 
     elementary or secondary education should be terminated on or 
     before December 31, 2023.
       No. 19 by Rep. Roy (No. 57 in Rules): Creates a national 
     private school voucher program, decimating Title I and taking 
     public funds out of public schools to boost private schools 
     that are not held to any of the requirements included in the 
     underlying bill.
       No. 20 by Rep Roy (No. 61 in Rules): Makes all funds 
     available under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 block grants, which will lead to cuts to key programs 
     serving students.
       Educators are devoted to partnering with parents to 
     discover students' interests and unlock their potential. We 
     urge Congress to avoid spending time on divisive issues that 
     do not contribute to student success. Instead, please focus 
     on getting students the individualized support they need, 
     keeping guns out of schools, and addressing educator 
     shortages. If Congress joins with parents and educators, we 
     can support learning by ensuring that students across our 
     great Nation--no matter their race, background, sexual 
     orientation, or gender identity--have the resources, one-on-
     one attention, and well-rounded curricula they need and 
     deserve. Please vote NO on H.R. 5.
           Sincerely,

                                                    Marc Egan,

                                 Director of Government Relations,
     National Education Association.
                                  ____



                              American Federation of Teachers,

                                   Washington, DC, March 23, 2023.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.7 million members 
     of the American Federation of Teachers, I write to express 
     our views on H.R. 5, the Parents Bill of Rights Act.
       Educators know that involving parents in their children's 
     education is essential to student success. We need parent and 
     family engagement, and we welcome Republicans' desire to be 
     engaged in strengthening parents' involvement in schools. We 
     have fought for parental engagement for generations, mostly 
     on a classroom, school and district level, where the 
     connection between parents and educators--the most important 
     adults in students' lives--is real. But we must do it right; 
     we can't make this work conditional on measures that will 
     hurt kids, hurt parents who disagree with these conditions, 
     or heap unnecessary burdens on educators' already-overflowing 
     plates. We must listen when teachers and parents tell us what 
     will actually help them, but we must also ensure we don't 
     make it harder for teachers to teach and students to learn.
       The Parents Bill of Rights Act gets an A for branding, but 
     some of its provisions are genuinely concerning. The bill 
     fails to acknowledge what is already widespread practice in 
     schools--teachers collaborating with parents and families 
     every day to meet the needs of kids and their communities. 
     While it is great to reaffirm current law and practice 
     encouraging parental involvement in schools, why not build on 
     what Congress has already enacted, on a mostly bipartisan 
     basis, by considering what families need and what educators 
     need to support families. We embrace the desire of both 
     Democrats and Republicans to strengthen parental engagement. 
     And we encourage our representatives to spend more time in 
     the classroom with our members to see all the ways we engage 
     parents and where we could use support in helping our kids 
     succeed.
       We are concerned about aspects of H.R. 5 that would require 
     schools to divert their limited resources from teaching kids 
     and open avenues for bad actors to censor education, ban 
     books and harm children who are just trying to be themselves 
     and live their lives in peace. That is why we support Rep. 
     Suzanne Bonamici's substitute amendment (No. 40) and urge its 
     adoption by the full House. This amendment keeps some of the 
     positive aspects of H.R. 5, and it amends the parts that 
     would hurt our most vulnerable students and make educators' 
     jobs harder, replacing them with measures that would invest 
     in and support student learning, a goal Democrats and 
     Republicans can all get behind.
       The Bonamici amendment proposes a real pathway to improving 
     parental engagement by calling for parent coordinators and 
     increasing funding for family engagement centers and 
     community schools. It also removes parts of the bill that 
     would harm kids, eliminating measures that would target trans 
     kids and restrict the teaching of Black history; Latino 
     history; Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander 
     history; LGBTQIA+ history; women's history; Native American 
     history; and the history of the Holocaust or antisemitism. 
     And it would ban book bans, putting decisions about who is 
     allowed to read certain books in the hands of parents, not 
     the government. This would ensure that parents who want their 
     children to have access to books have the same rights as 
     parents who don't want their children reading particular 
     books.
       While we are pleased that the Rules Committee provides for 
     consideration of the Bonamici substitute, it is disappointing 
     that the final rule does not allow for consideration of other 
     important amendments to H.R. 5 focusing on what our students 
     need, such as:
       Providing parents with more leave so they can attend 
     parent-teacher conferences and school events;
       Increasing students' access to mental health professionals;
       Enacting gun safety measures that keep our kids safe and 
     protect parents from the unimaginable;
       Supporting increasing starting teachers' pay to $60,000 a 
     year, so we can start addressing the teacher shortage;

[[Page H1353]]

       Increasing funding to support our most vulnerable schools 
     and students;
       Helping school districts recruit and train diverse teachers 
     to alleviate the teacher shortage; and
       Increasing students' access to healthy meals.
       We will outline our positions on the amendments made in 
     order in a subsequent message to the full House later today.
       We want to ensure any action Congress takes supports, not 
     undermines, the capacity of schools and educators to fulfill 
     their responsibilities. And that is what parents and voters 
     want too. Our recent polling demonstrates clearly that voters 
     overwhelmingly reject the increasing polarization and 
     division in schools. Instead, voters favor solutions like 
     investing in public schools and providing educators with the 
     resources they need to create safe and welcoming 
     environments; boosting academic skills; and paving pathways 
     to career, college and beyond.
       We are glad Republicans are thinking about parents and want 
     to address the issues keeping them up at night, but H.R. 5 
     fails to deliver on what parents want and kids need to 
     succeed. Our students and their families face new and 
     emerging challenges that the House should be focusing on 
     today, working to advance solutions that protect our Nation's 
     students, value our parents and support our educators. 
     Unfortunately, H.R. 5 does not meet that standard, and, at a 
     minimum, it must be amended to include the Bonamici 
     substitute.
       Thank you for considering our views on these issues.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Randi Weingarten,
                       President, American Federation of Teachers.

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Miller), who is the vice chair of the Education and 
Workforce Committee.
  Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairwoman Foxx for 
yielding, and I thank my Republican colleagues for taking up this very 
important bill.
  Mr. Chair, there has been a push by powerful teachers' unions, 
leftwing politicians, and, most concerning, the Biden Justice 
Department to silence parents throughout our country. The Biden 
administration used the FBI--the most powerful law enforcement agency 
in the world--to intimidate parents for showing up to school board 
meetings to oppose Biden's radical agenda.
  Parents' rights are nonnegotiable. Parents are the decisionmakers for 
their child's education, which includes their child's curriculum. 
Parents want schools focused on reading, writing, and math, not woke 
politics.
  The radical left in our country seeks to silence parents and use 
public schools and colleges to indoctrinate our youth. They don't want 
to teach children how to think. They want to teach them what to think.
  I am grateful that several of my bills are included in the Parents 
Bill of Rights Act to protect children from radical gender ideology and 
to ensure parents are informed when information is being collected 
about their children through surveys or documents.
  Parents have the right to know what is being taught to their child, 
and they have the right to opt their child out of any discussion about 
sexual orientation and gender ideology.
  Mr. Chair, I am proud House Republicans are keeping our commitment to 
fight for parental rights, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida, (Mr. Frost).
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5. I rise in 
opposition as someone who has actually been a student in our public 
school system within the last decade. I rise as someone who is the son 
of a public school educator, special education teacher of 37 years--
love you, Mom. I also rise as someone who sat on my local school board 
for 2 years as a student representative.
  This bill is modeled after one that I know very well--Florida's 
Parental Rights in Education law. Most of us know it as ``Don't Say 
Gay.'' ``Don't Say Gay'' infringes on parents' rights, including LGBTQ+ 
and supportive parents.
  Bills like this make schools more hostile, and make no mistake, it 
results in hate, bigotry, and, yes, sometimes death of our students in 
schools.
  Republican lawmakers won't even allow my amendment to be considered 
that protects the First Amendment rights of parents. We want to talk 
about parental rights. What about their First Amendment right to fight 
for their children, LGBTQ+ children, who are fighting for gender-
affirming and life-saving care?
  One of my colleagues brought this up, but this bill focuses on 
parents' rights, but what about the rights of our students? What about 
the rights of our young people? Why are my Republican colleagues not 
advocating for our students? Is it because they know that the majority 
of young people despise legislation like this and do not support 
legislation like this that is bigoted?
  Is it because this generation is the most progressive generation this 
country has ever seen because they want a world where everybody can 
succeed, where we see the world through the eyes of the most 
vulnerable?
  See, the party is branded on freedom and liberty, but what about the 
freedom and liberties of young people and students who actually sit in 
the classroom?
  I mean, if Republican lawmakers cared so much about what is happening 
in our schools, they would focus on feeding kids so we can ensure that 
everyone can learn on a full stomach.
  If Republican lawmakers cared so much about what is happening in our 
schools, they would make sure that students have updated technology, 
teachers have the resources they need so students can actually learn.
  If Republican lawmakers cared so much about what is happening in 
schools, what about the kids who are gunned down in their classrooms? 
The leading cause of death for young people in this country is gun 
violence.
  None of that is in this bill. This bill is just a vehicle for hate 
and political nonsense, pushing a chosen wedge issue. It is not about 
policy; it is about politics. It is not about freedom and liberty. It 
is about the fear of a problem that doesn't exist.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mills).
  Mr. MILLS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to state the obvious: There is 
no room for woke ideologies, sexualization of our children, and CRT in 
our classrooms.
  The legislation before us makes a few things clear, but the main 
point is this: Parents' rights matter. American citizens rose up and 
demanded a seat at the table when it comes to their child's education 
and curriculum, and they did that by electing a GOP majority in the 
House.
  I thank our leadership for bringing this legislation to the floor, 
and as a father, I want to make it a priority that we state that 
parents can and should protect their children. This bill ensures 
parents have a voice. It is time to show the American people we stand 
with parents, not educational bureaucrats who want to restrict our 
understanding and visibility of the issues.
  These parents are not to be labeled as domestic terrorists. They are 
proud parents who want their children to succeed and not to be 
indoctrinated.
  Mr. Chair, I stand in great support of H.R. 5.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the Democratic whip.
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from 
Virginia for yielding, and I include in the Record a letter from the 
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

                                         The Leadership Conference


                                    on Civil and Human Rights,

                                   Washington, DC, March 23, 2023.

  Support the Rights of All Students and Parents Support H. Res. 219, 
                             Oppose H.R. 5

       Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of The Leadership 
     Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition charged by 
     its diverse membership of more than 230 national 
     organizations to promote and protect the civil and human 
     rights of all persons in the United States, and the 228 
     undersigned organizations, we urge you to support the rights 
     and inclusion of all students and parents in our public 
     school system by supporting H.Res. 219, the Bill of Rights 
     for Students and Parents, and opposing H.R. 5, the Parents 
     Bill of Rights Act. As the civil and human rights community, 
     we have fought for more than 100 years for the rights of all 
     students and parents to attend and be fully included in well-
     resourced public schools that prepare them for their futures. 
     The Bill of Rights for Students and Parents sets forth a 
     vision respecting and honoring the dignity and worth of every 
     child--a vision supported by the overwhelming majority of 
     parents in the country. In contrast, H.R. 5 seeks to 
     undermine the relationship between parents and teachers, to 
     facilitate book banning, and to make our most marginalized 
     children less safe.
       During this time in which proponents of discrimination and 
     exclusion are creating

[[Page H1354]]

     policies and legislation to harm students and undermine the 
     learning environment for everyone, support for developing 
     supportive, inclusive, safe, and responsive public schools 
     could not be more important. In a recent national survey, 80 
     percent or more of parents said that it was very or extremely 
     important that their child be honest, ethical, hardworking, 
     helpful to those in need, and accepting of people who are 
     different from them. It is these parental values that are 
     reflected in H.Res. 219. No matter our color, background, or 
     zip code, we want our kids to have an education that imparts 
     honesty about who we are, integrity in how we treat others, 
     and courage to do what's right.
       Similarly, 80 percent of parents want to protect the 
     ability of young people to have access to books from which 
     they can learn about and understand different perspectives 
     and help them grow into adults who can think for themselves. 
     H.Res. 219 recognizes this near-universal view that 
     censorship and book banning ``undermine the education of all 
     students, take choices away from all students and their 
     families, and limit the opportunities of parents, families, 
     and children to access an education and think critically 
     about the world around them.''
       H.R. 5 seeks to create detrimental harm to our most 
     marginalized children, erase the complicated and difficult 
     history of our Nation, and damage parent and teacher 
     relationships. Instead of promoting the values and priorities 
     that the overwhelming majority of parents from all 
     backgrounds and neighborhoods share, the bill would undermine 
     important public health and child well-being data by 
     effectively eliminating anonymous surveys of students; would 
     harm those most vulnerable LGBTQ+ youth who are unable to 
     come out to even their own parents by forcibly outing them, 
     would embolden a small group of activists who are using book 
     bans to selectively stamp out the perspectives of Black 
     people, LGBTQ+ people, and other historically marginalized 
     groups, and would bog schools down with reporting and 
     commenting requirements that bear no relationship to proven 
     parent and family engagement practices.
       We ask that you strongly support H.Res. 219, strongly 
     oppose H.R. 5, and reject attacks on the rights of all 
     students and parents to attend and be fully included in well-
     resourced public schools that prepare them for their futures. 
     If you have any questions, please reach out to Liz King, 
     senior program director at The Leadership Conference on Civil 
     and Human Rights.
           Sincerely,
       National (133): The Leadership Conference on Civil and 
     Human Rights; A Way Home America; AACTE (American Association 
     of Colleges for Teacher Education); Act To Change; Advocacy 
     Institute; Advocates for Youth; All4Ed; American Association 
     of University Women; American Atheists; American Civil 
     Liberties Union; American Humanist Association; American 
     School Counselor Association; Apiary for Practical Support; 
     Arab American Institute (AAI); Asian Americans Advancing 
     Justice I AAJC; Athlete Ally; Autistic Self Advocacy Network; 
     Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law; Bend the Arc: Jewish 
     Action.
       Campaign for Our Shared Future; Campus Pride; Care in 
     Action; Catholics for Choice; Center for American Progress; 
     Center for Applied Transgender Studies; Center for Law and 
     Social Policy (CLASP); Center for LGBTQ Economic Advancement 
     & Research (CLEAR); CenterLink: The Community of LGBT 
     Centers; Collective Power for Reproductive Justice; Council 
     of Parent Attorneys and Advocates; Disability Rights 
     Education & Defense Fund; EducateUS: SIECUS In Action; 
     Education Leaders of Color (EdLoC); Education Reform Now; 
     Empowering Pacific Islander Communities; End Rape On Campus; 
     Equal Rights Advocates.
       Equality Federation; Equity Forward; Evaluation, Data 
     Integration, and Technical Assistance (EDIT) Program; Family 
     Equality; Feminist Campus; Fenway Institute; First Focus 
     Campaign for Children; FORGE, Inc.; Girls Inc.; GLAAD; GLBTQ 
     Legal Advocates and Defenders (GLAD); GLSEN; Grandmothers for 
     Reproductive Rights; Hindu American Foundation; Hispanic 
     Federation; Houston Area Urban League; Human Rights Campaign; 
     Human Rights First; If/When/How: Lawyering for Reproductive 
     Justice; Impact Fund.
       In Our Own Voice: National Black Women's Reproductive 
     Justice Agenda; Indivisible; interACT: Advocates for Intersex 
     Youth; Interfaith Alliance; Japanese American Citizens 
     League; Juvenile Law Center; KIPP Public Schools; Labor 
     Council for Latin American Advancement; Lambda Legal; 
     LatinoJustice PRLDEF; Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights 
     Under Law; Lawyers for Good Government; League of United 
     Latin American Citizens (LULAC); Matthew Shepard Foundation; 
     MomsRising; Movement Advancement Project; NARAL Pro-Choice 
     America; National Association of School Psychologists; 
     National Black Justice Coalition; National Center for 
     Learning Disabilities.
       National Center for Lesbian Rights; National Center for 
     Parent Leadership, Advocacy, and Community Empowerment 
     (National PLACE); National Center for Transgender Equality; 
     National Center for Youth Law; National Council of Asian 
     Pacific Americans; National Disability Rights Network (NDRN); 
     National Domestic Workers Alliance; National Education 
     Association; National Employment Law Project; National 
     Hispanic Media Coalition; National LGBT Cancer Network; 
     National Organization for Women; National Urban League; 
     National Women's Law Center; New American Leaders Action 
     Fund; New Generation Equity; Oregonizers; People For the 
     American Way; PFLAG National; Physicians for Reproductive 
     Health.
       Planned Parenthood Federation of America; Plume Health; 
     Public Advocacy for Kids (PAK); Public Citizen; Public 
     Justice; Red Wine & Blue; Reproductive Rights Coalition; 
     School Board Partners; Sexual Violence Prevention Association 
     (SVPA); SIECUS: Sex Ed for Social Change; Sikh American Legal 
     Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF); SPAN Parent Advocacy 
     Network; SPLC Action Fund; Stand for Children; Tahirih 
     Justice Center; The Advocates for Human Rights; The Arc of 
     the United States; The Education Trust; The Personal Stories 
     Project; The Sikh Coalition.
       The Workers Circle; TransAthlete; True Colors United; Trust 
     Women; UnidosUS; Unitarian Universalist Association; United 
     State of Women (USOW); URGE: Unite for Reproductive & 
     Gender Equity; VoteProChoice; Voto Latino; Wayfinder 
     Foundation; We Testify; Whole Woman's Health; Whole 
     Woman's Health Alliance; Woodhull Freedom Foundation; YWCA 
     USA.
       State/Local (96): A Woman's Choice of Charlotte; A Woman's 
     Choice of Greensboro; A Woman's Choice of Jacksonville; A 
     Woman's Choice of Raleigh; Acadiana Queer Collective; Aces 
     NYC; Action Together New Jersey; African American Office of 
     Gay Concerns; AIDS Foundation Chicago; Alliance for Quality 
     Education; Arkansas Black Gay Men's Forum; Avow Texas; Bans 
     Off Miami; Black Californians United for Early Care and 
     Education; Carolina for All; Central Florida Jobs with 
     Justice; Chicago Abortion Fund; Chicago Lawyers' Committee 
     for Civil Rights; Cobalt.
       Democrats for Education Reform DC (DFER DC); Democrats for 
     Education Reform Massachusetts; Democrats for Education 
     Reform New York; Detroit Disability Power; DFER Colorado; 
     Disability Law Center; Donald Patton; Dutchess County 
     Progressive Action Alliance; Education Reform Now; Education 
     Reform Now CT; Education Reform Now Texas; Equality 
     California; Equality Illinois; Equality South Dakota; 
     Equality Virginia; Equality Maine; Faces of Fallen Fathers; 
     FL National Organization for Women; Florida Council of 
     Churches; Florida Health Justice Project.
       Forever Caring Evonne; Gender Justice; GLSEN New Mexico; 
     Greater Milwaukee Urban League; Greater Orlando National 
     Organization for Women; Illinois Families for Public Schools; 
     Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct 
     Organization; Indivisible DuPage; Indivisible Georgia 
     Coalition; Indivisible Miami; Jane's Due Process; JASMYN, 
     Inc.; Lafayette Citizens Against Censorship; Latino Memphis; 
     Learning Rights Law Center; Los Angeles LGBT Center; 
     Louisiana Citizens Against Censorship; Louisiana Coalition 
     for Reproductive Freedom; Louisiana Progress; Louisiana Trans 
     Advocates.
       Maine Parent Federation; Massachusetts Transgender 
     Political Coalition; Mazzoni Center; Memphis Urban League; 
     Michigan Alliance for Special Education; Michigan Education 
     Justice Coalition; Missouri Health Care for All; NASD; 
     National Council of Jewish Women St. Louis; NJ Community 
     Schools Coalition; North Carolina Justice Center; OutFront 
     Minnesota; OutNebraska; Parent Education Organizing Council; 
     Paterson Alliance; Paterson Education Foundation; PAVE 
     (Parents Amplifying Voices in Education); Pride Action Tank; 
     Pro Choice Missouri; Pro-Choice North Carolina.
       Progress Florida; Queer Northshore; Rad Family, a project 
     of North Jersey Pride; Reproductive Freedom Acadiana; Save 
     Our Schools NJ; SHERo Mississippi; Silver State Equality-
     Nevada; Solid Foundation Youth Outreach; Southern Echo Inc.; 
     St. Tammany Library Alliance; The Ezekiel Project; The 
     Parents' Place of MD; The Urban League of Philadelphia; The 
     Womxn Project; Urban League of Greater Pittsburgh; Urban 
     League of Middle Tennessee; Virginia Coalition of Latino 
     Organizations.

  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am the proud mom of 
three. Altogether, I have 36 cumulative school years under my belt, and 
I served on a school board for 6 of those fighting for parents and for 
kids.
  I speak from experience when I call on this Chamber to oppose the 
GOP's politics over parents act. Once again, the majority is showing us 
how out of touch they are with American families. They are obsessed 
with wokeism, even as they struggle to define what that even means, but 
let me tell you, parents in this country are wide awake.
  They wake up every day and do the best they can to provide for their 
families. They wake up and they want great schools where every single 
child can learn and excel. Parents want affordable childcare. They know 
that is the beginning of a great education. Right now parents are 
spending nearly a quarter of their family budget on childcare and that 
is when they can find it at all.
  Congress had a chance to cut those costs for families. Every single 
House

[[Page H1355]]

Republican voted no. That is politics over parents. Parents know that 
building a better future means teaching our country's history. They 
know we have to address our teacher shortage, but demonizing educators, 
banning books like ``To Kill a Mockingbird,'' that is politics over 
parents.
  Parents know that taking care of a sick child shouldn't cost them 
their paychecks. They should not have to send that child to school sick 
because they don't have paid leave. The United States remains one of 
the only developed countries in the world without paid family leave. 
Every single House Republican voted against this basic benefit. That is 
politics over parents.
  Moms and dads want schools and communities to be safe. They do not 
want their children shot while they are in school. Just yesterday, 
Denver families faced the horror of yet another school shooting. House 
Republicans refuse to enact commonsense reforms. Why? Politics over 
parents.
  How about something as basic as feeding our children? Nope. House 
Republicans voted against the child tax credit. They voted to slash 
food stamps and eliminate free school lunches. Once again, politics 
over parents.
  Then there is the shameless hypocrisy of talking about parents' 
rights as the GOP strips away American's rights to decide if and when 
they are going to have children.
  At every turn, House Republicans have undermined the rights, freedom, 
and well-being of our Nation's families. Let's say ``yes'' to parents 
and ``no'' to this shameful bill.

                              {time}  1500

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, it is interesting what we hear from the 
other side of the aisle. I will have to depart from my prepared text to 
comment on what we are hearing.
  I always come back to what was once put on the Black Lives Matter 
website, that they wanted to get rid of the Western-prescribed nuclear 
family.
  There is this hostility to traditional values that is seeping into 
the public schools today. We recently read a poll showing that over 60 
percent of people in the baby boom generation are proud to be American, 
whereas people under 25 are no longer proud to be American.
  Where do they get this? They get this because some members of the 
schools--too many; and you can hear it from that side of the aisle--are 
obsessed with racism. This in such an open country. People are coming 
here from all over the world. You would have to be blind to think that 
racism is a huge problem here.
  Their obsession over racism, the obsession over LGBTQ, their 
hostility to guns are all things that are pounding, pounding, pounding 
out of that side of the aisle, and we don't like our kids having to 
pick up on that.
  When parents do show up, we have now found out that the FBI may 
become involved. They are so scared to death of parents sticking their 
noses into their own children's business.
  Our country was made for a moral and religious people. Instead, the 
other side wants us to become a progressive group of people, whatever 
progressive stands for. I would have to say it is hostility to religion 
and an ever-growing government where the government is more and more 
responsible for everything in society.
  Particularly in an age in which elected officials apparently side 
with the FBI getting involved with parents who stick their noses in 
their children's lives, it is vital that we pass a bill today 
clarifying that parents do have the right to get involved in their 
children's education, and it doesn't matter what the President orders 
or allows his FBI to do.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Ocasio-Cortez).
  Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Chair, I think what we are seeing here today 
is the Republican Party's attempt to take some of the most heinous 
legislation that we are seeing passed on the State level to attack our 
trans and LGBT, as well as people from marginalized communities' right 
to exist in schools.
  This flowery language of ``parental rights and freedom'' hides the 
sinister fact of this legislative text. If you notice in these 
arguments, they are not really discussing what is actually in this 
legislation.
  It includes two provisions that require schools to out trans, 
nonbinary, and LGBT youth even if it would put said youth in harm's 
way.
  One of the highest rates of youth homelessness is in the LGBT 
community, from parents who want to kick their children out in 
households that may be unstable or abusive. For so many children of 
abuse, school is their only safe place to be.
  Before they claim that this is not about banning books and not about 
harming the LGBT community, let's just look at the impacts of similar 
Republican legislation that has already passed on the State level.
  Look at these books that have already been banned due to Republican 
measures: ``The Life of Rosa Parks''; this apparently is too woke by 
the Republican Party. ``Song of Solomon'' is unacceptable to Republican 
politics. Forty percent of banned books reported are significantly 
addressing and specifically addressing LGBT issues.
  To say and talk about government reach and freedom, this Republican 
bill is asking the government to force the outing of LGBT people before 
they are ready.
  Talking about the rights of parents, the National Parents Union is 
here in this gallery today saying: Don't do this.
  Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter where the National 
Parents Union is asking the Republican Party to: ``Keep culture wars 
out of classrooms. Our children need urgent and aggressive educational 
solutions. . . .''

The National Parents Union Issues Statement Concerning the Introduction 
  of the Parents Bill of Rights By Chair Foxx, Speaker McCarthy, and 
                               House GOP

       March 1, 2023--Boston, MA--The National Parents Union, 
     released a statement following a press conference spearheaded 
     by the Workforce Committee Chair Virginia Foxx, Speaker Kevin 
     McCarthy, and members of the House Republican Conference:
       Today, Chairwoman Foxx, of the House of Representatives 
     Education and Workforce Committee, released a new bill that 
     claims to be a Parents Bill of Rights. A true Parents Bill of 
     Rights can only be developed following an extensive process 
     that includes bringing together a broad spectrum of parents 
     representing every intersectionality of the modern American 
     family.
       Nowhere in this Parents Bill of Rights does it guarantee 
     parents that their student will have access to a high quality 
     education that prepares them for a life of opportunity. In 
     fact, this faux Bill of Rights glosses over the issues 
     identified as the most important issues facing our children: 
     school safety, the mental health crisis impacting students, 
     and aggressively focusing on addressing the academic 
     challenges that have the potential to hinder our children 
     from achieving economic mobility and competing for the jobs 
     of the future.
       This bill has nothing to do with parent rights and 
     everything to do with the radical culture wars that serve as 
     a distraction from what our students' really need to recover 
     from the pandemic. This bill would lead to more education 
     bans, which takes books off classroom shelves and will 
     therefore limit access to education for millions of kids 
     across the country. From national polling we know that the 
     top priorities identified by the vast majority of families 
     are the safety of their children while at school and the 
     urgent need for mental health supports. This bill fails to 
     address either issue and therefore is clearly not intended 
     for the millions of families who have been demanding 
     leadership from federal, state and local lawmakers.
       There are ways to write a Parents Bill of Rights in a way 
     that guarantees student progress and addresses the crises 
     that our schools and families face across the country. This 
     is not that.

  Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Chair, I also include in the Record a letter 
from the American Library Association coming out against this 
Republican proposal.


                                 American Library Association,

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

     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
     Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       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. S's school 
     library provisions, which ironically would lead to more

[[Page H1356]]

     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 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. 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 Condoleezza 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 would 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. If we can provide more 
     information, please contact Gavin Baker.
           Sincerely,
     Alan S. Inouye, Ph.D.,
       Senior Director, Public Policy & Government Relations and 
     Interim Associate Executive Director American Library 
     Association.

  Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Chair, when we talk about progressive values, 
I can say what my progressive value is, and that is freedom over 
fascism.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, first I thank Congresswoman Letlow for 
introducing this important piece of legislation and Chairwoman Foxx for 
her steady and unwavering leadership, guiding the Education and the 
Workforce Committee through a 16-hour debate, ending in a 2:23 a.m. 
vote a few weeks ago to pass this out of committee.
  This bill ensures that parents stay at the center of educating their 
children, regardless of whether that education occurs at home or in a 
public school system or anywhere in between. Until we can get the 
Federal Government completely out of K-12 education, Federal 
legislation shoring up the rights of parents is absolutely necessary.
  H.R. 5, known as the Parental Bill of Rights Act, will keep parents 
and families at the forefront of their child's educational journey. It 
will also strengthen those critical partnerships between engaged 
parents and willing educators. The beneficiary of such partnerships 
will undoubtedly be the schoolchildren nationwide.

[[Page H1357]]

  For generations, our classrooms have been a sacred place, a place 
where children dig in to understand this world and how it works, where 
they discover their passions and the reason for their creation, and 
where they prepare for a lifetime of pursuing those passions.
  I know this firsthand because before I entered my legal career, I 
worked in a public school system for multiple years. I married a public 
educator. About 9 years ago, I helped to start and run an education 
foundation that supports the fabulous teachers in my local public 
school district who teach with innovation and passion. Currently, I 
have four children donning the doors of that very school system, a 
choice my wife and I proudly make.
  However, public classrooms should not be a place for advancing 
personal agendas or political propaganda. The role of our public 
educators is to educate, not to indoctrinate. Although the overwhelming 
majority of educators that I represent in east Texas thankfully 
understand this, it seems to me that in so many other corners of this 
country, many others have forgotten this or perhaps they have just 
simply forsaken this on purpose. In either case, it requires action by 
this Congress to stand firmly with parents in their partnership with 
educators.
  Neither parents nor educators are the enemy. The enemy here is an 
unchecked system and political agenda that excludes one of those two 
essential parties necessary for the proper education of students; 
namely, the parents.
  In 1925, the Supreme Court unanimously held that ``the parental right 
to guide one's child intellectually and religiously is a most 
substantial part of the liberty and freedom of a parent.''
  This concept is nothing new. We are talking about the fundamental 
rights of parents. Parents should be at the center of the education of 
their children, not the Federal Government.
  As a member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, I 
will continue to fight to keep the Federal Government out of our 
children's educational journey while working to increase the voice of 
our parents and families.
  As a member of that committee, I will also continue to applaud the 
dedicated work of so many educators in this country who have been doing 
the right thing by both parents and students for decades. For those 
educators and school districts, this legislation changes little; but 
for those who see parents as the enemy, this legislation changes much.
  Under this legislation, young and impressionable students will be 
safeguarded from propaganda and undue influence from those who should 
be educating but who have instead chosen to deviate from this 
responsibility to pursue a political agenda.
  Nearly a century later after the Supreme Court weighed in on this 
issue, I am proud to stand here in support of the Parental Bill of 
Rights Act, which will reinforce the fundamental rights of parents and 
guardians to make the decision that is best for their families and 
their children's academic career.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the Democratic leader.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Chair, I thank the distinguished gentleman from the 
great Commonwealth of Virginia for yielding and for his leadership.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 5, legislation 
brought to us by the extreme MAGA Republicans that will put politics 
over parents.
  This legislation has nothing to do with parental involvement, 
parental engagement, or parental empowerment. It has everything to do 
with jamming the extreme MAGA Republican ideology down the throats of 
the children and the parents of the United States of America.
  Now, House Democrats believe that every single child should have 
access to a high-quality, first-rate education.
  House Democrats believe that every single child throughout America 
should learn reading, writing, and arithmetic at the highest level 
possible.
  House Democrats believe that every single child should be exposed to 
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics so that they have the 
skills to succeed in the 21st century economy.
  House Democrats believe that every single child in this great Nation 
should have the opportunity to robustly pursue the American Dream.
  House Democrats believe that the parents of this great country should 
have the opportunity to be involved intimately and engaged intimately 
in the education of their children.
  We take a back seat to no one on this issue. In fact, we put 
resources into making sure that parents have the opportunity to be 
fully involved and engaged in the education of their children.

  The other side of the aisle--the extreme MAGA Republicans--have, in 
fact, voted against legislative efforts to empower parents in our 
schools.
  It is a deeply personal issue for all of us. I am the father of two 
sons who were in public school every step of the way--kindergarten, 
elementary school, middle school, high school--and parental involvement 
and parental engagement is critically important. It was for their 
journey, for their success, and we want that for every single parent in 
America.
  What we don't want is the extreme MAGA Republicans trying to tell the 
parents of America how to educate their children, how to raise their 
children, what books their children can or cannot be exposed to on 
their educational journey. That is what the politics over parents bill 
is all about.
  Their educational agenda is pretty simple. They want to ban books. 
They want to bully the LGBTQ+ community. They want to bring guns into 
classrooms, kindergarten and above. That is their educational agenda. 
They want to ban books about history, ban books about the American 
journey, ban books about the Holocaust, ban books about slavery, ban 
books about the civil rights movement, ban books about the LGBTQ+ 
experience, ban books about the Native American experience, ban books 
about the Latino experience, ban books about the Asian-American 
experience, ban books about our collective journey as a great country, 
a gorgeous mosaic of people from all over the world who come here to 
pursue the American Dream. That is what makes American exceptionalism 
so phenomenally important to our collective success as a country, and 
they want to take that away from the parents of America.
  Because of what has happened in several States, they have already 
banned more than 2,500 books in America, the highest number in recorded 
history.
  What kind of books have they banned? Are these books dangerous to the 
education of our children? They are too numerous for any of us to go 
through during the time that we have allotted for this debate, but 
let's go through a few of them.

                              {time}  1515

  They want to ban a book called ``Maus.'' It is about the horrors of 
the Holocaust, an egregious crime against humanity that we should never 
ever forget--6 million Jews exterminated.
  They want to ban ``Maus,'' a book about the Holocaust. What is so 
offensive in that book? Let me read a passage. ``They took from us our 
papers, our clothes, and our hair. We were cold, and we were afraid.''
  Extreme MAGA Republicans don't want the children of America to learn 
about the Holocaust.
  What else do they want to ban? They want to ban the book called ``I 
am Martin Luther King, Jr.'' There is a Federal holiday in honor of 
Martin Luther King, Jr., what he meant to the country, the civil rights 
movement, the march toward a more perfect Union, liberty and justice 
for all, equal protection under the law, and free and fair elections.
  They want to ban the book ``I am Martin Luther King, Jr.'' What is so 
offensive about this book? Let me read a passage. ``In my life, people 
tried to tell me I wasn't as good as they were, just because of the 
color of my skin. When someone hurts you like that, it can be tempting 
to hurt them back. You must refuse. When someone shows you hate, show 
them love. When someone shows you violence, show them kindness.''
  That is the book that they want to ban, ``I am Martin Luther King, 
Jr.''
  What else do they want to ban? They want to ban a book called 
``Melissa,'' a book describing, in very personal terms, the experience 
of a trans girl beginning to understand her identity.

[[Page H1358]]

  What is so dangerous about that? I was taught in my religion, growing 
up in the Cornerstone Baptist Church, that we are all God's children. 
Shouldn't we learn about all of God's children? That is what my 
religion teaches me. What is so offensive about ``Melissa''? What is so 
offensive about this book?
  Let me read a passage. ``Her heart sank. She had genuinely started to 
believe that if people could see her onstage as Charlotte, maybe they 
would see that she was a girl offstage, too.''
  Extreme MAGA Republicans don't want your child to learn about the 
LGBTQ+ experience in America. That is not a decision that extreme MAGA 
Republicans here in Congress should make. The parents of America should 
be able to make that determination.
  What else do the extreme MAGA Republicans want to ban? Now, I grew up 
in America, where we were taught that whenever you were trying to 
identify something with this great country, well, there is nothing more 
American than baseball and apple pie. I am sure if we searched hard 
enough, they want to ban something about apple pie, but today, we know 
they definitively have tried to ban a book about baseball, about 
Roberto Clemente, the first Latino baseball player to make it into the 
Hall of Fame.
  Why do they want to ban a book about Roberto Clemente? What are they 
trying to hide from you? Let me read a passage from this book. ``He had 
no money for a baseball bat, so he made one from a guava tree branch. 
His first glove he also made, from the cloth of a coffee bean sack. His 
first baseball field was muddy and crowded with palm trees.''
  Isn't that part of what makes America such a great country, that you 
can aspire to be part of what you see in front of you? In this case, it 
was baseball for a young kid growing up in Puerto Rico--by the way, 
part of America--who decides that he wants to be part of this great 
American pastime.
  The extreme MAGA Republicans want to stop your children from learning 
about the Latino experience in America, even when it relates to 
baseball and Roberto Clemente.
  One last example--I could be up here all day. What else do they want 
to ban? They want to ban a book called ``The Absolutely True Diary of a 
Part-Time Indian,'' which is about a Native teenager's high school 
experience.
  What is more American than Native Americans? They don't want your 
children to learn about Native American history and experience in this 
country.
  What is so dangerous about this particular book? Let's see. It says: 
``We Indians have lost everything. We lost our Native land; we lost our 
languages; we lost our songs and dances. We lost each other. We only 
know how to lose and be lost.''
  That is part of the Native American experience in this country. That 
is part of reality. That is part of our journey.
  Extreme MAGA Republicans don't want the parents of this country to 
have the opportunity to decide for themselves whether the children of 
America should have an opportunity to learn about the Native American 
experience. They want to jam their extreme MAGA Republican ideology 
down the throats of the children and parents in America.
  That is unacceptable; that is unconscionable; and that is un-
American. That is one of the reasons why we strongly oppose this 
legislation.
  We will fight against this legislation. We will fight against the 
banning of books and fight against the bullying of children from any 
community and certainly from the LGBTQ+ community.
  We are going to fight against your extreme MAGA Republican agenda 
that has no interest in dealing with the education of our children, 
empowering them, and offers up solutions like bringing guns into the 
classroom.
  We will fight against their efforts at banning books, bullying 
children, and taking away the freedom of parents to make decisions on 
their own today. We will fight against it tomorrow. We will fight 
against it forever and always stand with the parents and children of 
our great country.
  Vote ``no'' against H.R. 5.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, here is the truth about this bill. This bill 
will not ban any books. I repeat: This bill will not ban any books.
  What is dangerous right now is when people misrepresent what is in 
legislation before us.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Owens), my distinguished colleague, the chair of the Subcommittee on 
Higher Education and Workforce Development.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 5, the Parents Bill 
of Rights Act.
  I am the father of 6 children and the grandfather of 16 
grandchildren. I am also the son of two educators. I know from 
experience that students succeed when parents and educators work 
together.
  Between crippling learning loss, school closures, and now teacher 
strikes, our kids have been through enough. They don't stand a chance 
if parents are kicked out of the driver's seat. Moms and dads are the 
primary stakeholders in a child's education, not the government, 
period. They have a God-given right to be involved in their child's 
education and development, especially in the classroom.
  Under the one-party Democratic rule in Washington, parents have been 
left behind, kept out of the classroom, and even labeled and targeted 
as domestic terrorists by the Biden DOJ. In Biden's America, parents 
come last.
  Under the House Republican majority, we are supporting parents and 
fulfilling our commitment to America by making sure moms and dads have 
a seat at the table.
  The Parents Bill of Rights Act is just good, old-fashioned common 
sense, and here is the truth of the Parents Bill of Rights Act. Parents 
have a right to know what is being taught in schools and to see the 
reading materials. Parents have a right to be heard. Parents have a 
right to see the school budget and spending. Parents have a right to 
protect their child's privacy. Parents have a right to be updated on 
any violent activity at school.
  Unfortunately, in committee, 17 Democrats opposed protecting these 
God-given parental rights. Just remember: Parental rights are 
nonnegotiable.
  Mr. Chair, I am proud to vote ``yes'' on the Parents Bill of Rights 
Act, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to adhere to the protocols of 
the floor. If I did not, I would shout from the rooftops as a mother 
and a happy grandmother that I champion parental rights and parents. I 
am happy to have been one and to continue to be one, and I view 
parenthood and parents' rights as cherished rights.
  Not one Democrat here would argue against that principle. In fact, 
there is no doubt that we, as Democrats, have fought for parents and 
their rights.
  Child tax credits should now be made permanent, taking care of 
additional childcare for those parents who are burdened, and for those 
who need housing, investing more so that children have roofs over their 
heads, as well as ensuring that no one is left alone looking for 
housing.
  Why I cannot support H.R. 5 is not because of my championing parents' 
rights. Before I came here from Houston, I was with parents, fighting 
against the devastating takeover by a Republican Governor and State 
education commissioner of a school district that has a rating of B.
  I am against undermining nutrition in schools. That is in this bill. 
I am against undermining vulnerable children, such as transgender 
children. I am against banning books, such as a book about a Black 
astrologist, a scientist, Neil deGrasse Tyson, or the story of a man 
ultimately of peace who brought South Africa together, Nelson Mandela.
  Banned books, I am against that. I am against it because I want to 
make sure that parents want to have involvement in what their children 
learn.
  I am against not wanting to hear the words of Elie Wiesel about the 
Holocaust. He said: ``I swore never to be silent whenever wherever 
human beings endure suffering and humiliation.''
  Don't we want our children to be kind?
  Don't we want our children to know that slavery was wrong, as I fight 
against slavery today that still exists?
  Don't we want our children to understand the basis of all of our 
history, the mosaic of this Nation and African-American history?
  Don't we want teachers to get the salaries that they deserve?

[[Page H1359]]

  Don't we want to make sure that it is important, if you will, to 
ensure that our school buildings are repaired?
  That is why I include in the Record the First Focus letter.

                                                       First Focus


                                        Campaign for Children,

                                   Washington, DC, March 20, 2023.
     Hon. Julia Letlow,
     Member, Committee on Education & the Workforce, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
     Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Virginia Foxx,
     Chair, Committee on Education & the Workforce, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Bobby Scott,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Education & the Workforce, House 
         of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congresswoman Letlow, Speaker McCarthy, Leader 
     Jeffries, Chairwoman Foxx, and Ranking Member Scott: I am 
     writing on behalf of First Focus Campaign for Children, a 
     bipartisan children's advocacy organization dedicated to 
     making children and families a priority in federal budget and 
     policy decisions, to express opposition to H.R. 5, the 
     Parents Bill of Rights Act. We do not believe this bill 
     strikes the right balance between the duties of schools, the 
     rights and responsibilities of parents, and the oft-ignored 
     but important rights of children.


                    Parental Engagement Is Critical

       First, let's be clear: Parents are fundamental to the 
     upbringing of children and absolutely should be engaged and 
     involved in the education of their children. In fact, 
     children have better outcomes when their parents are 
     involved. As a parent of four children myself, I have engaged 
     with my children's schools by voting in school board 
     elections, attending all parent-teacher conferences, 
     volunteering in my children's classrooms, scheduling time to 
     meet with teachers and administrators when important issues 
     arise, serving on the PTAs at my children's schools, serving 
     on athletic booster clubs, and volunteering as an assistant 
     boys and girls basketball coach for two county schools.
       In addition to my personal experiences, I have learned a 
     great deal over the years from both of my parents, my step-
     mother, step-brother, my uncle, and several cousins, who are 
     all educators. Consequently, I have immense respect for the 
     work, talent, dedication, and concern that the vast majority 
     of teachers and educators bring to their profession on a 
     daily basis--all with the goal of educating our nation's 
     children to best achieve their hopes and dreams while also 
     trying to provide a place of safety and compassion for each 
     and every one of their students.
       Again, we strongly support parental engagement in 
     education, but parents should not control all curriculum and 
     educational decisions. Doing so is unworkable.
       For example, imagine an elementary school of 500 students 
     where 12 parents oppose the teaching of evolution, 8 parents 
     believe the early is flat, 21 are Holocaust deniers, 14 
     oppose learning about slavery, 7 believe in racial 
     segregation, 17 believe in the concept of schools without 
     walls, 27 believe in corporal punishment, 12 want Harry 
     Potter books to be banned, 25 want books banned that mention 
     the Trail of Tears, 31 believe parents should be allowed to 
     overrule a physician's decision that a child with a 
     concussion should refrain from participating in sports, 39 
     oppose keeping kids out of school when they have the flu, 4 
     believe that a child with cancer might be contagious, 34 
     believe students should be ``tracked'' in all subject areas, 
     12 believe students should not be taught how to spell the 
     words ``sinal tap'', ``quarantine'', or ``isolation'' because 
     they are too ``scary of words,'' 41 don't like the bus 
     routes, 45 want a vegan-only lunchroom, 4 demand same-sex 
     classrooms, etc. Even though most parents oppose these 
     demands by some parents and many of them are completely 
     false, undermine the purpose of education, threaten the 
     safety of children, or promote discrimination, H.R. 5 would 
     seek to push their accommodation in some form.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I also include in the Record a March 7, 
2023 letter to President Biden and Secretary Miguel Cardona.

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, March 7, 2023.
     Hon. Joseph R. Biden,
     President of the United States,
     The White House, Washington, DC.
     Dr. Miguel Cardona,
     Secretary of Education, U.S. Department of Education, Lyndon 
         Baines Johnson Building, Washington, DC.
     CC: Catherine E. Lhamon,
     Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Office for Civil 
         Rights, U.S. Department of Education, Lyndon Baines 
         Johnson Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear President Biden and Secretary Cardona: Public school 
     education around the country is under attack and the actions 
     of the Texas Education Agency (TEA) in taking over one the 
     largest school districts in the nation, despite a B+ rating 
     overall and intense work with schools needing additional help 
     the state has underfunded, HISD is further evidence we must 
     support schools, parents and teachers.
       We the undersigned Members of Congress are writing to 
     request that the Department of Education take immediate 
     action to investigate systemic and discriminatory state 
     takeovers of public schools receiving federal funds from the 
     U.S. Department of Education throughout the State of Texas. 
     It is imperative that there be some form of federal 
     intervention immediately to prevent a takeover of the Houston 
     Independent School District (HISD) because of the detrimental 
     impact on a predominantly minority school district that is a 
     recipient of major federal funding.
       State officials in Texas are actively working to eliminate 
     public education and erode federal protections in educational 
     institutions throughout the State of Texas, causing racially 
     disparate and harmful outcomes for children and families in 
     Black and Hispanic communities in Texas.
       The recent actions taken by the Texas Education Agency 
     (TEA) and the state of Texas are an absolute outrage and a 
     threat to all Texans. There is no justifiable reason for the 
     TEA to take over HISD. Rather, the continued intermeddling 
     and overstepping into our educational systems by Texas state 
     officials is causing further harm and damage to our 
     communities--and it must stop.
       Taking over a school district such as HISD makes absolutely 
     no sense at all. HISD is the largest school district in 
     Texas, with 274 schools and a student population of 
     approximately 200,000 students. HISD is rated B+, and 94 
     percent of HISD schools now earn a grade of A, B or C, up 
     from 82 percent in 2019. Yet, TEA is basing its decision to 
     take over HISD on one school. As of today, Phyllis Wheatley 
     High School is no longer low performing and there are new 
     members on the board. The conditions that existed when the 
     takeover was first proposed no longer exist. Moreover, 
     Wheatley would've passed under the rules that were in place 
     at the time, but TEA changed the rules, and made them fail. 
     Given Wheatley's improvement to a C and the district's 
     overall B rating, the TEA's reason for initiating a takeover 
     bid in 2019 is no longer valid.
       TEA has no experience managing a district of this magnitude 
     and should not be engaging in such drastic efforts without 
     any viable justification. The structure that will be used to 
     govern this huge school district will be a board of managers 
     solely selected by the TEA--with no input by voters, 
     teachers, students and/or administrators. There is a question 
     of whether the TEA is operating correctly under Texas State 
     education law and the Texas State Education Code. Pursuant to 
     Senate bill 1365, Section 39.0546 (c) and Texas State 
     Education Code. Section 39.0546(c)(1) and (2) it is unclear 
     that the TEA commissioner even has the authority to takeover 
     HISD because the school in question, Wheatley High School, 
     has maintained a C performance rating at this time. This 
     action is confusion to the constituents of HISD, and the 
     state has no answer as to why they think they have the right 
     to do this--particularly when Wheatley High School is 
     performing, other schools are performing, and the school 
     district is performing, even though there are schools with 
     challenges that the school is focusing on.
       While the TEA Commissioner's stated reasoning for pursuing 
     a state takeover of HISD, namely one single underperforming 
     school in Houston ISD, this rationalization further 
     highlights the latest confusing and contradictory actions 
     taken by Texas state officials in their larger efforts to 
     justify stripping locally elected school boards of their 
     authority, and effectively stripping Texans of their 
     federally protected rights.
       Despite the long-evidenced fact that state takeovers have 
     targeted low income and Black and Hispanic communities, 
     resulting in lower graduation rates and higher student 
     suspensions, Governor Abbott has made no secret of his 
     support for privately run charter schools--of which do not 
     have to provide a free, appropriate public education under 
     federal law--and his discontent for public schooling for all 
     children in Texas, of which is subject to federal law and 
     oversight. Seizing HISD, the eighth-largest school district 
     in the country is a clear overreach by Texas government 
     officials and their pursuit and intent to turn over state run 
     schools to privately run charter schools.
       A state takeover would not only lead to school closures, 
     layoffs and no improvements in test scores, it would also 
     absolutely harm the HISD scholars. All you have to do is look 
     around to see any urban schools that TEA has taken over and 
     you will see that TEA did not make them better. The vast 
     majority of school districts that have been taken over by 
     state agencies (TEA included) have not improved but declined.
       There are 15 such instances over the course of three 
     decades, according to state records. None likely offer a case 
     study that would compare to a takeover of the diverse student 
     body of HISD, the largest school district in the state and 
     the eighth largest in the nation--which also serves 
     predominantly Black and Hispanic children and families 
     considered to be ``economically disadvantaged''. According to 
     the recent article in the Houston Chronicle reporting on this 
     concern of prior Texas state school takeovers, it is 
     pertinent to quote the following information:
       Seven of those districts were predominantly Black, 
     including multiple districts with schools significant to 
     Texas' African

[[Page H1360]]

     American history. Another seven of the districts taught 
     mostly Hispanic student bodies. Only one district--Shepherd 
     ISD--was predominantly white. Around 66 percent of 
     students in that district are economically disadvantaged.
       Of HISD's 187,000 students, 62 percent are Hispanic and 22 
     percent are Black. Nearly 80 percent of its students are 
     economically disadvantaged.
       None of the districts previously taken over by TEA come 
     close to comparing in size to HISD. The smallest of those 
     districts, Kendleton ISD, had less than 100 students and the 
     largest, El Paso ISD, has 50,709. Beaumont ISD has around 
     17,000.''
       While there are real schools struggling throughout Texas 
     and despite an overall increase in public school 
     performances, TEA is choosing to target only those schools 
     with predominantly Black and Hispanic children over other 
     school districts with far greater rates of performance 
     decline. In fact, TEA released a report for its 2022 A-F 
     accountability ratings for districts and campuses, which 
     showed that of the 1,195 districts and 8,451 campuses rated 
     in 2022, 25% of districts and 33% of campuses improved their 
     letter grade from 2019, and 18% of high-poverty campuses in 
     Texas were rated an A.
       It is also important to highlight that Texas is behind the 
     national average in how much it spends per student in the 
     classroom. More specifically, data from the U.S. Census 
     Bureau shows that Texas spends $3,000 less than the national 
     average. Overall, Texas spent a little over $10,000 per 
     student in 2020; as the largest school district in the state, 
     HISD spent even less, averaging $9,380 per student. Given the 
     complete lack of funding infused into school districts like 
     HISD, it should be incumbent upon the State of Texas to 
     reprioritize and shift its focus to allocating more 
     appropriate and equitable funding across shamefully 
     underfunded and underserved communities and school districts.
       In fact, it is well known that a critical factor impacting 
     students' academic outcomes is investing even more money into 
     low-income students. Low-income students perform worse in 
     states with larger spending gaps--states whose actual 
     spending is furthest from the amount needed. With data 
     ranging back to the late 1980s, researchers found that most 
     state takeovers don't translate to academic improvements. And 
     in states with no spending gaps, poor students perform at or 
     above the national average for all U.S. students--which shows 
     that states can improve the academic performance of even our 
     poorest students by investing more--not by discriminately 
     targeting schools for state takeovers.
       As your agency is aware, Texas is plagued with 154 open and 
     pending cases of reported discrimination currently under 
     investigation at elementary, secondary and post-secondary 
     schools throughout the state. Between 2015 and 2023, there 
     have been at least 51 cases opened at such institutions and 
     are currently pending investigation for racial discrimination 
     and harassment, as well as at least 28 cases for retaliatory 
     discrimination at various educational institutions across 
     Texas. And yet, these numbers do not even begin to account 
     for the countless documented and undocumented cases of 
     current and historical discriminatory practices, of which no 
     state in this nation is immune to.
       The Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights 
     serves to enforce several federal civil rights laws that 
     prohibit discrimination in programs or activities that 
     receive federal financial assistance from the Department of 
     Education. Whereby, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
     prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and 
     national origin; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 
     prohibits sex discrimination; Section 504 of the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination on the 
     basis of disability; and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 
     prohibits age discrimination, the primary role of OCR is to 
     assist student populations facing these areas of 
     discrimination, and to resolve their complaints, as well as 
     to provide guidance and assistance to advocates and 
     institutions promoting systemic solutions to civil rights 
     problems.
       These civil rights laws enforced by OCR extend to all state 
     education agencies, elementary and secondary school systems, 
     colleges and universities, vocational schools, proprietary 
     schools, state vocational rehabilitation agencies, libraries, 
     and museums that receive U.S. Department of Education funds, 
     including but not limited to: admissions, recruitment, 
     financial aid, academic programs, student treatment and 
     services, counseling and guidance, discipline, classroom 
     assignment, grading, vocational education, recreation, 
     physical education, athletics, housing, and employment. An 
     additional critically important part of OCR's 
     responsibilities is to foster partnerships and initiatives 
     designed to develop creative approaches to preventing and 
     addressing discrimination.
       Unfortunately, Texas educational school systems and their 
     controlling governmental officials are no stranger to running 
     afoul of federal laws your agency is tasked with enforcing 
     and protecting.
       In 2018, the Department of Education found the entire state 
     of Texas to be in violation of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act. By setting an enrollment target 
     for special education, the Texas Educational Agency (TEA) 
     denied tens of thousands of children their federally 
     protected right to free and appropriate public education 
     supports and services. Governor Abbott has long sought to 
     restrict access to free public education to all children in 
     Texas and takeover control of all Texas educational systems 
     in order to implement harmful and discriminatory policies and 
     agendas.
       Most recently, Governor Abbott has been pushing for 
     additional voucher programs across Texas--namely an $8,000 
     initiative for individuals in rural communities. While some 
     may say that school choice efforts are critical to ensuring 
     that families can decide the best educational settings for 
     their children, such programs are not going to help public 
     school systems. Instead of providing critical funding for 
     underfunded school programs, money and resources simply get 
     diverted away from the public schools that serve the majority 
     of children in Texas.
       Now, with the recent Texas Supreme Court ruling to lift the 
     temporary injunction, that kept the TEA Commissioner, 
     Governor Abbott and other state officials from taking over 
     the HISD, the plight of schools and the educational future in 
     Houston, as well as throughout the entire state of Texas, is 
     particularly dire and in need of federal oversight and 
     intervention.
       A TEA takeover would have a significant and negative impact 
     on HISD and other Independent School Districts in Texas 
     because a board of managers is not elected, and they don't 
     have to answer to the constituents, including children, 
     parents and teachers, in those districts. This is 
     particularly relevant given the day before the TEA 
     Commissioner announced the state takeover of HISD, voters had 
     democratically elected new members to the school board--
     raising many unsettling questions about the state's true 
     agenda.
       Additionally, we must not lose sight of the fact that 
     teachers and support staff within the education system are 
     some of the most important people in our society. The 
     dedicated public service they provide represents the heart of 
     our nation--as the work they do is vital to fabric of our 
     communities. They shape generations of our future leaders and 
     hold the key to our children's potential. As we know, 
     however, teachers are underpaid and often go unappreciated in 
     their efforts to make our world a better place. The TEA 
     takeover of HISD would not only result in school closures and 
     job cuts, but the actions of the TEA would also eliminate all 
     of their rights on how to be heard on how they can proceed in 
     the face of such attacks on their livelihoods and service to 
     our communities. Well-meaning and extremely qualified 
     teachers would lose their jobs and their voice.
       That is why we are writing to request that the Department 
     of Education, pursuant to its duty and authority under law, 
     investigate and take immediate action to address the recent 
     systematic and dangerous efforts underway by state and local 
     officials in Texas seeking to undermine and undo decades of 
     civils rights protections and advancements in educational 
     institutions and student populations. I am confident that the 
     Department of Education will do all that is necessary to 
     ensure that the rights of Texans and all those impacted by 
     the heightened discriminatory actions by Texas officials are 
     protected and safeguarded.
       Thank you very much for your consideration and assistance 
     in this matter. If you have questions or need additional 
     information, please contact Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee 
     at (202) 225-38l6, the Representative for the 18th 
     Congressional District of Texas, the jurisdiction where HISD 
     is located.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I want us to know that, in supporting 
parents' rights, we must support not destroying public school 
education, and we must support the Houston Independent School District 
to not allow----
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman's time has expired, and the gentlewoman is 
no longer recognized.

                              {time}  1530

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Lamborn).
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 5, the Parents Bill of 
Rights Act. This legislation reinforces parents' indisputable rights to 
the protection and education of their children.
  We have seen a push towards centralizing education by the government, 
a mentality seen too often with the left taking away those decisions 
from parents. This bill returns choice to the caretakers of our most 
precious resource: The next generation.
  Why do we need this bill?
  We had a Democrat politician running for Governor in Virginia who 
lost, who said: ``I don't think parents should be telling schools what 
they should teach.''
  Can you believe that?
  I don't think parents should be telling schools what they should 
teach.
  Republicans believe in education, especially when parents are in 
control. It is ironic that the leftwing has censored or banned books. 
Harry Potter books have been burned because leftists don't like the 
author.
  Leftwing school districts in California have banned ``Of Mice and 
Men'' and ``To Kill a Mockingbird.''

[[Page H1361]]

  Mr. Chair, this bill puts parents in control. Everyone who cares 
about the welfare of our youngest citizens should support this bill.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Oversight and Accountability.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, we oppose H.R. 5 because we stand with the 
school boards and the PTAs, the parents and the teachers, the students, 
and 13,000 school superintendents whose letter opposing this 
legislation I would ask to be included in the Record.
  Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter from The School 
Superintendents Association.

                                                   March 22, 2023.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker McCarthy and Minority Leader Jeffries: AASA, 
     The School Superintendents Association, representing 13,000 
     school district leaders across the United States, writes to 
     share our view of H.R. 5, the Parents Bill of Rights.
       Superintendents know that parents are their children's 
     first and most important educators, which is why effective 
     family engagement at the state and local level is one of the 
     key determinants of student and school success. As 
     superintendents who serve at the pleasure of school boards 
     selected by parents, families and community members, it is 
     critical that every child and family who walks through our 
     doors on a daily basis feels welcome and supported in our 
     buildings and classrooms. We know an educational environment 
     that connects and engages families will ensure greater 
     success for all students. We believe that every family should 
     have the opportunity to be an active participant in their 
     child's educational experience and connect directly with 
     their child's professional educators, while working in 
     concert with school staff and administrators to maximize 
     their child's success.
       As a national organization representing the CEOs of school 
     systems, our view has always been that local control in K-12 
     education is not only what is best, but what is most 
     appropriate. It is for this reason that we must oppose H.R. 
     5. As champions of local control, AASA has long opposed 
     topdown, prescriptive federal education policies that dictate 
     how districts utilize limited federal funding, pressure 
     districts to adopt specific standards or curriculum or create 
     national teacher or educator standards and requirements.
       Parents are the locus of local control in education as they 
     provide input on local policies and practices created at 
     school board meetings, connect directly with superintendents, 
     principals and teachers in class and school-wide events, and 
     have access to any and all educational materials, platforms 
     and curriculum their children are utilizing inside and 
     outside of school.
       The Parents Bill of Rights is full of district mandates 
     without any funding for these new and burdensome requirements 
     that will be a place a disproportionate hardship on small and 
     rural schools. Provisions that would require a district to 
     print out the curriculum for parental review and comment, 
     send notices about every guest speaker that may address a 
     class, require mental health personnel to contact parents if 
     a student discloses any mental health concern and share a 
     list of every professional development opportunity the 
     district provides to educators and staff are just a few 
     examples of extreme federal overreach in local education 
     policy.
       Aside from AASA's federalism concerns and the many new 
     unfunded mandates that H.R. 5 creates, there are also 
     practical implementation concerns with how the legislation 
     would disrupt learning in classrooms and make it incredibly 
     challenging for educators to meet the significant educational 
     needs of students. For example, giving parents the ability to 
     opt out of the collection, disclosure, or use of personal 
     information collected from students and commonly used 
     education technology in the classroom would make it nearly 
     impossible for schools to meet the educational needs of 
     students and use a host of online diagnostic, differentiated 
     and adaptive assessments and tools to measure a student's 
     understanding, proficiency and growth academically. This 
     change would leave teachers not only ill- equipped to address 
     learning loss in a post-pandemic educational environment 
     thereby exacerbating educational inequities, but forced to 
     find and make use of resources, curriculum, and assessments 
     from several decades ago.
       H.R. 5 would make it more challenging to ensure our schools 
     are safe and welcoming environments for every student. The 
     legislation would make it more challenging to direct students 
     to appropriate mental health supports in schools thereby 
     risking the safety of all students and educators. As an 
     example, a counselor who suspects a child may be abused would 
     be required to notify parents and get a signed parental opt-
     in before the counselor can assess the child's health, safety 
     and well-being at home. The bill would also undermine 
     districts' ability to collect anonymized survey data to gauge 
     student safety and well-being in school and it would make our 
     transgender and nonbinary students more likely to disengage 
     or drop out of school.
       While we appreciate the robust discussion about student 
     privacy and support a reauthorization of Family Educational 
     Rights and Privacy Act and Protection of Pupil Rights 
     Amendment that will clarify critical issues and update the 
     law to appropriately respond to the twenty-first century 
     learning environments in our schools, the changes to FERPA 
     and PPRA proposed by H.R. 5 are not those AASA can support. 
     Similarly, we welcome a conversation on how to reauthorize 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, but we do not 
     support piecemeal changes to critical provisions in Title I 
     of the law and urge Republicans and Democrats to come 
     together--as they always have--to craft comprehensive ESEA 
     policies to better our nations' schools, increase student 
     achievement and ensure our schools are welcoming places for 
     every child and family.
       Thank you for considering our views and it is our hope that 
     we can work with both sides of the dais to find common ground 
     this Congress on the policy and funding issues of greatest 
     importance to school district leaders.
           Sincerely,

                                               Sasha Pudelski,

           Director of Advocacy, AASA, The School Superintendents 
                                                      Association.

  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chair, we stand with local governments against this 
outrageous power grab by MAGA Republicans in Washington who are 
supporting book banning, suppression of historical facts about slavery, 
Jim Crow segregation, racial violence, and favoring top-down 
micromanagement of our local schools across America.
  Is there really a problem for parents like us with finding out what 
is in our public school libraries?
  Well, before you pass a massive new Federal law and a massive new 
unfunded mandate for our local governments, why don't you take the time 
to make a phone call?
  That is what I did. I called up the person who runs the school 
libraries for Montgomery County, Maryland, which has more than a 
million people there. I learned from Andrea Christman, who oversees all 
the media centers for our county, that the entire catalogue of 2.2 
million books is online, freely available, and current as of today. 
Anybody can go online and find it right now.
  If all the info is out there, as local governments want it to be, 
then what is this about?
  Well, it is about book banning, of course.
  Mr. Chair, 2 years ago, more than 1,600 books were banned in the 
United States of America.
  Here are three of the key books that the rightwingers have been going 
after.
  Khaled Hosseini's ``The Kite Runner,'' about the dangerous 
fanaticism, authoritarianism, and abuse of the Taliban, a rightwing 
religious fundamentalist movement all about censorship and repressing 
women's control over their own bodies and their own fertility.
  ``The Handmaid's Tale,'' Margaret Atwood's extraordinary dystopian 
novel about a rightwing misogynist movement which uses high technology 
and depraved religious ideology to control not only the minds of their 
followers, but their private and public lives and the fertility of 
women.
  Of course, George Orwell's, ``1984,'' because they have no sense of 
irony. They are always trying to censor this one.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman from Maryland 
an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chair, we need more politicians reading books and fewer 
politicians trying to censor books in America.
  It is amazing to me to see politicians who oppose a universal violent 
criminal background check and who defend assault weapons after the 
massacres at Columbine; after Parkland, Florida; at Sandy Hook in 
Newtown, Connecticut; after Uvalde; after Santa Fe, Texas, that they 
are now going to keep America's children safe by banning ``The 
Handmaid's Tale'' and ``1984.''
  Mr. Chair, we can do better for the children of America.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler) for purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. LAWLER. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to address a 
technical issue I have on the bill.
  First, let me say I have been a strong supporter of the Parents Bill 
of Rights

[[Page H1362]]

Act, and I believe this bill gives much-needed certainty to parents 
that they will have transparency in their child's education.
  Simply put, this bill guarantees all parents a voice in the decisions 
that affect their children and a seat at the table. It makes clear that 
you do not relinquish your rights as a parent simply by sending your 
child to a public school.
  Now, among the bill's main components, parents have the right to know 
what their children are being taught. Parents have the right to be 
heard. Parents have a right to see the school budget and spending. 
Parents have a right to protect their child's privacy. Parents have a 
right to keep their children safe.
  Some say this is already the case, and that this is just codifying. 
Well, if that is the case, then great. We are codifying into law the 
ability and the rights of parents.
  Now, these are important safeguards that not only ensure parents' 
rights, but they also respect State and local control of our schools. 
It does not get into what is taught in schools, what books or materials 
are used, or how a school should address a given issue. Those decisions 
are still left to the State and local school districts.
  In addition, when it comes to their child's health and well-being, 
parents have a right to know if a school employee acts to treat, 
advise, or address issues of cyberbullying, bullying, hazing, mental 
health, suicidal ideation or self-harm, possession or use of drugs, an 
eating disorder, or if a child brings a gun to school.
  Now, there are also protections included in this bill that require 
parents to be informed if their school takes action to change their 
child's gender markers, pronouns, preferred name, or make sex-based 
accommodations for locker rooms or bathrooms.
  Mr. Chair, I recently met with constituents from the LGBTQ+ community 
in my district, including trans youth and parents. They raised several 
concerns about this language, concerns primarily focused on the safety 
and well-being of these youth, especially trans youth.
  So Dr. Foxx, I am hoping that you can clarify some of this for me and 
for the Record.
  Does the bill require teachers or school officials to disclose the 
sexual orientation of a student or statements made by the student about 
his or her gender identity?
  Second, will students still have the ability to speak with teachers, 
advisers, or school officials without fear that those conversations 
will be subject to disclosure?
  And finally, will States and local school districts still be able to 
come up with their own policies and best practices for informing 
parents about these issues so as to ensure the well-being and safety of 
their child?
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from New York for his 
questions.
  Mr. Chair, I can confirm that the bill does not require a teacher to 
disclose any of the information that the gentleman described.

  The bill does not address a student's identity or statements but is 
solely focused on notifying parents about actions taken by school 
personnel to act on a gender transition, such as changing pronouns or 
switching locker rooms.
  I would add, despite the claims from my friends on the other side of 
the aisle, even The New York Times acknowledged that this is not a 
partisan issue, writing in January that, ``Parents of all political 
persuasions have found themselves unsettled by what schools know and 
don't reveal.''
  Our bill enshrines commonsense transparency for parents of children 
to reflect these concerns but it does not force any teacher to reveal 
private conversations or any information about sexual orientation.
  The legislation is also clear that education is largely the 
responsibility of the States and any State or local school district 
would work with the Department to ensure their compliance with these 
provisions without violating student privacy. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. LAWLER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for her clarification.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, on Page 8 of the bill, it says that parents have ``the 
right to know if a school employee or contractor acts to:
  ``Change a minor child's gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name; 
or
  ``Allow a child to change the child's sex-based accommodations, 
including locker rooms or bathrooms;
  ``The right to know if a school employee or contractor acts to treat, 
advise, or address the cyberbullying of a student;
  ``Treat, advise, or address the bullying. . . . `'
  This says, ``a child.'' It doesn't say their own child. It says a 
child, so I am not sure what the answer was.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota (Ms. Craig).
  Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, I support parents' rights, and I am proud to 
live in the State of Minnesota where parents have a right to remove 
their child from a class assignment if they are not comfortable with 
the subject matter. That is State law today in Minnesota.
  I hear from parents across Minnesota's Second District every day who 
are worried about their children. And I hear from teachers every day 
who need more support and resources for their students.
  Mr. Chair, there are more than 800,000 public school students in 
Minnesota.
  I don't think Washington politicians, the people standing here on the 
House floor today, should mandate which books are in their school 
libraries.
  I don't think Washington politicians should mandate their parent-
teacher conference schedules.
  I don't think Washington politicians should mandate whether these 
800,000 kids get the mental health support they need.
  Let's be real about what this bill is actually about.
  This is about MAGA Republicans who want to start a fake culture war 
targeting some of the most vulnerable kids in America in our kids' 
classrooms. Shame on you.
  If you want to support parents, let's fully fund our public schools 
and sharpen our focus on special education programs. Let's figure out 
how we recruit and retain talented teachers. Let's get our kids and 
educators the mental health resources they desperately need.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Chair, let's leave the power to decide what is best 
for students at the local level.
  Mr. Chair, I support parents' rights, but this bill has nothing to do 
with that.
  Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter from the National 
Association of School Psychologists expressing serious concern with 
this legislation.

                                           National Association of


                                         School Psychologists,

                                      Bethesda, MD, March 7, 2023.
     Hon. Virginia Foxx,
     Chair, House Committee Education and the Workforce.
     Hon. Bobby Scott,
     Ranking Member, House Committee Education and the Workforce.
     Re: Markup of Parents Bill of Rights and Protection of Women 
         and Girls in Sports Act of 2023
       Dear Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member Scott: On behalf of 
     the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), and 
     our 25,000+ members, I write to express significant concerns 
     regarding the harmful impact of the Parents Bill of Rights 
     Act (H.R. 5) and the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports 
     Act of 2023 (H.R. 734). School psychologists work with 
     families, educators, administrators, and community members to 
     collectively meet the academic, social emotional, and mental 
     and behavioral health needs of students. We are committed to 
     ensuring that every child: has access to well-rounded, 
     comprehensive, and inclusive curricula; receives the 
     comprehensive learning supports they need to be successful 
     and; attends a school with a safe, supportive learning 
     environment free of bullying, harassment, and discrimination 
     for all students. Importantly, we work to foster effective 
     partnerships between families and educators, who share 
     equally the responsibility for the learning and success of 
     all students. School psychologists work with school leaders 
     to create equitable and accessible family engagement systems 
     in which the diverse perspectives of all families are 
     actively sought out, acknowledged, and valued. Collectively, 
     elements of H.R. 5 and H.R. 734 undermine these commitments 
     by: prioritizing the voices and perspectives of a small 
     subset of families; condoning discrimination; limiting 
     curricula; and preventing schools from ensuring physical and 
     psychological safety.

[[Page H1363]]

     Further, elements of these bills will significantly 
     exacerbate the current youth mental health crisis, 
     particularly for LGBTQ+ and other marginalized youth.


                    Parents Bill of Rights (H.R. 5)

     Title I--Amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education 
         Act of 1965
       Sec 101 and Sec 103. State and Local Educational Agency 
           Plan Assurances
       NASP supports efforts to increase transparency and access 
     to information about school curricula. Existing provisions in 
     FERPA and PPRA clearly articulate the rights of parents to 
     review school curricula and materials as well as opt their 
     child out of specific lessons or survey administration. It is 
     critical that parents and families know what is happening in 
     their child's classroom so that they may engage with their 
     children about what they are learning, and even offer 
     differing viewpoints and helping their children think 
     critically. Requirements to make this information publicly 
     available to all creates an unnecessary burden on the SEA and 
     LEA which is unattainable and will further impede already 
     strained local and state education systems. Despite our 
     belief that Sec 101 and Sec 103 are redundant, we offer the 
     following edits to ensure that all information is accessible 
     to all families: families and other persons with disabilities 
     and those who speak a language other than English:
       Sec 101 State Plan Assurances
       (O)(i)(I) ``posts on a publicly accessible website of the 
     agency, in a manner that is accessible to persons with 
     disabilities and those who speak a language other than 
     English, such curriculum;
       (O)(i)(II) if such agency does not operate a website, 
     widely disseminates to the public in a manner that is 
     accessible to persons with disabilities and those who speak a 
     language other than English such curriculum;
       (O)(ii)(I) ``posts on a publicly accessible website of the 
     agency, in a manner that is accessible to persons with 
     disabilities and those who speak a language other than 
     English:
       (O)(ii)(II) ``if such agency does not operate a website, 
     widely disseminates to the public, in a manner that is 
     accessible to persons with disabilities and those who speak a 
     language other than English, such curriculum;''
       (P) ``in the case of any revisions . . . the State 
     educational agency will post to the homepage of its website, 
     and widely disseminate to the public, in a manner that is 
     accessible to persons with disabilities and those who speak a 
     language other than English,''
       Sec 103 Local Plan Assurances
       (9) ``post on a publicly accessible website of the local 
     educational agency or, if the local educational agency does 
     not operate a website, widely disseminate to the public, in a 
     manner that is accessible to persons with disabilities and 
     those who speak a language other than English, the plan . . 
     .''
       We also request clarification as to the definition of 
     'curriculum.' Teachers routinely alter lesson plans or 
     planned pace of curriculum based on students' progress and 
     needs. Teachers must maintain the ability to differentiate 
     instruction and to develop lessons, aligned with state 
     academic standards, that meet the needs of their students. 
     Many students receive interventions, specific modifications, 
     or specially designed instruction (as part of a child's 
     Individualized Education Program) to ensure access to the 
     general curriculum and state academic standards. We strongly 
     caution against considering these instructional materials 
     'curriculum' as it could inadvertently violate the privacy of 
     students and their families, especially in smaller 
     communities where identification is easier.
       Sec 104 Parent's Right to Know
       We support that parents should have the right to see what 
     materials are available in the school, to be well informed 
     about potential changes to state academic standards or key 
     programmatic offerings (not limited to the elimination of 
     gifted and talented programs), and to voice their opinion 
     regarding school and school district policy. This information 
     must be accessible to all families, and we request the 
     following revision:
       (1) ``Notice of Rights''--A local education agency . . . 
     posts, in a manner accessible to persons with disabilities 
     and those who speak a language other than English,''
       However, the ``right to review'' outlined in this section 
     must not be synonymous with the right to demand removal or 
     alteration of specific books or other material available to 
     all students. We remain increasingly alarmed at continued 
     reports of the removal of material highlighting the diversity 
     of our society and our schools. Restricting access to 
     accurate information and removing evidence-based practices 
     that promote inclusivity and cultural responsiveness is 
     fundamentally handcuffing schools and school staff, and it is 
     harming children. Public schools exist to prepare young 
     people to live in a global society and be contributing 
     citizens. Therefore, schools must have resources and 
     curricula which is reflective of the world they live in. We 
     have heard from many school psychologists that parents are 
     frustrated by the removal of certain books and/or materials 
     from classrooms and/or curriculum, and they are angry that 
     their opposition to these removals has been ignored as it is 
     placing unwanted limitation on their child's exposure to 
     diversity and excludes specific identities from curricula. 
     This legislation must clearly articulate that the ``right to 
     review'' does not give one the legal right to demand removal. 
     Educators, schools, and districts must be empowered to make 
     decisions based on empirical evidence and the needs of the 
     school community, including the unique needs of specific 
     groups of students without fear of reprisal.
     Title II--Amendments to FERPA and PPRA
       Many of the rights articulated in H.R. 5, including the 
     right to inspect instructional material and surveys that may 
     be administered or distributed by the school, and the right 
     to opt their child out of participation in specific 
     activities are statutorily afforded to parents via FERPA and 
     PPRA. NASP does not object to more stringent requirements to 
     ensure proper protection of student data and to prohibit the 
     sale of student information for commercial purposes or 
     financial gain. However, we have significant concerns that, 
     collectively, Sec 201 (n) `Disclosure of Information'; Sec 
     202(b); Sec 202 (c)(2)(D)(i), and the proposed definition of 
     `Medical Examination or Screening' will significantly impede 
     schools' ability to support student well-being and mental 
     health and prevent school violence. Sec 201(n) would require 
     schools to share with parents, upon request, an individual 
     students' response to any survey. Implementation of this 
     provision would prove impossible in many scenarios as the 
     vast majority of surveys are anonymous by design and 
     identified data is less likely to be valid. Many school-
     administered surveys are intended to provide critical 
     information necessary to: examine and respond to the 
     global physical and mental health needs of young people; 
     guide school and community violence prevention efforts; 
     inform school safety and school climate initiatives; and 
     guide efforts to reduce substance use and misuse. These 
     data are critical to identifying potential risks to 
     children and youth, and to evaluate system wide efforts to 
     address specific concerns. Parents maintain the right to 
     exclude their child from participating in these valuable 
     data collection efforts, but students must be empowered to 
     be honest without fear of consequence, punishment, or the 
     unwanted disclosure of personal information without their 
     permission. As such, we request the following revision:
       ``(n) DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION.--An educational agency or 
     institution or authorized representative of such agency or 
     institution shall;
       (1) upon request from a parent of a student disclose to 
     such parent the identity of any individual or entity with 
     whom information is shared from the education record;
       (2) upon request from a parent of a student disclose to 
     such parent any response of the student to a survey if
       (A) information to accurately identify individual students 
     was collected as part of the survey, as designed, and
       (B) the student consents to the disclosure of such 
     information
       (3) inform students, prior to their participation in a 
     survey in which identifying information is collected, that 
     their individual responses may be disclosed to a parent upon 
     request.''
       Current law reflects the requirement for parental consent 
     prior to student participation in specific school 
     administered surveys, rendering Sec 202 (c)(2)(D)(i) 
     redundant, and when considered in conjunction with the 
     proposed definition of `Medical Examination or Screening, 
     highly concerning. Revision of the current legal definition 
     of `physical examination' to `Medical Examination or 
     Screening', which explicitly includes a mental health or 
     substance use disorder screening, combined with parental 
     consent requirements will undoubtedly exacerbate the youth 
     mental health crisis and undermine efforts to improve school 
     safety. The term `mental health screening' could be 
     interpreted in a manner that results in significant harm to 
     school communities. A mental health screening is not 
     synonymous with a standardized measure or survey intended to 
     gather personal information about an individual for 
     diagnostic use. While those tools may be utilized as part of 
     a holistic approach to identifying and addressing student 
     need, mental health screening is a process by which 
     educators, in collaboration with school psychologists or 
     school mental health professionals, and families, identify 
     students who may need support. School mental health 
     professionals will not engage in a therapeutic intervention 
     with a student without active parental consent. However, 
     students must be allowed to seek out a trusted adult or 
     mental health professional, including school psychologists, 
     at school and these professionals must be able to assess 
     student well-being and (as part of their responsibility as a 
     mandatory reporter) immediately assess if there is concern 
     regarding risk of harm to self or others. As currently 
     written, H.R 5 would require parental consent prior to any 
     contact with a school mental health professional and could 
     result in unnecessary and preventable harm to self or others. 
     Parents are already notified of reported risk after an 
     assessment is completed and inability to reach a parent for 
     consent to do an assessment can have lethal consequences.
       We offer the following suggested revision and would welcome 
     the opportunity to collaborate on statutory language that 
     ensures availability of comprehensive school mental and 
     behavioral health services and balances schools' obligation 
     to support student learning and well-being and maintain a 
     safe school environment with efforts to improve family 
     engagement in all aspects of the education system.
       MEDICAL EXAMINATION OR SCREENING.--The term `medical 
     examination or

[[Page H1364]]

     screening' means any medical examination or screening that 
     involves the exposure of private body parts, or any act 
     during such examination or screening that includes incision, 
     insertion, or injection into the body, or a mental health or 
     substance use disorder screening, except that such term does 
     not include:
       (i) a hearing, vision, or scoliosis screening;
       (ii) an observational screening carried out to comply with 
     child find obligations under the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.).''
       (iii) Informal observation screening, or short term 
     consultation, of non-therapeutic nature, with a school based 
     mental health services provider;
       (iv) a process to assess and mitigate the risk of inflicted 
     harm to self or others, provided that parental notification 
     of such screening occurs as soon as is feasibly possible 
     unless there is reasonable evidence that parent notification 
     will result in harm to the child.


     Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2023 (H.R. 734)

       NASP believes, and courts have established, that the civil 
     rights of transgender students are protected as part of U.S. 
     public schools' obligations under Title IX of the Education 
     Amendments of 1972. These rights include honoring a person's 
     right to express gender identity, and the right to modify 
     gender expression when necessary for individual well-being, 
     and to have their gender identify affirmed and acknowledged, 
     the right to explore and question their gender identity, and 
     the right to participate in activities, including sports, 
     that correspond with one's gender identity.
       We vehemently oppose any effort, including the Protection 
     of Women and Girls in Sports Act, to define sex based solely 
     on a person's reproductive biology and genetics at birth, 
     while this legislation, on its face, is narrowly focused on 
     the issue of athletics, it is legally tenuous to assume that 
     Title IX allows for multiple, context specific, definitions 
     of sex. This definition would most certainly be applied 
     across all educational activities and programs and amounts to 
     an assault on the existence and civil rights of transgender, 
     gender nonconforming and intersex children, adolescents, and 
     adults in our communities. Further, H.R. 734 places unfair 
     burden on school administrators, who are not medical 
     providers, to examine and police a student's body. 
     Administrators and the National Association of Secondary 
     School Principals have expressed concern and frustration over 
     individual state's laws which violate Title IX.
       This legislation is a ``solution'' in search of a problem. 
     The policies of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and 
     the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), among 
     others have longstanding guidelines regarding participation 
     on competitive sports teams. The IOC first allowed 
     transgender participation in the Olympic Games beginning in 
     2004 and the NCAA has done so since 2011. Both the IOC and 
     the NCAA have refined their policy to better align with 
     scientific fact and empirical research; and both 
     organizations, as well as numerous high school athletic 
     associations and professional and amateur sports leagues, 
     currently to allow transgender athletes to compete on teams 
     and in events aligned with their gender identity. Inclusive 
     sports participation benefits all students and ensures 
     equitable opportunities for collegiate sports attainment, 
     collegiate scholarships, and opportunities to compete in 
     professional sports. There is absolutely no evidence that 
     cisgender athletes, or women's athletics in general, are 
     harmed by these policies.
       For almost two decades, transgender athletes in the United 
     States have been allowed to participate in some of the most 
     elite national and international competitions as their 
     authentic selves. Yet, it was not until 2020, out of concern 
     for the future of women's athletics, that policy makers 
     sought to prohibit transgender people, particularly 
     transgender women, from participating in sports teams that 
     aligned with their gender identity. This legislation is not 
     about protecting women. This legislation is a thinly veiled 
     attempt at codifying a harmful and discriminatory definition 
     of `sex' under the guise of ``protecting women'' from 
     discrimination in sports. This legislation is not about 
     sports, it is about further erasing transgender people from 
     public life. We adamantly oppose this legislation and urge 
     you to do the same.
       We welcome the opportunity to collaborate on legislation 
     that promotes effective family engagement, ensures access to 
     a well-rounded and inclusive curriculum, supports student 
     well-being, and affirms the rights and identities of all 
     students. Please contact NASP Director of Policy and 
     Advocacy, Dr. Kelly Vaillancourt with questions, concerns, or 
     opportunities to promote a public education system that works 
     for all students.
           Sincerely,
                                        Kathleen Minke, PhD, NCSP,
                                               Executive Director.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Allen).

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. Chair, there is no question that over the past several years, we 
have seen parents being denied the right to make decisions about their 
children's education. I don't quite understand the argument from the 
other side.
  The reason I stand before this body today is not because I happen to 
be in Washington; it is because I am representing parents in my 
district who want to know what their children are being taught and what 
they are required to read.
  In fact, parents across this country, certain groups, have gone so 
far as to label the parents ``domestic terrorists'' just because they 
wanted a say in their children's education. That is what we are talking 
about today is giving control back to the parents of our children.
  This is not the way our education system was created, and it is not 
the way it is supposed to work. Allowing families to have a say in 
their children's education should not be a controversial subject. I 
don't get it.
  Parents have a right to know what is being taught to their children, 
to give consent for medical evaluations, and to be heard. My goodness, 
it is in the top 10: Honor thy father and thy mother.
  Unfortunately, we have seen Washington Democrats and outside groups 
push to radically reshape our education system by injecting divisive 
concepts and curriculum into our schools and classrooms regardless of 
whether families approve.
  House Republicans are working to fulfill our commitment to America by 
building a future that is built on freedom, for crying out loud, a 
future where parents' rights are protected and families are given a 
seat at the table.
  I am calling on all my colleagues to join us in support of H.R. 5, 
the Parents Bill of Rights Act.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time 
remains on each side?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 29 minutes remaining. The 
gentlewoman from North Carolina has 31 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
H.R. 5, which we should really call the politics over parents act.
  As a mom of three, let me be clear about what this legislation would 
do. It opens the door to gagging educators, parents, and students, and 
turns classrooms into archaic tools for a vocal extremist minority.
  Worse, it undermines what any mother wants for her child, a 
supportive classroom space that provides a fact-based education and 
practical life skills and critical-thinking skills.
  Just look at the colossal education nightmare unfolding in my home 
State of Florida right now. Governor DeSantis and his stooge Florida 
lawmakers propose prohibiting girls from discussing their menstrual 
periods with one another while in school. They are already banning 
books, and they are barring certain elements of African-American 
history from being taught in school.
  Governor DeSantis and his radical allies are also waging a cruel 
campaign to marginalize Florida's LGBTQ+ community, and suppress the 
histories of others they deem unworthy.
  The Republican revival of the Lavender Scare includes shutting down 
businesses and passing a ``Don't Say Gay'' law that bans classroom 
discussions of sexual orientation and gender identity, even in high 
school.
  Like a cancer, this hateful law has spread, with Republicans now 
censoring educators on a wide variety of topics, so it is no surprise 
my colleagues across the aisle want to export these same dangerous 
policies across America.
  Make no mistake, H.R. 5 undermines teachers, and instead of offering 
students more support, it effectively denies it. The result of this law 
in Florida has cleared bookshelves and canceled coursework and an AP 
exam on African-American history.
  As a mother whose children attended public schools, I speak for 
millions of moms when I say all we want for our children is a safe 
learning environment that ensures they discover the wider world, and 
not force them to grow into narrow-minded, ignorant adults.
  This legislation just hands a vocal and extreme minority of parents 
the power to dictate what every American child learns.
  To all my business-friendly Republicans, every classroom move to 
censor

[[Page H1365]]

and ban leaves our children even less competitive on the global stage. 
Mark my words.
  Take it from this mom: We should reject this misguided legislation 
and, instead, unite to build classrooms where every child gets the 
resources and support they need to succeed in the 21st century.
  Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the First Focus 
Campaign for Children.

                                                   March 20, 2023.
     Hon. Julia Letlow,
     Member, Committee on Education & the Workforce, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
     Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Virginia Foxx,
     Chair, Committee on Education & the Workforce, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Bobby Scott,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Education & the Workforce, House 
         of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congresswoman Letlow, Speaker McCarthy, Leader 
     Jeffries, Chairwoman Foxx, and Ranking Member Scott: I am 
     writing on behalf of First Focus Campaign for Children, a 
     bipartisan children's advocacy organization dedicated to 
     making children and families a priority in federal budget and 
     policy decisions, to express opposition to H.R. 5, the 
     Parents Bill of Rights Act. We do not believe this bill 
     strikes the right balance between the duties of schools, the 
     rights and responsibilities of parents, and the oft-ignored 
     but important rights of children.


                    Parental Engagement Is Critical

       First, let's be clear: Parents are fundamental to the 
     upbringing of children and absolutely should be engaged and 
     involved in the education of their children. In fact, 
     children have better outcomes when their parents are 
     involved. As a parent of four children myself, I have engaged 
     with my children's schools by voting in school board 
     elections, attending all parent-teacher conferences, 
     volunteering in my children's classrooms, scheduling time to 
     meet with teachers and administrators when important issues 
     arise, serving on the PTAs at my children's schools, serving 
     on athletic booster clubs, and volunteering as an assistant 
     boys and girls basketball coach for two county schools.
       In addition to my personal experiences, I have learned a 
     great deal over the years from both of my parents, my step-
     mother, step-brother, my uncle, and several cousins, who are 
     all educators. Consequently, I have immense respect for the 
     work, talent, dedication, and concern that the vast majority 
     of teachers and educators bring to their profession on a 
     daily basis--all with the goal of educating our nation's 
     children to best achieve their hopes and dreams while also 
     trying to provide a place of safety and compassion for 
     each and every one of their students.
       Again, we strongly support parental engagement in 
     education, but parents should not control all curriculum and 
     educational decisions. Doing so is unworkable.
       For example, imagine an elementary school of 500 students 
     where 12 parents oppose the teaching of evolution, 8 parents 
     believe the early is flat, 21 are Holocaust deniers, 14 
     oppose learning about slavery, 7 believe in racial 
     segregation, 17 believe in the concept of schools without 
     walls, 27 believe in corporal punishment, 12 want Harry 
     Potter books to be banned, 25 want books banned that mention 
     the Trail of Tears, 31 believe parents should be allowed to 
     overrule a physician's decision that a child with a 
     concussion should refrain from participating in sports, 39 
     oppose keeping kids out of school when they have the flu, 4 
     believe that a child with cancer might be contagious, 34 
     believe students should be ``tracked'' in all subject areas, 
     12 believe students should not be taught how to spell the 
     words ``sinal tap'', ``quarantine'', or ``isolation'' because 
     they are too ``scary of words''. 41 don't like the bus 
     routes, 45 want a vegan-only lunchroom, 4 demand same-sex 
     classrooms, etc. Even though most parents oppose these 
     demands by some parents and many of them are completely 
     false, undermine the purpose of education, threaten the 
     safety of children, or promote discrimination, H.R. 5 would 
     seek to push their accommodation in some form.


                  The Real Parents Agenda for Children

       We must all do better by our kids.
       By an overwhelming 77-11 percent margin, a May 2022 poll by 
     Lake Research Partners found that parents believe ``policy 
     involving children should always be governed by a `best 
     interest of the child' standard.'' By a 60-19 percent margin, 
     the American people believe we are spending too little as 
     opposed to too much on public education. And when it comes in 
     investing in children, 9-in-10 voters (90-7 percent) agreed 
     with the statement that ``investing in children helps improve 
     their lives, development, and outcomes.''
       When it comes to children's policy overall, a nationwide 
     survey by Global Strategy Group in February 2023 found that 
     American voters have strong priorities in favor of ``creating 
     more effective childcare options for all families'' (87-8 
     percent), ``expanding family and medical leave'' (82-12 
     percent), bringing back the improved Child Tax Credit (76-13 
     percent), and ``expanding universal preschool for all 3- and 
     4-year-olds'' (73-16 percent). The support for this agenda 
     stands in sharp contrast to the opposition that American 
     voters express to an agenda that would call for ``passing 
     legislation banning transgender-focused health care options 
     for young Americans'' (41-47 percent), ``banning books that 
     some parents find to have questionable content'' (32-57 
     percent), and ``banning high school classes like AP African-
     American history'' (21-68 percent).


                  Children Have Fundamental Rights Too

       Before diving into the details of H.R. 5, it is important 
     to acknowledge that children need the support BY parents and 
     government to be successful, and that they also sometimes 
     need protection FROM parents and government.
       The fact is that children have unique and fundamental human 
     rights that should not be ignored or dismissed. These include 
     the right to an education, the right to health care, the 
     right to be protected from abuse and violence at home and in 
     schools, the right to be protected from gun violence and 
     school shootings, the right to not be discriminated against 
     because of their race, ethnicity, gender (including gender 
     identity and sexual orientation), economic status, 
     disability, religion, immigration status, or age.
       As for parental rights and H.R. 5's attempts to modify the 
     Protection of Pupil Rights Act (PPRA) and the Family 
     Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), it is important to 
     highlight that PPRA was originally enacted nearly 50 years 
     ago (in 1974) and has been modified several times, including 
     in 1978, 1994, and 2002, in order to broaden access and 
     consent requirements.


  H.R. 5 Adds New Bureaucracy to Schools and Detracts from the Time, 
              Attention, and Funding Dedicated to Students

       While the impetus for aspects of H.R. 5 are well-
     intentioned, our first concern is that the language is 
     duplicative of language already in federal law, policies in 
     state law, and general practice by school districts all 
     across this country in many respects but also potentially 
     adds new bureaucracy and red tape to schools and school 
     districts all across this for no apparent benefit.
       Unfortunately, these proposed changes may potentially harm 
     children. Any funding, time, and attention that is shifted 
     away from students and their learning toward added 
     bureaucracy and red tape can be detrimental to students. But 
     H.R. 5 provides no funding to address the many newly imposed 
     bureaucratic requirements upon schools.
       For example, H.R. 5 proposes new reporting requirements for 
     schools to include in their ``local educational agency report 
     card'' a budget that is detailed ``for each elementary school 
     and secondary school served by the local educational 
     agency.'' Requiring detailed accounting of costs, some of 
     which are shared across school campuses (e.g., school nurses, 
     bus drivers, etc.), for the more than 90,000 public schools 
     across this country will likely greatly increase the 
     employment of accountants. However, H.R. 5 does not provide 
     funding to pay for such a mandate. Before proceeding, we 
     should acknowledge that this newly-imposed mandate detracts 
     from the funding, time, and attention school districts and 
     educators have for improving the education and well-being of 
     children.
       First Focus Campaign for Children supports tracking funding 
     that is allocated for children's programs as a share of 
     government spending, and thus, annually produce a Children's 
     Budget that analyzes the funding of more than 250 federal 
     programs. We share this report with Congress to raise the 
     awareness and transparency of funding for children. However, 
     we would urge Congress to focus as many of those dollars as 
     possible on the children themselves and not on excessive 
     accounting and reporting measures that consume much of the 
     attention and focus of H.R. 5.


   H.R. 5 Promotes Book Bans Rather Than Access to Books and Reading

       Another important concern is language from Sec. 104 and 
     Sec. 202 that would require schools to share with all parents 
     of students at every school ``a list of books and other 
     reading materials available to the students of such school in 
     the school library.'' Again, compiling, cataloging, and 
     sharing such information to all parents would come at great 
     time and expense that is not paid for by H.R. 5. That money 
     and time would come at the expense of librarians and other 
     educators focused on the education of children. Parents 
     already have the right to visit their child's school and its 
     library, to request such information, and to ask their own 
     children what they are learning and reading in school.
       Rather than adding the burdens of more bureaucracy and red 
     tape to schools and creating a chilling effect through 
     increasing incidences of censorship and book bans, we should 
     be working together to pass legislation to encourage students 
     to read and learn through greater access to books, such as 
     Reach Out and Read, First Book, Reading Is Fundamental, and 
     other literacy programs. An individual parent should not 
     solely be allowed to object to a book and cause its 
     censorship for all of the children in a school or school 
     district. This violates the parental rights of the vast 
     majority of parents who do not support book bans or 
     censorship.
       Even more importantly, it violates the fundamental rights 
     of children. As Justice

[[Page H1366]]

     Abe Fortas wrote in his majority opinion in Tinker v. Des 
     Moines Independent School District (1969):
       Students in school as well as out of school are ``persons'' 
     under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental 
     rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves 
     must respect their obligations to the State . . . In the 
     absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid 
     reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to 
     freedom of expression of their views.
       Justice Fortas adds:
       It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers 
     shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or 
     expression at the schoolhouse gate.
       In the Supreme Court case Island Trees School District v. 
     Pico (1982), the Court ruled that children have a fundamental 
     right to an education and access to learning that is not 
     limited by the censorship of books based on ``narrowly 
     partisan or political'' grounds. As Justice William Brennan 
     writes:
       Our Constitution does not permit the official suppression 
     of ideas. Thus, whether petitioners' removal of books from 
     their school libraries denied respondents their First 
     Amendment rights depends upon the motivation behind 
     petitioners' actions. If petitioners intended by their 
     removal decision to deny respondents access to ideas with 
     which petitioners disagreed, and if this intent was the 
     decisive factor in petitioners' decisions, then petitioners 
     have exercised their discretion in violation of the 
     Constitution.


H.R. 5 Threatens Access to Health Care, Privacy, and Confidentiality of 
                                Students

       Concern about access to health care for our children leads 
     us to oppose the language in H.R. 5 with respect to school 
     health. There were more than 4 million children in this 
     country that were uninsured in 2020. In 2016, the Children's 
     Health Fund estimated that over 20 million children lacked 
     ``sufficient access to essential health care.''
       Therefore, the role of school based health clinics, school 
     nurses, school counselors, coaches, social workers, and 
     physical trainers in schools is critically important to the 
     health, education, and well-being of children. The language 
     in H.R. 5 appears to dramatically expands the potential 
     incidences in which all of these school personnel would have 
     to seek out parental notification and consent prior to 
     performing care, such as to check whether a student has a 
     fever, has an ankle sprain, may have experienced a 
     concussion, or need to check for a possible broken bone. In 
     many cases, these may not be considered emergencies, but in 
     the meantime, children languish or must wait while school 
     personnel spend large amounts of time trying to track down 
     parents for consent.
       In the report accompanying H.R. 5, the House Education and 
     Workforce Committee majority write, ``Americans should never 
     be forced to relinquish these parental rights to government--
     whether that involves curriculum decisions or personal 
     medical choices'' (emphasis added).
       We strongly disagree.
       First, such a statement would threaten the health, safety, 
     and lives of some children in our country. For example, based 
     on that statement, does the Committee majority reject the 
     ability of schools to set graduation requirements? Oppose the 
     teaching of evolution? Allow parents to send children to 
     school even if they are vomiting, have a fever, diarrhea, or 
     have a communicable disease? Does the Committee majority now 
     oppose school vaccine mandates? School concussion protocols?

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon 
(Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer).
  Mrs. CHAVEZ-DeREMER. Mr. Chair, I rise today as a proud mother of 
twin daughters.
  As a parent, I know moms and dads agree that we all want what is best 
for our children. That is one of the reasons why it is so difficult for 
us to let our sons and daughters go on their first day of kindergarten. 
We have to start placing an enormous amount of trust in our teachers 
and administrators to do what is best for our children.
  At the end of the day, nobody will understand a child's interests and 
needs more than the people who love them most, their parents.
  It is easy to understand why parents want to have and deserve to have 
the right to know what is going on inside the classroom. It is their 
responsibility. That is why we need the Parents Bill of Rights Act to 
help students succeed by ensuring every parent can have a voice in 
their child's education.
  During the committee markup on this bill, I was honored to lead two 
proposals that are now included. One will help parents better 
understand the priorities of their children's school by bringing much-
needed clarity to school budgets. The other sets both parents and 
teachers up for success by simplifying the curriculum feedback process.
  My proposals build on two of the five core principles of the Parents 
Bill of Rights Act: Parents have the right to know what their children 
are being taught, and parents have the right to see the school's budget 
and spending.
  I will always fight to protect parental involvement and to put 
parents first. I am proud to support the Parents Bill of Rights Act.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. McGarvey).
  Mr. McGARVEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5, a bill that 
promotes conflict over clarity, callousness over kindness, and politics 
over problemsolving.
  I am speaking today, not just as a Member of Congress, but as the 
parent of three young children, two of whom attend public schools in 
Louisville, Kentucky, and one who will be soon.
  Parents should be involved in their kids' education, in everything 
from school board elections to the PTA, to communicating with their 
child's teacher on what is going on.
  We received a message this morning from our kids' teacher letting us 
know that there would be no band because of the fifth grade musical.
  This bill is about impeding, not involvement. The reason the American 
Library Association opposes this bill is because H.R. 5 clearly opens 
the door to deprive our kids of fact-based education, and it is part of 
a larger effort to ban free expression and ideas in the classroom. Even 
Cato thinks it is unconstitutional.
  Like a lot of parents, we had to step in and teach some during the 
beginning of the pandemic. It wasn't easy, and I can assure you that 
curriculum should be ultimately determined by experts, not untrained 
individuals with extremist views.
  In addition to restricting parents' rights, H.R. 5 hurts some of our 
most vulnerable kids in the LGBTQ community. Why?
  According to the Trevor Project, one LGBTQ youth attempts suicide 
every 45 seconds, 45 seconds. Why?
  Why are we being more cruel?
  I believe that not just in politics but in life we are judged by how 
we treat those on the margins. My message to my colleagues is simple: 
Stop being mean to kids. We can be involved and be inclusive.
  Normally, we warn our kids about dealing with bullies in their 
classrooms. We shouldn't have to warn them about bullying from adults, 
too. This message is simple, and I urge my colleagues to vote against 
it.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Guest).
  Mr. GUEST. Mr. Chair, in many places across our great Nation, parents 
are being denied, being denied a voice in discussions around what their 
children are being taught in schools.
  As Republicans, in our Commitment to America, we made a promise, a 
promise to establish the rights of parents to protect their children 
from indoctrination in our classrooms.
  As a product of the public school system and father of two sons who 
graduated from public school, I understand the significant role our 
schools play in the education of our future leaders.
  However, far-left ideas have seeped into America's classrooms and 
have blurred the line between education and indoctrination. We cannot 
allow that to continue.
  This bill simply protects the rights of parents, the rights of 
parents to know what their children are being taught, what their 
children are hearing in school, the right to see the budget that the 
school is spending, the right to protect their children's privacy, and 
the right to keep their children safe.
  Simply put, this bill protects those parents who want to play a role 
in their child's life and to protect their children from indoctrination 
in the classroom.
  I encourage all my colleagues to support this critical and 
commonsense piece of legislation.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. McClellan), the newest Member of the 
House.
  Mrs. McCLELLAN. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
5.
  I am the mother of two young children who you saw stand with me in 
this very Chamber 2 weeks ago, and I have near-daily conversations with 
the parents in my district about their hopes and concerns. I can assure 
you, they have a seat at the table in the school room, and they are not 
concerned with banning books, censoring our curriculum, or dictating 
what bathrooms students use.

[[Page H1367]]

  Parents want increased resources for mental and behavioral health 
services, inclusive school environments that foster critical thinking 
and learning, and more funding to repair outdated and crumbling school 
buildings and address security issues.

  They want their children to learn a complete and accurate history of 
our country and our world, and they want the peace of mind that their 
children are safe.
  Three days after my son stood with me on this floor and watched me 
take the oath of office, one of his classmates shot himself 
accidentally with an unsecured gun, and he died. It was a devastating 
loss for our community.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds 
to the gentlewoman from Virginia.
  Mrs. McCLELLAN. It was a devastating loss for our community and the 
community at large. These are the issues that matter to parents as they 
deal with the mental fallout of that incident. These are the issues 
they are talking about.
  H.R. 5 does nothing to address these priorities. It would create 
unnecessary reporting requirements and divert critical resources away 
from meeting the real needs of our students and families.
  I urge our colleagues to vote ``no'' on the politics over parents 
act.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).
  Mr. MEUSER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the esteemed gentlewoman from 
North Carolina for allotting me some time here today.
  I rise in support, strong support, Mr. Chair, of H.R. 5, the Parents 
Bill of Rights Act.
  As parents, we put trust in our local schools and teachers and expect 
that our children are receiving an appropriate education, and in most 
cases, they do.
  We have all had great teachers that have positively impacted our 
lives, and our children have, and we are very grateful for that and we 
will remember them forever.
  In recent years, for varying reasons, there have been well-known 
instances where the trust between schools and parents has been eroded, 
in fact, broken, and primarily those issues stem from parents being 
excluded or having their participation in the educational process 
removed, such as curriculum review being very limited.
  Everyone agrees that such instances, whether they occur often or 
infrequently, should not happen, and when they do, they are 
unacceptable.
  As a father, I know that to a mom and dad there is nothing more 
precious than their children, and being included in the education 
process should be a parent's right, especially as taxpayers. Any 
rational adult, whether parent or educator, knows what the reasonable 
level of involvement should be.
  Parents should have the right to be heard and to know what their 
child is being taught. Parents should have the right to see the school 
budget. Parents should have the right to be alerted if there are 
instances of violence or problems in the child's schools. Parents are 
not asking too much. They are simply asking to be involved, which helps 
create a strong family and a better educational environment for all.
  It is our responsibility as elected officials to honor their requests 
and guarantee they will be included in the education process and school 
activities. That is why this Republican majority has put forth the 
Parents Bill of Rights Act, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
important legislation.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I 
include in the Record a statement from Equity-Minded Education, Civil 
Rights, and Immigration Advocates on H.R. 5 that concludes that we urge 
Congress to focus on real and meaningful efforts to truly support our 
students, parents, and teachers, and to stop using parents as a decoy 
to launch political attacks on our schools.

                             [Mar. 7, 2023]

    Joint Statement From Equity-Minded Education, Civil Rights, and 
                    Immigration Advocates on H.R. 5

       As equity-minded education, civil rights, and immigration 
     organizations, we work to ensure that our nation's students 
     are learning, feel safe and respected at school, and have the 
     supports they and their families need to succeed. As such, we 
     are deeply concerned about the Parents Bill of Rights Act 
     (H.R. 5) recently introduced in the House of Representatives. 
     This legislation, like similar bills in a growing number of 
     states that ban books or censor curriculum and textbooks, is 
     divisive and designed to politicize our schools rather than 
     provide what parents really want: a great education for their 
     children.
       In addition to enabling book bans and curriculum 
     censorship, the bill is redundant and out of sync with what 
     parents want. Provisions in the bill that allow a parent to 
     demand inspections of schools and school budgets are designed 
     to disrupt teachers' ability to teach students, and hinder 
     school administrators' ability to run safe and welcoming 
     schools. The bill also inserts the federal government to help 
     determine the frequency of parent-teacher conferences--
     something nearly all school districts across the country 
     establish through locally determined policies. Moreover, 
     recent polling indicates that the top priorities for parents 
     are not these wedge issues; rather they want to keep their 
     children safe from violence at schools, ensure adequate 
     mental health supports for them, and help in their learning 
     recovery. Federal law should--and already does--require that 
     parents receive information on what their kids are learning, 
     how they are achieving, and on the qualifications of their 
     child's teachers.
       We support and encourage a broader view of the rights of 
     parents and students: the right to have access to fully-
     resourced schools, prepared and qualified teachers, safe and 
     welcoming places for students to learn, and the supports to 
     make sure all students can thrive. The ability of the U.S. 
     education system to provide these essential requirements 
     should be the primary focus of Congress. We have supported 
     bipartisan efforts over the years to help achieve these 
     goals, including the funding of the Elementary and Secondary 
     School Emergency Relief Fund to provide schools with the 
     resources to safely reopen and to help students get back on 
     track after the disruption and loss caused by the pandemic, 
     and additional resources for mental health needs through the 
     Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. We urge this Congress to 
     focus on real and meaningful efforts to truly support our 
     students, parents, and teachers--and to stop using parents as 
     a decoy to launch political attacks on our schools.
       All4Ed
       Center for American Progress
       Education Reform Now
       National Center for Learning Disabilities
       National Parents Union
       Schoolhouse Connection
       The Education Trust
       UnidosUS
       National Urban League

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a 
statement from Third Way, which concludes: ``Protecting the ability of 
parents to make the best decisions for their children is a fundamental 
American value. This proposal is a serious distraction from what our 
students really need right now: to be learning in an academically 
challenging and safe environment that engages families and teachers in 
true partnership to support students.''

       Washington.--Third Way released the following statement 
     from Lanae Erickson, Senior Vice President for Social Policy, 
     Education, and Politics:
       ``This week, the House majority will bring H.R. 5 to the 
     floor under the guise of increasing parental engagement in 
     schools--but its substance would do nothing to advance that 
     goal. Instead, this bill would censor parents, undermine 
     student mental health, ban books from school libraries, 
     redirect resources and personnel away from meeting families' 
     real needs, and ultimately function as a gag order on 
     teaching and learning across the country.
       ``We should be empowering school boards and Parent Teacher 
     Associations to make informed decisions when it comes to 
     their students' education. This bill would invite Congress to 
     dictate the schedule of parent-teacher conferences and 
     control course instruction in every one of the nearly 100,000 
     public schools from coast to coast. We should be supporting 
     the well-being of students by increasing access to mental 
     health professionals. This legislation would limit families' 
     access to crucial mental health services in an era when we 
     know they are needed more than ever. We should be investing 
     in the safety of our students by keeping firearms out of 
     classrooms. This bill would focus only on reporting violence 
     once students have already been hurt or killed.
       ``Protecting the ability of parents to make the best 
     decisions for their children is a fundamental American value. 
     This proposal is a serious distraction from what our students 
     really need right now: to be learning in an academically 
     challenging and safe environment that engages families and 
     teachers in true partnership to support students.''

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Landsman).
  Mr. LANDSMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this controversial 
and highly dangerous bill, H.R. 5.

[[Page H1368]]

  I am a former teacher. My parents were teachers. I have been doing 
child education advocacy my entire career. My wife and I are parents of 
two public school children right now. This is our lives. This is what 
we do day in and day out.
  I want to be very clear so that my colleagues understand what rights 
I have as a parent, which are the same rights that all Americans, all 
parents in America, have if their children are in public schools.
  I can go speak to the school board whenever I want. I can do that 
now. I have that right.
  Madam Chair, I can ask about the books. I can ask about the budget.
  Of course, I can get information about the medical condition of my 
children. I have that right now.
  My colleagues have to know this. If they do not, and this is news to 
them, they can pull the bill.
  Right now, this new national ban and set of controls will simply lead 
to our schools, our teachers, and many of our parents drowning in 
lawsuits.
  I offered two amendments. One was a litigation shield to help protect 
our folks from obviously dangerous lawsuits that would come of this if 
this bill were to pass. The second was to opt out if a district does 
not want to be part of this because I believe in local control, as do 
most of the people in my district. Republicans, Democrats, and 
Independents believe in local control. Let school districts opt out.
  It is not about local control. This is about taking a small, teeny 
ideology and forcing it on the rest of us. As a parent, I can say on 
behalf of so many parents, leave us alone.
  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Greene of Georgia). The time of the gentleman 
has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. LANDSMAN. Madam Chair, we need politicians at the State level and 
D.C. politicians with this bill to get out of our lives, get out of our 
doctors' offices, get out of our classrooms, and, as a parent, get out 
of my house. Let me parent my child.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 5.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, today, the National Parents Union released 
a poll that supports an alternative version of H.R. 5 and does not 
support H.R. 5 in the least.
  In fact, the majority of people believe that the bill of rights 
should guarantee that students should have access to a high-quality, 
well-rounded education with resources to support their individual 
needs. They overwhelmingly agree that parents' own personal beliefs 
should not prevent other students from accessing certain curricula and 
materials.
  The majority encourage the teaching of topics like women's history, 
Black history, Native American history, and Latino, Latina, and 
Hispanic history.
  The majority of parents want Congress to focus on issues like anti-
bullying measures in schools and providing students with access to 
career and technical education and academic tutoring.
  They rank requiring public schools to provide parents with a list of 
books and reading materials in the library as the least important 
priority for Congress compared to other issues.
  They say that public schools should teach about and discuss concepts 
like kindness, empathy, cooperation, and collaboration.
  Ninety percent say that students should have access to high-quality, 
well-rounded education. Ninety percent say that students should be 
protected from any form of discrimination against them at school. 
Eighty-nine percent say that students should be taught using 
educational materials that are historically accurate. Eighty percent 
say students should be taught using educational materials that reflect 
the diversity of the United States. Eighty-three percent say students 
should be taught about how government works so they can be prepared to 
participate in democracy.
  My colleagues, H.R. 5 misses the mark. Please, vote it down. I will 
be offering a substitute amendment. We have something we can stand for 
that will really, truly address the needs of students and parents.
  Madam Chair, I include in the Record a letter from the Council of the 
Great City Schools in opposition to H.R. 5.


                  Council of the Great City Schools,

                                   Washington, DC, March 23, 2023.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: The Council of the Great City Schools, 
     the coalition of the nation's largest central city school 
     districts, writes to offer our perspective on H.R. 5, the 
     Parents Bill of Rights Act pending before the Committee. 
     Urban schools have long supported and encouraged family 
     involvement in our students' education and view parental 
     engagement as an invaluable tool to further school 
     improvement. Yet H.R. 5 includes excessive and redundant 
     federal requirements that are costly, time-consuming, and 
     unnecessary to improve student performance. The bill also 
     contains problematic requirements, such as provisions that 
     impede school districts' ability to operate effective 
     instructional programs and ones that may deter the 
     identification of students that need mental health support. 
     The Council does not support H.R. 5 and urges House leaders 
     to develop legislation that focuses on the instructional 
     improvements and supports that provide our students with the 
     best opportunity for success in school and life.
       Urban school districts provide an endless number of 
     engagement opportunities and have longstanding local policies 
     and state laws to foster this connection. Parental 
     involvement on school-based committees is routine in urban 
     schools, with positions designated specifically for parents 
     and family members to review library materials and textbooks, 
     budget expenditures, school safety procedures, and school 
     improvement plans to increase student learning. The inclusion 
     of federal requirements in H.R. 5 that, for example, mandate 
     a specific number of in-person teacher meetings per year, the 
     annual disclosure of library and reading materials at each 
     school, and detailed budget publications needlessly duplicate 
     commonplace practices in districts that customarily have 
     multiple parent-teacher meetings, online card catalogs, and 
     regular public meetings for developing annual district-level 
     and school-level budgets that are posted on the districts' 
     websites.
       We also do not support provisions that hinder districts' 
     ability to provide the instruction and support that our 
     students need to succeed. Urban school districts have worked 
     hard to ensure that the benefits of content-rich resources 
     are available to our children and have invested in online 
     tools to promote an ``anywhere/anytime'' approach to 
     learning. Encouraging parental objections to the use of such 
     technology will likely prove extremely disruptive for all 
     students and creates avoidable strictures for school and 
     district staff. Similarly, any restrictions on access to 
     school psychologists and counselors to support mental health 
     will unsettle school districts that are prioritizing the 
     well-being of those students that need it most.
       Urban school districts are committed to their students, 
     parents, and families and have long worked to keep them 
     informed, inspired, and ready to partner with their local 
     schools. Authentic parent engagement is essential to 
     increasing student achievement and readiness for college, 
     career, and life. The Council urges a NO vote on H.R. 5 and 
     encourages Congress to develop legislation that will help our 
     districts and school communities reach these goals.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Raymond Hart,
                                               Executive Director.

  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, it has been a pleasure to work on the Parents Bill of 
Rights Act. While working on this bill, I have heard from parents' 
groups who offered their support. I would like to mention what just a 
few of them said.
  The Independent Women's Voice wrote: ``The Parents Bill of Rights Act 
acknowledges parents' fundamental right to make decisions for their 
children.''
  ``Parents do not simply turn children over to government schools with 
the assumption that the school will make every decision without 
parental input. As parents, we have a right to direct the upbringing, 
care, and education of our children.''
  The Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee said: 
``Americans have been awakened to the troubling fact that public 
schools are failing our children. The lack of educational standards 
combined with the radical ideologies being taught in the classroom have 
led more and more parents to question the public education system. . . 
. This act reasserts the proper role of parents in their children's 
education.''
  Finally, Parents Defending Education Action said: ``There is an 
intentional and universal lack of transparency and accountability among 
school districts. Concerning incidents

[[Page H1369]]

are major and widespread. . . . The Parents Bill of Rights Act, 
introduced by Congresswoman Julia Letlow, addresses the primary issues 
parents have vocalized over the last 2 years: academics, free speech, 
safety, fairness, and transparency. We hope Congress will be receptive 
to the Parents Bill of Rights Act and vindicate parents who have spoken 
up and yearn for such legislation.''
  After hearing statements like this, it should be clear that this bill 
gives parents what they want. Polling shows that overwhelming 
majorities of parents want more control over what their children are 
taught. According to survey results, 72 percent of Americans support 
curriculum transparency. Additionally, 67 percent believe that parents 
should be able to opt their children out of curriculum they believe is 
inappropriate or harmful. Nearly 8 in 10 parents polled nationally want 
to have influence over what is taught in K-12 classrooms.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes), a former teacher of the 
year.
  Mrs. HAYES. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5, the 
politics over parents act.
  One of the most dangerous provisions of this bill is the banning of 
books. Across our Nation, books that illustrate our rich history and 
our diversity are being pulled from library shelves. According to PEN 
American's ``Index of School Book Bans,'' of the 2,500 books banned 
last year, 41 percent of these books explicitly address LGBTQ themes, 
and 40 percent contain prominent characters of color.
  My colleagues across the aisle say that nothing in this legislation 
will ban books or censor libraries. If this is true, I invite them to 
support my amendment, which ensures this legislation will not go into 
effect until the Comptroller General of the United States can confirm 
that the bill will not lead to censorship or banning books for children 
or affect learning outcomes for students.
  Throughout history, the voices of women, persons of color, and 
members of the LGBTQ community have been suppressed. Their voices, 
experiences, and stories have been labeled controversial, oversexual, 
and even un-American.
  As a teacher, you do not get to pick the parts of history you deem 
worthy to teach. When I was a teacher, I told the entire story 
honestly, the good and the bad, and gave students the tools that they 
needed to participate in their communities in a conscientious and 
productive way.
  I will tell you a personal story. My son is currently reading ``To 
Kill a Mockingbird,'' one of the books on this list of banned books. In 
his initial observation of this book, he said: ``Mom, they use the n-
word a lot.'' I mean, a lot, and I don't like it, but it opened the 
door to broader conversations between me and my son about segregation 
and Jim Crow laws, and it led him to ask some very difficult questions 
of me.
  In his final observation of Harper Lee's novel, he said: ``But yet 
and still, Atticus Finch defended Tom Robinson.'' Through this complex 
story, his takeaway was not hateful, hurtful, or angry. It was that, 
even then, good people existed.
  That is what books do. That is how kids learn, not through 
censorship.
  Teachers do not have the autonomy to indoctrinate students. 
Everything we are talking about here today is already published. 
Budgets are public. Curriculums are public. Parents are marching in, 
being a part of our classes.
  When I was introduced by the ranking member, he mentioned that I was 
the National Teacher of the Year. That doesn't happen without parent-
teacher partnerships.
  This bill will not improve educational outcomes. This bill caters to 
a small group of individuals who seek to impose their world views on 
entire school districts, on my child.
  Madam Chair, I strongly encourage my colleagues to oppose this bill, 
and I include in the Record the text of my amendment.
       Mrs. Hayes of Connecticut moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5 
     to the Committee on Education and the Workforce with 
     instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith, 
     with the following amendment:
       Add at the end the following:

                       TITLE VII--EFFECTIVE DATE

     SEC. 701. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall not 
     take effect until the Comptroller General of the United 
     States--
       (1) makes a determination that this Act will not--
       (A) result in the banning or censorship of books for 
     children attending public elementary and secondary schools; 
     or
       (B) negatively affect learning outcomes for such children; 
     and
       (2) submits notice of such determination to Congress.

  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Madam Chair, I am going to say again and again and again and again, 
this bill does not do anything to ban books.
  My understanding is that the book ``To Kill a Mockingbird'' was 
banned by a liberal school board in California, so don't blame us for 
what liberals do.
  Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Williams).
  Mr. WILLIAMS of New York. Madam Chair, let's lay out the fundamental 
rights of parents. That is what we are discussing here today.
  Number one, every parent should be given a choice and a voice on how 
their child receives an education.
  Number two, school curriculum should not be used to politically 
indoctrinate our children.
  Number three, parents deserve options. They deserve a choice on how 
their child receives an education.
  In my family, my wife and I made a personal decision to homeschool 
our children. Every parent should be free to make that choice, not just 
the wealthy ones.
  What is the parents bill of rights? What are the pillars of this 
bill?
  Parents deserve the right to know what is being taught in schools and 
to see the reading material. It is very simple.
  Parents deserve to be heard.
  Parents deserve the right to see where the taxpayer dollars are 
going, how they are spent, and how they are being used. It is a 
fundamental principle of good governance.
  Parents have the right to protect their children, to protect their 
children's privacy.
  Parents absolutely should be updated and informed in the instances of 
violence that seem to be increasing in our schools, many of which go 
unreported.
  I am very honored to be a member of the House Committee on Education 
and the Workforce and to support this bill, to support parents, and to 
support parents' rights, particularly that our children get the best 
possible education. This is a significant step forward.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chair, I want to get back to something that was said a little 
earlier because it is a little disturbing the way this legislation, a 
notice of rights--that people have a right to information about their 
child, their child, their child. You have a right to notice before a 
person speaks to their child at a class, school assembly, or any other 
school-sponsored event.
  If you have a field trip, I guess you have a right to notice before 
anybody at the museum can speak to your child. But under subsection L, 
it says you have: ``the right to know if a school employee or 
contractor acts to change a minor child's gender markers, pronouns, or 
preferred name. . . .''
  That means any child--if any teacher addresses any child, everybody 
has a right to notice if they change their minor child's gender 
markers, pronouns, or preferred name. I think that is concerning. I 
don't know what is meant by that, but that is the way it reads.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Kiley), a member of the committee.
  Mr. KILEY. Madam Chair, as we speak, a half million California 
students are locked out of school. Los Angeles Unified, America's 
second largest district, has shut down for the week. Taxpaying parents 
in this district have no place to send their kids to school.

[[Page H1370]]

  Sadly, they have had to get used to it. This dysfunctional district 
and its union have lurched from one strike, one shutdown to the next, 
and seized on COVID-19 as a golden opportunity to close schools 
indefinitely. Kids in LA were without in-person instruction longer than 
anywhere in the country, a year and a half for most students.
  Even when some high schools resumed, students walked into a 
Kafkaesque Zoom in the room setup where there were a few students and a 
teacher there instructing from a laptop sitting on a desk in the 
classroom. The eventual resumption of classes was anything but normal. 
You had kids who were forced to eat lunch on gymnasium floors or 
outside, even when it was raining. They would have to wear masks all 
day every day without any public health rationale. The district then 
imposed an illegal student vaccine mandate that the California courts 
had to intervene and strike down.
  By the way, this was a failing school district even before COVID--on 
the brink of bankruptcy, with students testing several years behind 
grade level.
  The hundreds of thousands of parents in this school district have 
been subjected to one abuse after another. Their experience is shared 
by many parents across the country who have lost the right to control 
their child's education at the hands of a corrupt education 
establishment driven less by student success than by special interests 
and social agendas.
  Today's Parents Bill of Rights Act is a desperately needed course 
correction, shifting the paradigm of public education in this country 
back toward one that is student-centered and parent-directed.
  My addition to this legislation is the school choice amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, I yield the gentleman from California an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. KILEY. The only parents in Los Angeles whose kids are not at home 
right now are those who have the resources for private school or the 
time and wherewithal to seek out a charter school or limited 
interdistrict transfer options.
  My amendments will enable more parents to do the same, providing a 
clear path to find a school that better serves their child.
  This will not only increase the educational outcomes of particular 
students but induce the sort of systemic change that we need to benefit 
all students.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chair, I include in the Record a list of groups that either 
oppose or express concerns about H.R. 5, over 225 different 
organizations.

List of Groups That Either Oppose or Have Expressed Concerns About H.R. 
                                   5

       AASA, The School Superintendents Association; All4Ed; 
     American Federation of Teachers (AFT); American Library 
     Association (ALA); A Way Home America; AACTE (American 
     Association of Colleges for Teacher Education); Act To Change 
     Advocacy Institute; Advocates for Youth; American Association 
     of University Women; American Atheists; American Civil 
     Liberties Union; American Humanist Association; American 
     School Counselor Association; Apiary for Practical Support; 
     Arab American Institute (AAI); Asian Americans Advancing 
     Justice (AAJC); Athlete Ally; Autistic Self Advocacy Network; 
     A Woman's Choice of Charlotte; A Woman's Choice of 
     Greensboro.
       A Woman's Choice of Jacksonville; A Woman's Choice of 
     Raleigh; Acadiana Queer Collective; Aces NYC; Action Together 
     New Jersey; African American Office of Gay Concerns; AIDS 
     Foundation Chicago; Alliance for Quality Education; Arkansas 
     Black Gay Men's Forum; Avow Texas; Bazelon Center for Mental 
     Health Law; Bend the Arc: Jewish Action Campaign for Our 
     Shared Future; Bans Off Miami; Black Californians United for 
     Early Care and Education; Care in Action; Catholics for 
     Choice; Center for American Progress; Center for Applied 
     Transgender Studies; Center for Law and Social Policy 
     (CLASP); Center for LGBTQ Economic Advancement & Research 
     (CLEAR).
       Center Link: The Community of LGBT Centers; Collective 
     Power for Reproductive Justice; Council of Parent Attorneys 
     and Advocates Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund; 
     Campaign for Our Shared Future (COSF); Cato Institute; Center 
     for American Progress (CAP); Campus Pride; Carolina for All; 
     Central Florida Jobs with Justice; Chicago Abortion Fund; 
     Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights; Cobalt; 
     Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund; Democrats for 
     Education Reform DC (DFER DC); Democrats for Education Reform 
     Massachusetts; Democrats for Education Reform New York; 
     Detroit Disability Power; DFER Colorado; Disability Law 
     Center; Donald Patton.
       Dutchess County Progressive Action Alliance; Education 
     Reform Now; Education Trust; EducateUS: SIECUS In Action; 
     Education Leaders of Color (EdLoC); Education Reform Now; 
     Empowering Pacific Islander Communities; End Rape On Campus; 
     Equal Rights Advocates; Equality Federation; Equity Forward 
     Evaluation, Data Integration, and Technical Assistance (EDIT) 
     Program; Education Reform Now; Education Reform Now CT; 
     Education Reform Now Texas; Equality California March; 
     Equality Illinois; Equality South Dakota; Equality Virginia; 
     EqualityMaine; Family Equality.
       Feminist Campus; Fenway Institute; First Focus Campaign for 
     Children; FORGE, Inc.; First Focus Campaign for Children; 
     Faces of Fallen Fathers; FL National Organization for Women; 
     Florida Council of Churches; Florida Health Justice Project; 
     Forever Caring Evonne; Girls Inc.; GLAAD; GLBTQ Legal 
     Advocates and Defenders (GLAD); GLSEN; Grandmothers for 
     Reproductive Rights; Gender Justice; GLSEN New Mexico; 
     Greater Milwaukee Urban League; Greater Orlando National 
     Organization for Women; Hindu American Foundation.
       Hispanic Federation; Houston Area Urban League; Human 
     Rights Campaign; Human Rights First; If/When/How: Lawyering 
     for Reproductive Justice; Impact Fund; In Our Own Voice: 
     National Black Women's Reproductive Justice Agenda; 
     Indivisible; interACT: Advocates for Intersex Youth; 
     Interfaith Alliance; Illinois Families for Public Schools; 
     Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct 
     Organization; Indivisible DuPage Indivisible Georgia 
     Coalition; Indivisible Miami; Japanese American Citizens 
     League; Juvenile Law Center; Jane's Due Process; JASMYN, 
     Inc.; KIPP Public Schools; Lafayette Citizens Against 
     Censorship.
       Latino Memphis; Learning Rights Law Center; Los Angeles 
     LGBT Center; Louisiana Citizens Against Censorship; Louisiana 
     Coalition for Reproductive Freedom; Louisiana Progress; 
     Louisiana Trans Advocates; Labor Council for Latin American 
     Advancement; Lambda Legal; LatinoJustice PRLDEF; Lawyers' 
     Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; Lawyers for Good 
     Government; League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC); 
     Matthew Shepard Foundation; MomsRising; Movement Advancement 
     Project; Maine Parent Federation; Massachusetts Transgender 
     Political Coalition; Mazzoni Center; Memphis Urban League.
       Michigan Alliance for Special Education; Michigan Education 
     Justice Coalition; Missouri Health Care for All; NARAL Pro-
     Choice America; National Association of School Psychologists 
     (NASP); National Black Justice Coalition; National Center for 
     Learning Disabilities (NCSD); National Center for Lesbian 
     Rights; National Center for Parent Leadership, Advocacy, and 
     Community Empowerment (National PLACE); National Center for 
     Transgender Equality; National Center for Youth Law; National 
     Council of Asian Pacific Americans; National Disability 
     Rights Network (NDRN); National Domestic Workers Alliance; 
     National Education Association (NEA); National Employment Law 
     Project; National Hispanic Media Coalition; National LGBT 
     Cancer Network; National Organization for Women; National 
     Parents Union.
       National Urban League; National Women's Law Center; New 
     American Leaders Action Fund; New Generation Equity 
     Oregonizers; NASD; National Council of Jewish Women St. 
     Louis; NJ Community Schools Coalition; North Carolina Justice 
     Center; OutFront Minnesota; OutNebraska; People For the 
     American Way; PFLAG National; Physicians for Reproductive 
     Health; Planned Parenthood Federation of America; Plume 
     Health Public Advocacy for Kids (PAK); Public Citizen; Public 
     Justice; Parent Education Organizing Council; Paterson 
     Alliance; Paterson Education Foundation.
       PAVE (Parents Amplifying Voices in Education); Pride Action 
     Tank; Pro Choice Missouri; Pro-Choice North Carolina; 
     Progress Florida; Queer Northshore; Red Wine & Blue; 
     Reproductive Rights Coalition; Rad Family, a project of North 
     Jersey Pride; Reproductive Freedom Acadiana; Save Our Schools 
     NJ; SHERo Mississippi; Silver State Equality-Nevada; Solid 
     Foundation Youth Outreach; Southern Echo Inc.; St. Tammany 
     Library Alliance; School Board Partners; Sexual Violence 
     Prevention Association (SVPA); SIECUS: Sex Ed for Social 
     Change; Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund 
     (SALDEF).
       SPAN Parent Advocacy Network; SPLC Action Fund; Stand for 
     Children; Schoolhouse Connection; Software & Information 
     Industry Association (SSIA); Tahirih Justice Center; The 
     Advocates for Human Rights; The Arc of the United States; The 
     Council of the Great City Schools; The Education Trust; The 
     Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; The Personal 
     Stories Project; The Sikh Coalition; The Workers Circle; 
     TransAthlete; True Colors United; Trust Women; Third Way; The 
     Ezekiel Project; The Parents' Place of MD.
       The Urban League of Philadelphia; The Womxn Project; Urban 
     League of Greater Pittsburgh; Urban League of Middle 
     Tennessee; UnidosUS; Unitarian Universalist Association; 
     United State of Women (USOW);

[[Page H1371]]

     URGE: Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity; VoteProChoice; 
     Voto Latino; Virginia Coalition of Latino Organization; 
     Wayfinder Foundation; We Testify; Whole Woman's Health; Whole 
     Woman's Health Alliance; Woodhull Freedom Foundation; YWCA 
     USA.

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, I will respond to a comment that my colleague 
on the other side of the aisle mentioned a few minutes ago.
  I point out that the manager's amendment that we will debate 
clarifies the intent of the language the ranking member was reading.
  The manager's amendment makes it clear the school district's 
responsibility is to the parents' child, not any child.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chair, in that case, the individual child will be identified 
and will be, essentially, outed, and that is even worse than the 
underlying language. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Madam Chair, in closing, despite our colleagues' claims, the politics 
over parents act would only further politicize our children's 
classrooms while doing nothing to meaningfully improve partnerships 
between parents and educators. It will lead to censoring books.
  Last night at the Rules Committee, a significant amount of time was 
taken to identify books that ought to be banned, and although the bill 
does not technically, directly censor books, the reporting requirements 
will allow national groups to find books all over the country that they 
don't like, and they could threaten each of those schools--wherever 
they find the book, they can threaten lawsuits unless the book is 
actually banned.
  House Democrats tried several times to ensure that this legislation 
would actually address real challenges facing students, parents, and 
educators, and increase parental involvement.
  For example, Democrats offered amendments to prevent this bill from 
banning books or censoring the curriculum. Moreover, in committee, we 
offered 25 amendments to actually improve student success, such as 
improving access to teacher training, fully fund parent engagement 
centers, and ensure students have access to mental health resources, 
among others. Unfortunately, they were struck down.
  Madam Chair, Democrats are dedicated to improving parental engagement 
and ensuring that every child receives a well-funded and accurate 
education. This legislation does nothing to achieve that goal and would 
only advance an extreme education agenda at the expense of students and 
parents.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 5, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Chair, we have heard a lot about what this bill is going to do 
in the future, and it is all bad from the other side.
  What has been particularly disturbing to me to hear today are 
comments that truly misrepresent what is in the legislation before us. 
That scares the public, and that is not what we should be about.
  This bill is not going to cause people to be mean to schoolchildren. 
It does not attempt to hurt anyone. It is not going to ban books.
  Our colleagues say, on one hand that a list of all the books is 
already available out there to parents, and then they say, this bill is 
going to force those lists to be put out and that will cause the 
banning of books.
  We have heard that books have been banned. In the Rules Committee 
last night, books that they said had been banned inappropriately--those 
assertations were refuted.
  It has been truly troubling, in our committee markup in the Rules 
Committee last night and today, to hear the terrible misrepresentations 
about this bill.
  As my colleagues and I have said, this Parents Bill of Rights Act is 
to help parents be more involved with their children's education, as 
they should be.
  I am urging my colleagues to support H.R. 5, the Parents Bill of 
Rights Act, and by doing so we will send a strong message that parents 
are an integral part of their child's education and must be respected.
  For too long, parents have been kept at a distance in schools and 
classrooms. Teachers' unions and education bureaucrats made significant 
efforts to conceal what was truly being taught in classrooms. What came 
out of COVID was parents saw what was being taught and they didn't like 
it.
  For years, students were falling behind in critical subject areas 
such as mathematics and reading, but prolonged school closures hastened 
the deterioration of learning.
  Now, the Parents Bill of Rights Act will foster robust parent/teacher 
partnerships and close the gap between families and educators. That is 
what this bill is about--setting up true partnerships between families 
and educators.
  We respect educators. We want to support what they are doing in the 
classroom. But parents want to know what is being taught in the 
classroom. We want transparency and we want accountability.
  To recover lost learning and promote a safe learning environment, 
parents must be involved in the classroom. Parents are the best 
advocates for the best interests of their child, and teachers are an 
important part of enhancing the well-being of students.
  I hope our colleagues will not continue to misrepresent what is in 
this bill but will work with us for the benefit of America's children. 
That is what we are about on our side of the aisle, not to hurt, not to 
be mean, but to support.
  Madam Chair, I encourage my colleagues across the aisle to do what is 
best for students, support this important bill.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Chair, when a mother or a father drops their 
child off at school in the morning, they should not have to wonder what 
that child will hear, read, see, or learn that day. Families should 
feel confident in the American education system, and when they sense 
that there is a problem, they deserve the right to have a voice, and 
for that voice to be heard.
  Parents deserve the right to know what is being taught. There are too 
many classrooms in America that take time away from reading, science, 
mathematics, and arts; and give that time to inappropriate, age-
inappropriate explicit sexual education, historically inaccurate 
critical race theory, and fluid gender ideology.
  Parents are the ones most invested in their child's education--you 
will not find someone with more stake in--or more long-term influence 
on--the success of a child, and research continually shows that 
parental involvement yields measurable and consistent success.
  Furthermore, it is our most vulnerable students who often suffer the 
most when schools focus on agendas other than academic success. 
Minority and lower income children are too often trapped in under-
performing schools, vulnerable to the ideological agenda of the left 
infiltrating their curriculum and falling victim to the education 
establishment's monopoly system.
  This important legislation directly identifies and protects the 
rights that parents inherently hold.
  As Chair of the House Values Action Team, as a Representative for the 
Fourth Congressional District of Alabama, and most importantly, as a 
father of two, I support the Parents Bill of Rights and urge its 
passage. This legislation matters, because children matter, and parents 
matter.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5, the 
Politics Over Parents Act. This bill is an attempt by House Republicans 
to attack public education in America and restrict the free exchange of 
ideas that fosters critical thinking. It is part of a harmful, 
nationwide extreme Republican march toward censorship and book bans. 
For example, in the 2021-2022 School Year, the most banned book titles 
included `Beloved' and `The Bluest Eye' by the groundbreaking author 
and Nobel Laureate Toni Morrison--not unlike the way `To Kill a 
Mockingbird' by Harper Lee has been the subject of book bans since the 
1960s.
  This censorship deprives students of opportunities to learn, grow, 
and obtain information from a variety of perspectives. Other types of 
censorship under this bill would deprive students of an accurate and 
fact-based education.
  The strength of America comes from its diversity. But instead of 
delivering the support and resources our schools need, so-called

[[Page H1372]]

``parents' rights'' bills like this empower extremists to impose their 
beliefs on all students and parents.
  My mother worked in a library. She taught me it is important that 
every child in every community has a safe place to learn and grow. 
Democrats are focused on improving public education, making our schools 
safer, and ensuring schools and students have what they need to recover 
from the pandemic.
  This legislation is irresponsible and is yet another divisive 
political stunt by the Republican majority.
  It should be rejected.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce, printed in the bill, it 
shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
amendment under the 5-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.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                                 H.R. 5

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Parents Bill of Rights 
     Act''.

 TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 
                                  1965

     SEC. 101. STATE PLAN ASSURANCES.

       Section 1111(g)(2) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(g)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (M), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (N), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(O) the State will ensure that each local educational 
     agency in the State--
       ``(i) in a case in which the curriculum for an elementary 
     or secondary school grade level is freely and publicly 
     available on the internet--

       ``(I) posts on a publicly accessible website of the agency, 
     such curriculum; or
       ``(II) if such agency does not operate a website, widely 
     disseminates to the public such curriculum; or

       ``(ii) in a case in which the curriculum for an elementary 
     or secondary school grade level is not freely and publicly 
     available on the internet--

       ``(I) posts on a publicly accessible website of the 
     agency--

       ``(aa) a description of such curriculum; and
       ``(bb) information on how parents can review such 
     curriculum as described in section 1112(e)(1)(A); or

       ``(II) if such agency does not operate a website, widely 
     disseminates to the public the description and information 
     described in items (aa) and (bb) of subclause (I); and

       ``(P) in the case of any revisions to the State's 
     challenging State academic standards (including any revisions 
     to the levels of achievement within the State's academic 
     achievement standards), the State educational agency will 
     post to the homepage of its website, and widely disseminate 
     to the public, notice of such revisions and a copy of such 
     revisions, except that the State educational agency shall not 
     be required to submit such notice or such revisions to the 
     Secretary.''.

     SEC. 102. ANNUAL LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY REPORT CARDS.

       Section 1111(h)(2) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(h)(2)) is amended by 
     inserting at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) Budget.--Each local educational agency report card 
     shall include the budget for the school year for which such 
     report card is being prepared (including all revenues and 
     expenditures (including expenditures made to private 
     entities)) for the local educational agency as a whole, and 
     for each elementary school and secondary school served by the 
     local educational agency. In addition to the detailed budget 
     information required under the preceding sentence, the agency 
     shall include a separate fact sheet that summarizes such 
     information in a clear and easily understandable format.''.

     SEC. 103. LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY PLAN ASSURANCES.

       Section 1112(c) of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6312(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) meet the requirements described in section 
     1111(g)(2)(O);
       ``(9) post on a publicly accessible website of the local 
     educational agency or, if the local educational agency does 
     not operate a website, widely disseminate to the public, the 
     plan for carrying out the parent and family engagement 
     described in section 1116 and all policies and procedures 
     that result from such engagement;
       ``(10) ensure that each elementary school served by the 
     local educational agency notifies the parents of any student 
     enrolled at such school when the student does not score as 
     grade-level proficient in reading or language arts at the end 
     of the third grade based on the reading or language arts 
     assessments administered under section 
     1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I)(aa) or another assessment administered to 
     all third grade students by such school; and
       ``(11) ensure that each elementary school and secondary 
     school served by the local educational agency provides to the 
     parents of students enrolled at such school, before a person 
     speaks (in-person or virtually) to such students in a class, 
     school assembly, or any other school-sponsored event, notice 
     that includes the name of the speaker and the name of the 
     organization or other entity being represented by the 
     speaker.''.

     SEC. 104. PARENTS RIGHT-TO-KNOW.

       Section 1112(e) of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6312(e)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) as 
     paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (6), respectively;
       (2) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as so redesignated), 
     the following:
       ``(1) Notice of rights.--A local educational agency 
     receiving funds under this part shall ensure that each 
     elementary school and secondary school served by such agency 
     posts on a publicly accessible website of the school or, if 
     the school does not operate a website, widely disseminates to 
     the public, a summary notice of the right of parents to 
     information about their children's education as required 
     under this Act, which shall be in an understandable format 
     for parents and include, at minimum--
       ``(A) the right to review, and make copies of, at no cost, 
     the curriculum of their child's school;
       ``(B) the right to know if the State alters the State's 
     challenging State academic standards;
       ``(C) the right to meet with each teacher of their child 
     not less than twice during each school year in accordance 
     with paragraph (5)(A);
       ``(D) the right to review the budget, including all 
     revenues and expenditures, of their child's school;
       ``(E) the right to--
       ``(i) a list of the books and other reading materials 
     available in the library of their child's school; and
       ``(ii) inspect such books or other reading materials;
       ``(F) the right to information about all schools in which 
     their child can enroll, including options for enrolling in or 
     transferring to--
       ``(i) other schools served by the local educational agency;
       ``(ii) charter schools; and
       ``(iii) schools served by a different local educational 
     agency in the State;
       ``(G) the right to address the school board of the local 
     educational agency;
       ``(H) the right to information about violent activity in 
     their child's school;
       ``(I) the right to information about any plans to eliminate 
     gifted and talented programs in the child's school;
       ``(J) the right to review any professional development 
     materials;
       ``(K) the right to know if their child is not grade-level 
     proficient in reading or language arts at the end of the 
     third grade as described in subsection (c)(10);
       ``(L) the right to know if a school employee or contractor 
     acts to--
       ``(i) change a minor child's gender markers, pronouns, or 
     preferred name; or
       ``(ii) allow a child to change the child's sex-based 
     accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms;
       ``(M) the right to know if--
       ``(i) a school employee or contractor acts to--

       ``(I) treat, advise, or address the cyberbullying of a 
     student;
       ``(II) treat, advise, or address the bullying or hazing of 
     a student;
       ``(III) treat, advise, or address a student's mental 
     health, suicidal ideation, or instances of self-harm;
       ``(IV) treat, advise, or address a specific threat to the 
     safety of a student;
       ``(V) treat, advise, or address the possession or use of 
     drugs and other controlled substances; or
       ``(VI) treat, advise, or address an eating disorder; or

       ``(ii) a child brings a weapon to school; and
       ``(N) the right to the notice described in subsection 
     (c)(11) before a person speaks (in-person or virtually) to 
     their child in a class, school assembly, or any other school-
     sponsored event.'';
       (3) in paragraph (2)(B) (as redesignated by paragraph 
     (1))--
       (A) by redesignating clause (i) and clause (ii) as 
     subclause (I) and subclause (II), respectively;
       (B) by striking ``(B) Additional information.--'' and 
     inserting:
       ``(B) Additional information.--
       ``(i) In general.--''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) School library.--A local educational agency 
     receiving funds under this part shall

[[Page H1373]]

     ensure that each elementary school and secondary school 
     served by such agency provides the parents of each child who 
     is a student in such school--

       ``(I) at the beginning of each school year, a list of books 
     and other reading materials available in the library of such 
     school; and
       ``(II) the opportunity to inspect such books and other 
     reading materials.

       ``(iii) Violent activity.--A local educational agency 
     receiving funds under this part shall ensure that each 
     elementary school and secondary school served by such agency 
     provides the parents of each child who is a student in such 
     school timely notification of any violent activity occurring 
     on school grounds or at school-sponsored activities in which 
     one or more individuals suffer injuries, except that such 
     notification shall not contain names or the grade level of 
     any students involved in the activity.
       ``(iv) Gifted and talented programs.--A local educational 
     agency receiving funds under this part shall ensure that each 
     elementary school and secondary school served by such agency 
     provides the parents of each child who is a student in such 
     school timely notification of any plan to eliminate gifted 
     and talented programs in such school.''; and
       (4) by inserting after paragraph (4) (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (1)) the following:
       ``(5) Transparency.--A local educational agency receiving 
     funds under this part shall provide the parents of each child 
     who is a student in an elementary school or secondary school 
     served by such agency--
       ``(A)(i) the opportunity to meet in-person or virtually via 
     videoconference with each teacher of such child not less than 
     twice during each school year; and
       ``(ii) a notification, at the beginning of each school 
     year, of the opportunity for such meetings, including the 
     option to attend such meetings virtually via videoconference; 
     and
       ``(B) the opportunity to address the school board of such 
     local educational agency on issues impacting the education of 
     children in such agency.''.

     SEC. 105. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

       Title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 8549C as section 8549D; and
       (2) by inserting after section 8549B the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 8549C. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

       ``(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       ``(1) Parents have a First Amendment right to express their 
     opinions on decisions made by State and local education 
     leaders.
       ``(2) States and local educational agencies should empower 
     parents to communicate regularly with Federal, State, and 
     local policymakers and educators regarding the education and 
     well-being of their children.
       ``(3) Transparent and cooperative relationships between 
     parents and schools have significant and long-lasting 
     positive effects on the development of children.
       ``(4) Parents' concerns over content and pedagogy deserve 
     to be heard and fully considered by school professionals.
       ``(5) Parent and other community input about schools that 
     is presented in a lawful and appropriate manner should always 
     be encouraged.
       ``(6) Educators, policymakers, elected officials, Executive 
     Branch officials and employees, and other stakeholders should 
     never seek to use law enforcement to criminalize the lawfully 
     expressed concerns of parents about their children's 
     education, but should never hesitate to contact public safety 
     officials if there is a credible threat to the safety and 
     security of students, parents, educators, policymakers, 
     elected officials, executive branch officials or employees, 
     or other stakeholders, school faculty, or staff.
       ``(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the First Amendment guarantees parents and other stakeholders 
     the right to assemble and express their opinions on decisions 
     affecting their children and communities, and that educators 
     and policymakers should welcome and encourage that engagement 
     and consider that feedback when making decisions.''.

                 TITLE II--AMENDMENTS TO FERPA AND PPRA

     SEC. 201. AMENDMENTS TO THE FAMILY EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS AND 
                   PRIVACY ACT OF 1974.

       (a) Enforcement.--Section 444(f) of the General Education 
     Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g) (also known as the ``Family 
     Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974'') (20 U.S.C. 
     1232g(f)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
     ``The Secretary shall comply with the reporting requirement 
     under section 445(e)(2)(C)(ii) with respect to the 
     enforcement actions taken under this subsection to ensure 
     compliance with this section.''.
       (b) Prohibition on Educational Agencies or Institutions 
     Acting as an Agent of a Parent.--Section 444 of the General 
     Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g) (also known as the 
     ``Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974'') is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(k) Prohibition on Educational Agencies or Institutions 
     Acting as Agent of a Parent for Use of Technology.--An 
     educational agency or institution may not act as the agent of 
     a parent of a student in attendance at a school of such 
     agency or at such institution for purposes of providing 
     verifiable parental consent for the use of technology in the 
     classroom for purposes of educating the student without 
     providing notice and an opportunity for the parent to object 
     to the use of such technology.
       ``(l) Prohibition on Educational Agencies or Institutions 
     Acting as Agent of a Parent for Vaccines.--An educational 
     agency or institution may not act as the agent of a parent of 
     a student in attendance at a school of such agency or at such 
     institution for purposes of providing verifiable parental 
     consent for a vaccination.''.
       (c) Prohibition on Sale of Information for Commercial 
     Purposes.--Section 444 of the General Education Provisions 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g) (also known as the ``Family Educational 
     Rights and Privacy Act of 1974''), as amended by this 
     section, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(m) Prohibition on Sale of Information for Commercial 
     Purposes.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), no 
     educational agency or institution or authorized 
     representative of such agency or institution may sell student 
     information for commercial or financial gain.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--The prohibition described in paragraph 
     (1) shall not apply to products sold to students by or on 
     behalf of the educational agency or institution, such as 
     yearbooks, prom tickets, and school pictures.''.
       (d) Parental Consultation.--Section 444 of the General 
     Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g) (also known as the 
     ``Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974''), as 
     amended by this section, is further amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(n) Parental Consultation.--In developing a privacy 
     policy or procedure, an educational agency or institution 
     shall engage meaningfully with parents of students in 
     attendance at the schools served by such agency or 
     institution.''.
       (e) Disclosure of Information.--Section 444 of the General 
     Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g) (also known as the 
     ``Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974''), as 
     amended by this section, is further amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(o) Disclosure of Information.--An educational agency or 
     institution or authorized representative of such agency or 
     institution shall, upon request from a parent of a student, 
     disclose to such parent the identity of any individual or 
     entity with whom information is shared from the education 
     record of the student or any response of the student to a 
     survey.''.

     SEC. 202. PROTECTION OF PUPIL RIGHTS.

       (a) Availability for Inspection by Parents or Guardians.--
     Section 445(a) of the General Education Provisions Act (20 
     U.S.C. 1232h(a)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Availability for Inspection by Parents or 
     Guardians.--A local educational agency (as such term is 
     defined in subsection (c)(6)(C)) that receives funds under 
     any applicable program shall ensure the following:
       ``(1) Information available.--Each of the following shall 
     be available for inspection by the parents or guardians of 
     the children in attendance at the schools served by such 
     agency, and the availability of each of the following for 
     inspection shall not be conditioned on any requirement that 
     such parents or guardians sign a nondisclosure agreement:
       ``(A) All instructional materials, including teacher's 
     manuals, films, tapes, or other supplementary material which 
     will be used in such school or in connection with any survey, 
     analysis, or evaluation.
       ``(B) Any books or other reading materials made available 
     to students in such school or through the school library of 
     such school.
       ``(C) Any professional development materials.
       ``(2) Comment periods for parents.--
       ``(A) In general.--The agency shall provide comment periods 
     during which parents or guardians of the children in 
     attendance at the schools served by the agency may inspect 
     and provide feedback on any of the materials referred to in 
     paragraph (1) that--
       ``(i) are expected to be used to teach such children during 
     the three weeks following the comment period; or
       ``(ii) were used to teach such children during preceding 
     portions of the school year.
       ``(B) Frequency and duration.--The comment periods 
     described in subparagraph (A) shall be held not less 
     frequently than once every three weeks during the school year 
     and each comment period shall be not less than three school 
     days in duration.''.
       (b) Single Issue Notification.--Section 445(b) of the 
     General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232h) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``prior consent of the student'' and 
     inserting ``prior written consent of the student''; and
       (2) by inserting ``, which is provided specifically for 
     such survey, analysis, or evaluation'' before the period at 
     the end.
       (c) Development and Adoption of Local Policies.--Section 
     445(c) of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 
     1232h(c)) is amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Physical'' and 
     inserting ``Medical'';
       (2) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``in consultation with parents'' and inserting ``in 
     consultation with parents in accordance with paragraph 
     (2)(A)'';
       (B) in subparagraph (C), by amending clause (i) to read as 
     follows:

[[Page H1374]]

       ``(i) The right of a parent of a student to inspect, upon 
     the request of the parent, any instructional material used as 
     part of the educational curriculum for the student, and any 
     books or other reading materials made available to the 
     student in a school served by the agency or through the 
     school library; and'';
       (C) by amending subparagraph (D) to read as follows:
       ``(D) The administration of medical examinations or 
     screenings that the school or agency may administer to a 
     student, including--
       ``(i) prior notice to parents of such a medical examination 
     or screening, and receipt of consent from parents before 
     administering such an examination or screening; and
       ``(ii) in the event of an emergency that requires a medical 
     examination or screening without time for parental 
     notification and consent, the procedure for promptly 
     notifying parents of such examination or screening subsequent 
     to such examination or screening.''; and
       (D) by amending subparagraph (E) to read as follows:
       ``(E) The prohibition on the collection, disclosure, or use 
     of personal information collected from students for the 
     purpose of marketing or for selling that information (or 
     otherwise providing that information to others for that 
     purpose), other than for a legitimate educational purpose to 
     improve the education of students as described in paragraph 
     (4), and the arrangements to protect student privacy that are 
     provided by the agency in the event of such collection, 
     disclosure, or use for such a legitimate educational 
     purpose.''.
       (d) Parental Notification.--Paragraph (2) of section 445(c) 
     of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232h(c)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in the paragraph heading, by inserting ``consultation 
     and'' before ``notification'';
       (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (C) as 
     subparagraphs (B) through (D), respectively;
       (3) in subparagraph (B) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) by amending clause (ii) to read as follows:
       ``(ii) in the case of an activity described in clause (i) 
     or (iii) of subparagraph (D), offer an opportunity and clear 
     instructions for the parent (or in the case of a student who 
     is an adult or emancipated minor, the student) to opt the 
     student out of participation in such activity;''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) in the case of an activity described in 
     subparagraph (D)(i), a description of how such activity is 
     for a legitimate educational purpose to improve the education 
     of students as described in paragraph (4); and
       ``(iv) not require a student to submit to a survey 
     described in subparagraph (D)(ii) without the prior written 
     consent of the student (if the student is an adult or 
     emancipated minor), or in the case of an unemancipated minor, 
     without the prior written consent of the parent, which is 
     provided specifically for such survey.'';
       (4) by inserting before subparagraph (B) (as so amended and 
     redesignated), the following:
       ``(A) Parental consultation.--The parental consultation 
     required for the purpose of developing and adopting policies 
     under paragraphs (1) and (3) by a local educational agency 
     shall ensure that such policy is developed with meaningful 
     engagement by parents of students enrolled in schools served 
     by that agency.''; and
       (5) in subparagraph (D) (as redesignated by paragraph 
     (2))--
       (A) by amending clause (i) to read as follows:
       ``(i) Activities involving the collection, disclosure, or 
     use of personal information collected from students for a 
     legitimate educational purpose to improve the education of 
     students as described in paragraph (4).''; and
       (B) in clause (iii), by striking ``invasive physical'' and 
     inserting ``medical''.
       (e) Updates to Existing Policies.--Paragraph (3) of section 
     445(c) of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 
     1232h(c)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) Updates to existing policies.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of the Parents Bill of Rights Act, a local 
     educational agency that receives funds under any applicable 
     program shall--
       ``(i) review policies covering the requirements of 
     paragraph (1) as in effect on the day before such date of 
     enactment; and
       ``(ii) develop and update such policies to reflect the 
     changes made to paragraph (1) by the amendments made by the 
     Parents Bill of Rights Act.
       ``(B) Consultation and notification.--In developing and 
     updating the policies under subparagraph (A), the agency 
     shall comply with the consultation and notification 
     requirements under paragraph (2).''.
       (f) Exceptions.--Paragraph (4)(A) of section 445(c) of the 
     General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232h(c)) is 
     amended by amending the matter preceding clause (i) to read 
     as follows:
       ``(A) Educational products or services.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (1)(E), the collection, disclosure, or use of 
     personal information collected from students for a legitimate 
     educational purpose to improve the education of students 
     means the exclusive purpose of developing, evaluating, or 
     providing educational products or services for, or to, 
     students or schools, such as the following:''.
       (g) Definitions.--Paragraph (6) of section 445(c) of the 
     General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232h(c)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
       ``(B) Medical examination or screening.--The term `medical 
     examination or screening' means any medical examination or 
     screening that involves the exposure of private body parts, 
     or any act during such examination or screening that includes 
     incision, insertion, or injection into the body, or a mental 
     health or substance use disorder screening, except that such 
     term does not include a hearing, vision, or scoliosis 
     screening, or an observational screening carried out to 
     comply with child find obligations under the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.).''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (E)--
       (A) in clause (iii), by striking ``or'';
       (B) in clause (iv), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(v) an email address.''.
       (h) Enforcement and Reporting.--Subsection (e) of section 
     445 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232h) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(e) Enforcement and Reporting.--
       ``(1) Enforcement.--The Secretary shall take such action as 
     the Secretary determines appropriate to enforce this section, 
     except that action to terminate assistance provided under an 
     applicable program shall be taken only if the Secretary 
     determines that--
       ``(A) there has been a failure to comply with such section; 
     and
       ``(B) compliance with such section cannot be secured by 
     voluntary means.
       ``(2) Reporting.--
       ``(A) Local educational agencies.--On an annual basis, each 
     local educational agency (as such term is defined in 
     subsection (c)(6)(C)) that receives funds under any 
     applicable program shall--
       ``(i) without identifying any personal information of a 
     student or students, 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
       ``(ii) publish such information on its website or through 
     other public means used for parental notification if the 
     agency does not have a website.
       ``(B) States.--On an annual basis, each State educational 
     agency shall provide to the Secretary a report, with respect 
     to the preceding school year, that includes all actions local 
     educational agencies have reported under subparagraph (A), 
     and a description of the enforcement actions the State 
     educational agency took to ensure parents' rights were 
     protected.
       ``(C) Secretary.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of the Parents Bill of Rights Act, and annually 
     thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
     of the Senate--
       ``(i) the reports received under subparagraph (B); and
       ``(ii) a description of the enforcement actions taken by 
     the Secretary under this subsection and section 444(f) to 
     ensure full compliance with this section and section 444, 
     respectively.''.

      TITLE III--PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT IN CURRICULUM

     SEC. 301. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act may be construed to authorize any 
     department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States 
     to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the 
     curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or 
     personnel of any educational institution, school, or school 
     system.

TITLE IV--GENDER MARKERS, PRONOUNS, AND PREFERRED NAMES ON SCHOOL FORMS

     SEC. 401. REQUIREMENT RELATED TO GENDER MARKERS, PRONOUNS, 
                   AND PREFERRED NAMES ON SCHOOL FORMS.

       As a condition of receiving Federal funds, any elementary 
     school (as such term is defined in section 8101 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7801)) or school that consists of only middle grades (as such 
     term is defined in such section), that receives Federal funds 
     shall be required to obtain parental consent before--
       (1) changing a minor child's gender markers, pronouns, or 
     preferred name on any school form; or
       (2) allowing a child to change the child's sex-based 
     accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms.

                  TITLE V--ACCESS TO SCHOOL BROADBAND

     SEC. 501. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that all public elementary and 
     public secondary school students should have access to 
     broadband.

                      TITLE VI--SENSE OF CONGRESS

     SEC. 601. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that all public elementary 
     school and secondary school students should have 
     opportunities to learn the history of the Holocaust and anti-
     Semitism.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except

[[Page H1375]]

those printed in House Report 118-12. Each such amendment may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report, by the 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.

                              {time}  1630


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Bacon

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 118-12.
  Mr. BACON. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 9, line 4, strike ``and'' at the end.
       Page 9, line 9, strike the period, closed quotation mark, 
     and semicolon and insert ``; and''.
       Page 9, after line 9, insert the following:
       ``(O) the right to be informed of the total number of 
     school counselors in their child's school.''.
       Page 11, line 4, strike the closed quotation mark and ``; 
     and''.
       Page 11, after line 4, insert the following new clause:
       ``(v) School counselors.--A local educational agency 
     receiving funds under this part shall ensure that each 
     elementary school and secondary school served by such agency 
     provides the parents of each child who is a student in such 
     school the information described in paragraph (1)(O).''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution No. 241, the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. BACON. Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 5 that 
supports students, parents, and school personnel. My amendment would 
simply add that local education agencies provide to parents the number 
of school counselors employed at their child's school so that parents 
have a better idea about their child's education and safety during the 
school day.
  As we all know, school counselors play an important role not only in 
the academic and career development of our students, but they address 
emotional challenges that are a critical component of safety in our 
schools. This simple provision gives parents the full knowledge and 
transparency needed to decide if their children need additional 
resources outside of the academic environment. This can assist our 
educators in making sure our children are best prepared for school and 
learning.
  So, Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment which 
has support from both sides of the aisle. A happy and healthy student 
empowers our educators to provide the best possible education, and 
parents deserve to be empowered to best help their children achieve 
that.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, as with most of the underlying 
bill, this is yet another unfunded mandate placed on our schools 
requiring them to issue yet another report as a condition of receiving 
much-needed title I funds.
  The majority would prefer to impose additional burdens to already 
understaffed schools rather than do what they were trained to do, and 
that is teach and work with parents.
  I would agree with the gentleman's comments about the need for 
counselors. He is absolutely right. We need more counselors. However, 
this amendment does not increase the number of counselors. It just 
reports the number they have. It doesn't improve students' mental 
health.
  So for those reasons, Madam Chair, since it doesn't improve mental 
health or increase the number of counselors, I oppose the amendment, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BACON. Madam Chair, this amendment doesn't increase the number of 
counselors, but it allows the parents to know if the number of 
counselors is adequate or not. This is very important for our parents 
to have.
  This is being requested by teachers and parents. I have received this 
request from teachers and parents to have this added to the bill 
because they said it will make the bill better.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BACON. Madam Chair, I will close by saying that I would 
appreciate the support of both sides of the aisle. This bill has 
support from teachers and parents to have this added in.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Foxx

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 118-12.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 6, line 13, insert after ``right'' the following: 
     ``(provided in accordance with the requirements of section 
     445(a)(2) of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 
     1232h(a)(2)) with respect to such local educational 
     agency)''.
       Page 11, line 4, strike the closed quotes, and ``; and'', 
     and insert the following:
       ``(v) Enrollment options.--A local educational agency 
     receiving funds under this part shall ensure that each 
     elementary school and secondary school served by such agency 
     provides the parents of each child who is a student in such 
     school the information described in paragraph (1)(F), 
     including the enrollment and transfer options described in 
     such paragraph.
       ``(vi) School employee or contractor actions.--A local 
     educational agency receiving funds under this part shall 
     ensure that each elementary school and secondary school 
     served by such agency notifies the parents of any child who 
     is a student in such school if a school employee or 
     contractor takes, with respect to such child, any action 
     described in clause (i) or (ii) of paragraph (1)(L).
       ``(vii) School and student safety.--A local educational 
     agency receiving funds under this part shall ensure that each 
     elementary school and secondary school served by such agency 
     notifies--

       ``(I) the parents of any child who is a student in such 
     school if a school employee or contractor takes, with respect 
     to such child, any action described in clause (i) of 
     paragraph (1)(M); and
       ``(II) the parents of each child who is a student in such 
     school if any child takes the action described in clause (ii) 
     of paragraph (1)(M).

       ``(viii) Professional development materials.--A local 
     educational agency receiving funds under this part shall 
     ensure that each elementary school and secondary school 
     served by such agency provides the parents of each child who 
     is a student in such school the opportunity to review 
     professional development materials to ensure the parental 
     right described in paragraph (1)(J); and''.
       Page 12, line 3, strike ``Title VIII'' and insert the 
     following:
       (a) In General.--Title VIII
       Page 13, after line 21, insert the following:
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents in section 2 
     of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking the item relating to section 8549C; and
       (2) by inserting after the item relating to section 8549B 
     the following:
Sec. 8549C. Sense of Congress on First Amendment Rights.
Sec. 8549D. Technical assistance.
       Page 12, after line 11, insert the following new paragraph, 
     and redesignate the succeeding paragraphs accordingly:
       ``(1) The right of parents to educate their children is a 
     pre-political natural right that the U.S. Supreme Court has 
     recognized as `beyond debate' and rooted in the `history and 
     culture of Western civilization'.''.
       Page 13, strike lines 15 through 21, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress 
     that--
       ``(1) the First Amendment guarantees parents and other 
     stakeholders the right to assemble and express their opinions 
     on decisions affecting their children and communities, and 
     that educators and policymakers should welcome and encourage 
     that engagement and consider that feedback when making 
     decisions; and
       ``(2) parents have a fundamental right, protected by the 
     U.S. Constitution, to direct the education of their children, 
     and the strict scrutiny test used by courts to evaluate cases 
     concerning fundamental rights is the correct standard of 
     review for government actions that interfere with the right 
     of parents to educate their children.''.
       Page 28, line 22, insert ``from the Department of 
     Education'' after ``Federal funds''.
       Page 29, line 2, insert ``such'' before ``Federal funds''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution No. 241, the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx)

[[Page H1376]]

and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, it has been a pleasure to support the Parents 
Bill of Rights Act. I am especially proud of the work that our 
committee has put into crafting this bill.
  Our committee worked late into the night and early morning and 
considered dozens of amendments. Nearly 20 were adopted to make the 
bill even better. I am proud that we have reported to the floor a 
commonsense bill that has broad support and aligns with what the vast 
majority of Americans want.
  The amendments we passed during the committee markup accomplished the 
same goal we had when writing the bill: protecting parents' rights and 
making sure that schools can never cut parents out of their children's 
education decisions.
  This manager's amendment makes a few minor technical changes to make 
sure that the amendments we passed during the committee markup will be 
implemented correctly and that the rights promised are fulfilled.
  In addition, the manager's amendment adds language to the First 
Amendment's sense of Congress included in the underlying bill. The new 
language affirms the fundamental rights of parents to direct the 
education of their children and encourages courts to use the strict 
scrutiny standard in evaluating cases related to parental rights.
  Schools should always be accountable to parents, and the parents 
should always know what their children are being taught and what their 
children are being exposed to. The Parents Bill of Rights Act protects 
those fundamental rights.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of both this 
amendment and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, this is another effort to turn 
classrooms into the epicenter of a culture war. The politics over 
parents act doesn't do anything to actually help students succeed and 
seeks to scare parents into thinking that schools do not have their 
best interests at heart. Children benefit when their parents and 
teachers work together, but the politics over parents act would not 
take any meaningful steps to increase that parental cooperation.
  The bill would create necessary and burdensome reporting requirements 
on schools. It would divert essential resources and personnel from 
their jobs, meeting the family's real needs into reporting and 
everything else in the bill, and it would open the door to dictating 
what students can and cannot read or learn.
  The underlying bill distracts from what our public schools really 
need. Similarly, the manager's amendment does nothing to provide the 
families with real parental engagement as some of the amendments would 
have done that were rejected.
  The bill, for example, gives a so-called Federal right of action to 
address the school board. We know that many school boards in recent 
years needed police protection to conduct their meetings because of 
credible threats of violence. These are elected officials. They don't 
need a Federal law to instruct them to be polite. The voters can take 
care of that. There is no right that is being given. We already have 
the right.
  Now, one thing that is a little concerning is that I had an amendment 
to allow this right to take place with reasonable limitations.
  If 100 people show up at a school board meeting, does the school 
board have to listen to each and every one as long as they want to 
speak without any limitation?
  Each one has a Federal right of action where they can bring a lawsuit 
to compel the school board to sit up and listen to each and every one 
without limitation.
  If they have heard from 10 or 15 or 20 people on one side of the 
argument or one side of a debate and nobody on the other side, then do 
they have to listen to the other 80?
  I don't know. That is what the bill suggests. I don't know any 
jurisdiction where you don't have the right to address the school board 
in a reasonable way, and that is what this bill does and that is what 
the manager's amendment does.
  Madam Chair, I ask Members to defeat the manager's amendment and the 
bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, the gentleman from Virginia I think will 
remember that I believe it was in the Loudoun County Public Schools 
where the father of a child who had been sexually molested in a 
bathroom by a young boy dressed as a girl who then was transferred to 
another school, and the parents were never notified that this had 
happened, when the father stood up at the school board meeting to bring 
this issue up, he was not allowed to speak. Furthermore, he was 
arrested. He was wrestled to the ground and arrested.
  So, again, we hear from our colleagues two different scenarios: one, 
well, parents already have the right to address their school boards. 
Yes. That is in our First Amendment. We have the right to petition our 
elected officials for grievances. However, that is not happening as we 
have seen in certain places.
  Whether or not there is a time limit, I would hope that people would 
be reasonable about that, but we are not dictating that. That will be 
dealt with. As the gentleman says, those school board members in most 
cases are elected, and it will be up to them to deal with the public in 
that respect. If they don't do it correctly, then my assumption is that 
there will be consequences.
  Madam Chair, the manager's amendment, again, strengthens the 
underlying bill, I urge its adoption, and I also urge passage of H.R. 
5.
  With this legislation we have an opportunity to make a stand for the 
rights of parents. I hope all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
will vote with what they say they believe, which is that parents have 
rights and that we want to have the best education for children.
  Madam Chair, join us in this effort, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mrs. Boebert

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report No. 118-12.
  Mrs. BOEBERT. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 9, line 4, strike ``and''.
       Page 9, line 9, strike the semicolon, closed quotation 
     marks, and period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 9, after line 9, insert the following:
       ``(O) the right to know if their child's school operates, 
     sponsors, or facilitates athletic programs or activities that 
     permit an individual whose biological sex is male to 
     participate in an athletic program or activity that is 
     designated for individuals whose biological sex is female.''.
       Page 11, line 4, strike the closed quotation marks and ``; 
     and''.
       Page 11, after line 4, insert the following:
       ``(v) Athletic programs or activities.--A local educational 
     agency receiving funds under this part shall ensure that each 
     elementary school and secondary school served by such agency 
     provides the parents of each child who is a student in such 
     school the information described in paragraph (1)(O).''; and

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution No. 241, the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. BOEBERT. Madam Chair, this amendment is simple and 
straightforward. My amendment simply requires notification to parents 
if their child's school operates, sponsors, or facilitates athletic 
programs or activities to permit a person whose biological sex is male 
to participate in an athletic program or activity that is designated 
for biological females.
  Madam Chair, women's sports are under attack. Woke policies backed by 
far-left extremists who demand male participation in female sports are 
completely delusional and contradict

[[Page H1377]]

science. This allows men who identify as women to undermine legitimate 
women's accomplishments. American women and girls deserve to compete 
against biological women in sports, opportunities for athletic 
scholarships, and their rightful places on the winner's podium without 
the fear of being sidelined and beat out by a biological male.
  This was on complete display when William Thomas, a biological man 
who previously competed in men's swimming, stole Emma Weyant's first-
place trophy at the 2022 NCAA Division I Women's 500-Yard Freestyle 
Final.

                              {time}  1645

  As a competitor in men's swimming from 2018 through 2019, Mr. Thomas 
ranked 554th in the 200-yard freestyle and 65th in the 500-yard 
freestyle. After deciding to compete against women, this mediocre male 
athlete, Mr. Thomas, ranked fifth in the 200-yard freestyle and won the 
500-yard freestyle.
  Mr. Thomas stole Emma's championship trophy and took former Olympic 
swimmer Reka Gyorgy's spot in the 2022 NCAA Division I swim meet.
  Last Congress, I led a couple of dozen Members in introducing a 
resolution honoring Emma Weyant as the rightful winner of the 2022 NCAA 
Division I women's 500-yard freestyle race.
  I am also a cosponsor of Representative Steube's bill, H.R. 734, the 
Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2023.
  Madam Chair, I refuse to allow our children and grandchildren to be 
groomed by big corporations, schools, and politicians and to think it 
is okay for men to compete in women's sports.
  Again, my amendment simply requires notification to parents if their 
child's school allows males to participate in female-designated sports. 
I hope that we could all come to agree that parents have the right to 
know this before it occurs.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, all school systems are members of 
athletic leagues. They are dealing with this controversy. They don't 
need a Federal law to apply all over the country. In higher education, 
the NCAA is dealing with this.
  We don't need a Federal law to tell local school divisions what to do 
in all cases. Local school divisions are dealing with this.
  This is controversial, and I think we would do well just to let them 
work this out.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BOEBERT. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Chair, we have so many people who see the idiocy in men 
pretending to be women and stealing opportunities from females. These 
girls practice their whole lives and sacrifice their bodies with 
strains and other injuries in sports at times only to be outpaced by a 
biological male. I think it is very common sense for parents to simply 
be notified that this is taking place.
  There is Federal funding going to our public schools. If we are going 
to see this extremism take place in our public schools, I believe we 
have some sort of nexus with that to at least say parents have a right 
to know what is going on and that it is not being taken from them.
  Other than this very simple, commonsense amendment, I am more in 
favor of abolishing the Federal Department of Education and getting the 
Federal Government completely out of public schools, but we are not 
there right now. We do fund public schools, and there is a mess going 
on there. Our children are hurting and suffering because of it.
  Madam Chair, again, I urge my colleagues to support this simple, 
commonsense amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, did the gentlewoman yield back 
her time?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Colorado yielded back the 
remainder of her time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, as I said, the NCAA is working on 
this, and I just assume rather than disparage trans youth, let them 
work it out.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mrs. Boebert

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 118-12.
  Mrs. BOEBERT. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 9, line 4, strike ``and''.
       Page 9, line 9, strike the semicolon, closed quotation 
     marks, and period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 9, after line 9, insert the following:
       ``(O) the right to know if their child's school allows an 
     individual whose biological sex is male to use restrooms or 
     changing rooms designated for individuals whose biological 
     sex is female.''.
       Page 11, line 4, strike the closed quotation marks and ``; 
     and''.
       Page 11, after line 4, insert the following:
       ``(v) Accommodations.--A local educational agency receiving 
     funds under this part shall ensure that each elementary 
     school and secondary school served by such agency provides 
     the parents of each child who is a student in such school the 
     information described in paragraph (1)(O).''; and

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 241, the gentlewoman 
from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. BOEBERT. Madam Chair, I rise in favor of my amendment, which 
will require schools to notify parents if they allow biological males 
to use restrooms or changing rooms designated for biological females.
  Throughout our debate today, my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle have continued to mischaracterize this bill as extreme. They harp 
on the same talking points, saying that this bill is looking to ban 
books, censor curriculums, and punish teachers. I would like any 
child's pornographic books to be banned, but that is not exactly what 
we are talking about here in this amendment.
  All the while, under Democrat control, we have seen public K-12 
schools promote: critical race theory, teaching our children to hate 
their country and to hate their fellow classmates simply because of the 
color of their skin; radical gender ideology; and even drag shows to 
impressionable young children. That is what is extreme.
  A school in my home State of Colorado has even changed a child's 
gender pronouns and preferred names and kept that information from the 
child's parents.
  Speaking as the mother of four boys and a soon-to-be grandma, enough 
is enough. I don't send my boys to school to receive indoctrination 
from the woke mob or be sexualized by groomers. If they are, I sure as 
heck want to know about it and have the right to speak up, and so do 
these parents.
  Let me set the record straight. House Republicans want parents to be 
involved in their child's education. We want to take control back as 
parents of our children's education rather than leaving it to partisan 
politicians or unelected bureaucrats. We don't want to send the FBI 
after them as domestic terrorists.
  We want to foster an active learning environment, not shut schools 
down and enforce outdated and unnecessary mask and vaccine mandates on 
our children. We want children to feel safe at school and not pave the 
way for school administrative staff to hide a sexual assault from 
parents, like we saw in Loudoun County.
  Less than 2 years ago, about 30 miles from here, a ninth-grade girl 
was sexually assaulted by a man wearing a skirt in the women's restroom 
at school. This male was allowed to follow the victim into the restroom 
because of Loudoun County Public Schools' inclusive transgender 
bathroom policies.
  When the father of the victim came to a school board meeting to 
protest these policies that caused his teenage daughter to be raped, he 
was arrested after an altercation with a woman who

[[Page H1378]]

said that she didn't believe his daughter was raped. The superintendent 
also defended the school's transgender bathroom policy at that meeting.
  The man in the skirt was found guilty of two counts of forcible 
sodomy, a count of anal sodomy, and a count of forcible fellatio. He 
was also charged with the sexual assault of another student that 
occurred months later at a different Loudoun County school.
  The left's ideology is far more delusional, and it is dangerous. 
These inclusive policies have paved the way for sexual predators to use 
the left's definition of gender to take advantage of their victims. 
Unfortunately, this is just one example of many biological males using 
bathrooms to assault women and children.
  Madam Chair, my amendment would grant parents the right to know if 
schools that their children are attending are forcing their children to 
share vulnerable spaces with potential predators.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I don't think we need a Federal 
law to help schools tell students which bathroom to use.
  In Loudoun County, that situation is under investigation, including 
criminal charges. I think it is time we stop disparaging trans youth.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BOEBERT. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Bonamici

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 118-12.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, I have a substitute amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 1, strike line 1 and all that follows and insert the 
     following:

                  TITLE I--FINDINGS; SENSE OF CONGRESS

     SEC. 101. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Education is fundamental to the development of 
     individual citizens and the progress of the Nation.
       (2) There is a continuing need to ensure equal access for 
     all students to educational opportunities of high quality, 
     and such educational opportunities should not be denied 
     because of race, religion, color, national origin, 
     disability, or sex (including sexual orientation and gender 
     identity).
       (3) Parents have the primary responsibility for the 
     education of their children, and States and localities have 
     the primary responsibility for supporting that parental role.
       (4) In our Federal system, the primary public 
     responsibility for education is reserved respectively to the 
     States and the local school systems and other 
     instrumentalities of the States.
       (5) The importance of education is increasing as new 
     technologies and alternative approaches to traditional 
     education are considered, as society becomes more complex, 
     and as equal opportunities in education and employment are 
     promoted.
       (6) The purposes of the Department of Education include--
       (A) to strengthen the Federal commitment to ensuring access 
     to equal educational opportunity for every individual;
       (B) to supplement and complement the efforts of States, the 
     local school systems and other instrumentalities of the 
     States, the private sector, public and private educational 
     institutions, public and private nonprofit educational 
     research institutions, community-based organizations, 
     parents, and students to improve the quality of education;
       (C) to encourage the increased involvement of the public, 
     parents, and students in Federal education programs;
       (D) to promote improvements in the quality and usefulness 
     of education through federally supported research, 
     evaluation, and sharing of information;
       (E) to improve the coordination of Federal education 
     programs;
       (F) to improve the management and efficiency of Federal 
     education activities, especially with respect to the 
     processes, procedures, and administrative structures for the 
     dispersal of Federal funds, as well as the reduction of 
     unnecessary and duplicative burdens and constraints, 
     including unnecessary paperwork, on the recipients of Federal 
     funds; and
       (G) to increase the accountability of Federal education 
     programs to the President, the Congress, and the public.
       (7) Parents, families, students, educators, and community 
     members are key stakeholders in the public education system 
     and provide valuable input with respect to such education 
     system.
       (8) When parents, families, students, schools, and 
     community members work together, students have better school 
     attendance, earn higher grades and test scores, and have 
     greater long-term success.
       (9) All students deserve an education that helps them 
     develop important life skills and prepares them for success 
     in and beyond the classroom.
       (10) An inclusive education benefits all students, not just 
     by making them feel valued and accepted, but also by helping 
     them build important knowledge and skills that will prepare 
     them for future success and create a safer environment for 
     all students.
       (11) The United States has much to be proud of and learning 
     about the history of our Nation helps students see how far 
     we've come and how they can continue our progress.
       (12) Federal law contains numerous provisions that protect 
     parental rights in elementary and secondary education, 
     including the following:
       (A) Sections 1111(b)(2)(B)(x), 1112(e)(4), and 1116(f) of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6311(b)(2)(B)(x); 6312(e)(4); 6318(f)) give parents the right 
     to receive communications from schools, to the extent 
     practicable, in a language that they can understand.
       (B) Section 1111(d) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(d)) gives parents of 
     children in a school identified for support and improvement 
     the right to be involved in the development of the support 
     and improvement plan for the school to improve student 
     outcomes.
       (C) Section 1111(h) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(h)) gives parents the 
     right to know how their child's school is performing.
       (D) Section 1112(e)(1) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6312(e)(1)), gives parents 
     of children in schools receiving funds under part A of title 
     I of such Act the right to--
       (i) know the professional qualifications of the teachers 
     and paraprofessionals who teach their children;
       (ii) receive information about the level of achievement of 
     their children; and
       (iii) receive notice that their children have been taught 
     for 4 or more consecutive weeks by a teacher who does not 
     meet applicable State certification or licensure 
     requirements.
       (E) Section 1112(e)(2) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6312(e)(2)), gives parents 
     of children in schools receiving funds under part A of title 
     I of such Act the right to information regarding any State or 
     local educational agency policy regarding student 
     participation in any assessments mandated by section 
     1111(b)(2) of such Act and by the State or local educational 
     agency, which must include a policy, procedure, or parental 
     right to opt the child out of such assessments, where 
     applicable.
       (F) Section 1112(e)(3)(A) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6312(e)(3)(A)) gives parents 
     of children identified as English learners and who are 
     participating in a language instruction educational program 
     under title I or title III of such Act the right to receive 
     information with respect to the reasons for that 
     identification, level of English proficiency, methods of 
     instruction, academic needs, exit criteria, individualized 
     education plan objectives, if applicable, and the right to 
     remove their children from the program.
       (G) Section 1112(e)(3)(C) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6312(e)(3)(C)) gives parents 
     of English learners in a local educational agency that 
     receives funds under part A of title I of such Act the right 
     to receive information with respect to how the parents can be 
     involved in the education of their children and be active 
     participants in assisting their children.
       (H) Section 1114(b) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6314(b)) gives parents of 
     children in a school with a schoolwide program plan under 
     title I of such Act the right to be involved in the 
     development of the schoolwide program plan and for the 
     information contained in such plan to be in an understandable 
     and uniform format and, to the extent practicable, provided 
     in a language that the parents can understand.
       (I) Section 1116(a) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6318(a)) gives parents of 
     children in a local educational agency that receives funds 
     under part A of title I of such Act the right to meaningfully 
     participate in the development of a district parent and 
     family engagement policy.
       (J) Section 1116(b) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6318(b)) gives parents of 
     children in a school that receives funds under part A of 
     title I of such Act the right to participate in and approve a 
     written parent and family engagement policy, and to be 
     notified of the policy in an understandable and uniform 
     format and, to the extent practicable, provided in a language 
     that the parents can understand.

[[Page H1379]]

       (K) Section 1116(c) of the Elementary Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6318(c)) gives parents of children in 
     a school that receives funds under part A of title I of such 
     Act the right--
       (i) to attend, at the school's invitation and 
     encouragement, an annual meeting--

       (I) where parents will be informed about the school's 
     participation in part A of title I of such Act;
       (II) that explains the requirements of such part, including 
     that parents have a right to be involved; and
       (III) that discusses parent and family engagement policy;

       (ii) to be involved in the planning, review, and 
     improvement of programs including the school parent and 
     family engagement policy and the joint development of the 
     schoolwide program;
       (iii) timely information about such programs, a description 
     and explanation of the curriculum in use at the school, the 
     forms of academic assessment used to measure student 
     progress, and the achievement levels of the challenging State 
     academic standards; and
       (iv) if requested by parents, opportunities for regular 
     meetings to make suggestions and participate, as appropriate, 
     in decisions relating to the education of their children.
       (L) Section 1116(d) of the Elementary Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6318(d)) gives parents the right to 
     jointly develop with their child's school, if the school 
     receives funds under part A of title I of such Act, a school-
     parent compact that outlines how parents, the school staff, 
     and students will share responsibility for improved student 
     academic achievement and how the school and parents will 
     build and develop a partnership to help the children achieve 
     the State's high standards, including--
       (i) the importance of ongoing communication between 
     teachers and parents through parent-teacher conferences;
       (ii) frequent reports to parents about their children's 
     progress;
       (iii) reasonable access to staff; and
       (iv) opportunities to volunteer and participate in their 
     child's class and observe classroom activities.
       (M) Section 1116(e) of the Elementary Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6318(e)) requires school and local 
     educational agency served under part A of title I of the 
     Act--
       (i) to provide to parents assistance, materials, and 
     training to ensure effective involvement of parents and to 
     support a partnership among the school involved, the parents, 
     and the community to improve student academic achievement;
       (ii) to educate teachers, specialized instructional support 
     personnel, principals, and other school leaders and staff 
     about--

       (I) the value and utility of contributions of parents; and
       (II) how to--

       (aa) reach out to, communicate with, and work with parents 
     as equal partners;
       (bb) implement and coordinate parent programs; and
       (cc) build ties between parents and the school; and
       (iii) to receive information related to school and parent 
     programs, meetings, and other activities in a format and, to 
     the extent practicable, a language the parents can 
     understand.
       (N) Section 1116(g) of the Elementary Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6318(g)) requires schools and local 
     educational agencies in a State operating a Statewide Family 
     Engagement Center under part E of title IV of this Act, to be 
     informed about the existence of the program.
       (O) Section 4001(a) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7101(a)) requires a State, 
     local educational agency, or other entity receiving funds 
     under title IV of such Act to obtain from parents prior 
     written, informed consent for a child under age 18 to 
     participate in any mental health assessment or service that 
     is funded under such title IV of such Act and conducted in 
     connection with an elementary or secondary school under such 
     title of such Act.
       (P) Section 4502 of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7242) authorizes the Secretary of 
     Education to award grants to establish Statewide Family 
     Engagement Centers to carry out parent education and family 
     engagement in education programs, or provide comprehensive 
     training and technical assistance to State educational 
     agencies, local educational agencies, schools identified by 
     State educational and local educational agencies, 
     organizations that support family-school partnerships and 
     other organizations that carry out such programs.
       (Q) Section 8528(a)(2)(A) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7908(a)(2)(A))--
       (i) gives parents of secondary school students the right to 
     submit a written request to their child's local educational 
     agency that receives funds under such Act that their child's 
     name, address, and telephone listing not be released to 
     military recruiters without the prior written consent of the 
     parents; and
       (ii) upon receiving such a request, prohibits the local 
     educational agency from releasing the student's name, 
     address, and telephone listing for such purposes without the 
     prior written consent of the parent.
       (R) Section 8542 of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7922) prohibits the Department of 
     Education from relying on such Act to--
       (i) prohibit a parental determination that a child may 
     travel to or from school on foot or by car, bus, or bike when 
     the parents of the child have given permission; or
       (ii) expose parents to civil or criminal charges for 
     allowing their child to responsibly and safely travel to and 
     from school by a means the parents believe is age 
     appropriate.
       (S) Section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 
     U.S.C. 1232g) gives parents the right, with respect to 
     student education records maintained by educational agencies 
     or institutions, to--
       (i) inspect and review such education records;
       (ii) seek amendment of such education records where they 
     contain information that is inaccurate, misleading, or 
     otherwise in violation of the privacy rights of a student; 
     and
       (iii) with some exceptions, exercise some control over the 
     disclosure of personally identifiable information from such 
     education records.
       (T) Section 445(c)(1) of the General Education Provisions 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 1232h(c)(1)) requires that parents be 
     consulted about the development and adoption of policies by a 
     local educational agency, which is defined for purposes of 
     that subsection to include an elementary school, secondary 
     school, school district, or local board of education that 
     receives funds under an applicable program, to provide 
     parents with the right to inspect, upon request--
       (i) certain surveys;
       (ii) instruments used to collect personal information from 
     students for the purpose of marketing or sale (or otherwise 
     distributing such information for that purpose), with some 
     exceptions; and
       (iii) instructional materials used as part of the 
     educational curriculum for the student.
       (U) Section 445(c)(2) of the General Education Provisions 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 1232h(c)(2)) requires a local educational 
     agency, which is defined for purposes of that subsection to 
     include an elementary school, secondary school, school 
     district, or local board of education that receives funds 
     under an applicable program, to provide parents with advance 
     notice, and an opportunity to opt a student out, of--
       (i) activities involving the collection, disclosure, or use 
     of personal information collected from students for the 
     purpose of marketing or sale (or to otherwise distribute such 
     information to others for that purpose), with some 
     exceptions;
       (ii) non-emergency, invasive physical examination or 
     screening required as a condition of attendance, administered 
     by their school, scheduled by their school in advance, and 
     not necessary to protect the immediate health and safety of a 
     student, with some exceptions; and
       (iii) certain surveys.
       (V) Section 445(b) of the General Education Provisions Act 
     (20 U.S.C. 1232h(b)) gives parents the right to consent 
     before an unemancipated minor student is required to submit 
     to a survey, analysis, or evaluation that is funded by the 
     Department of Education if that survey concerns one or more 
     of the following protected areas--
       (i) political affiliations or beliefs of the student or the 
     student's parent;
       (ii) mental or psychological problems of the student or 
     student's family;
       (iii) sex behavior or attitudes;
       (iv) illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating, or demeaning 
     behavior;
       (v) critical appraisals of other individuals with whom 
     respondents have close family relationships;
       (vi) legally recognized privileged or analogous 
     relationships, such as those of lawyers, physicians, and 
     ministers;
       (vii) religious practices, affiliations, or beliefs of the 
     student or student's parent; or
       (viii) income (other than that required by law to determine 
     eligibility for participation in a program or for receiving 
     financial assistance under such program).

     SEC. 102. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that students deserve school 
     environments that promote--
       (1) the ability of teachers and administrators to encourage 
     students to reach their full potential and take actions that 
     help them meet that goal;
       (2) the empowerment of parents to engage in their child's 
     education and help them succeed;
       (3) significant opportunity for all children to receive a 
     fair, equitable, and high-quality education, and to close 
     educational achievement gaps;
       (4) learning environments free from discrimination; and
       (5) an education that is free from censorship.

                      TITLE II--PARENT COORDINATOR

     SEC. 201. PARENT COORDINATOR.

       (a) In General.--For each local educational agency (as 
     defined in section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (8 U.S.C. 7801)) that receives 
     financial assistance under such Act, the following 
     requirements shall apply as a condition on continued receipt 
     of such assistance:
       (1) The recipient shall ensure that each elementary school 
     and each secondary school under the jurisdiction of the 
     agency has at least 1 full-time employee designated to serve 
     as a parent coordinator.
       (2) The recipient shall ensure that students, parents, 
     school staff, and parent

[[Page H1380]]

     groups are made aware of these employees and their roles.
       (3) A parent coordinator should not have any other school-
     related responsibilities that may create a conflict of 
     interest, including serving in the school administrative 
     leadership or local educational agency administrative 
     leadership (such as serving as a principal, vice principal, 
     headmaster, superintendent, board member, or general 
     counsel).
       (b) Duties.--Each parent coordinator described in 
     subsection (a) shall--
       (1) establish partnerships with parents, parent-teacher 
     associations, and other parent groups within the community to 
     provide resources and support for parents, students, and 
     schools;
       (2) ensure that parents, parent-teacher associations, and 
     other parent groups within the community are familiar with 
     the academic expectations of a school in order to improve 
     student success;
       (3) strengthen relationships between the school and parents 
     in the community;
       (4) ensure that parents understand their rights under 
     section 1116 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 6318), including--
       (A) the right to meaningfully participate in the 
     development of--
       (i) a parent and family engagement policy for the local 
     educational agency in accordance with subsection (a) of such 
     section; and
       (ii) a parent and family engagement policy of the school in 
     accordance with subsection (b) of such section;
       (B) the right to attend, at the school's invitation and 
     encouragement, an annual meeting--
       (i) where parents will be informed about the school's 
     participation in part A of title I of such Act (20 U.S.C. 
     6311 et seq.);
       (ii) that explains the requirements of such part, including 
     that parents have the right to be involved; and
       (iii) that discusses parent and family engagement policy; 
     and
       (C) the right to timely information about programs under 
     this part, including a description and explanation of, the 
     curriculum in use at the school, the forms of academic 
     assessment used to measure student progress, and the 
     achievement levels of the challenging State academic 
     standards;
       (5) ensure that parents understand their right to give 
     consent before allowing the child to participate in any 
     mental health assessment or service funded by title IV of 
     such Act (20 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.); and
       (6) in carrying out paragraphs (1) through (5), focus on 
     parents from underrepresented groups.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may 
     be necessary for fiscal year 2024 and each of the 5 
     succeeding fiscal years.

                       TITLE III--ESEA AMENDMENTS

     SEC. 301. FAMILY ENGAGEMENT IN EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

       Section 4506 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7246) is amended by striking ``$10,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2017 through 2020'' and inserting 
     ``$60,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2024 through 2029''.

     SEC. 302. FULL-SERVICE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS.

       Section 4601 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7251) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) of subsection 
     (a), by inserting ``(except for section 4625)'' after 
     ``part'';
       (2) in the matter preceding clause (i) of subsection 
     (b)(2)(B), by inserting ``(except for section 4625)'' after 
     ``subpart 2''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 4625--
       ``(1) $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2024;
       ``(2) $600,000,000 for fiscal year 2025;
       ``(3) $700,000,000 for fiscal year 2026;
       ``(4) $850,000,000 for fiscal year 2027; and
       ``(5) $1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2028.''.

                    TITLE IV--RULES OF CONSTRUCTION

     SEC. 401. PROHIBITION ON BOOK BANS AND CENSORSHIP.

       Nothing in this Act may be construed to allow the banning 
     or censorship of books in public elementary or public 
     secondary schools.

     SEC. 402. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT IN CURRICULUM.

       Nothing in this Act may be construed to authorize any 
     department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States 
     to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the 
     curriculum or program of instruction of any educational 
     institution, school, or school system, including with respect 
     to--
       (1) Black history;
       (2) Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander 
     history;
       (3) Latino history;
       (4) Native American history;
       (5) women's history;
       (6) LGBTQ+ history; and
       (7) history of the Holocaust or anti-Semitism.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 241, the gentlewoman 
from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Oregon.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, I rise today to urge my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to support my amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 5.
  My amendment in the nature of a substitute is a commonsense piece of 
legislation that makes tangible investments in parental involvement. It 
enhances the ability of school districts to involve all families, not 
just the privileged few.
  By adopting this amendment in the nature of a substitute, we will 
invest in evidence-based, full-service community schools, public 
schools that coordinate closely with community organizations to improve 
the integration, accessibility, and effectiveness of services for 
students and families; provide families with access to critical 
wraparound services; and, importantly, improve student achievement.
  We will be able to hire dedicated parent coordinators in public 
schools to work directly with parents, connecting them with the 
resources and support they need to help their children succeed and 
ultimately improve parental involvement and student success.
  We will direct more investments toward the Department of Education 
Statewide Family Engagement Centers program so States can share best 
practices on parental engagement, and school districts can receive the 
support and training they need to increase parental participation and 
involvement.
  Madam Chair, I was a very involved parent, and I talked to parents 
who wanted to come to school and wanted to participate, but they were 
working extra shifts, didn't speak English, or didn't have 
transportation. Let's break down those barriers.
  Importantly, we will prohibit the banning of books and curricula in 
our public schools and restore the ability of students to receive a 
historically accurate, well-rounded education.
  Madam Chair, I worked on this substitute with the input of 
stakeholders who are in our public schools each and every day, who are 
parents themselves, and who represent diverse communities in red and 
blue States across our Nation. I am proud to introduce this amendment 
in the nature of a substitute for consideration on the House floor 
because, unlike the bill it seeks to amend, it reflects the true 
diversity of our Nation and embodies the approach we should be taking 
to make lasting improvements to public education, an inclusive, 
collaborative, and evidence-based approach.
  On behalf of all students and parents, I encourage all of my 
colleagues to vote for this amendment and soundly reject H.R. 5, a bill 
that should be named the politics over parents act.
  Madam Chair, I thank the staff of the Education and the Workforce 
Committee for all of their help with this amendment in the nature of a 
substitute. I also thank my own staff in my office, Sujith Cherukumilli 
and Dr. Alfonso Garcia, both of whom have spent time as classroom 
teachers. I acknowledge the work of the staff on this important work, 
as well.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1700

  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, while I appreciate the substitute put forward 
by the Congresswoman, the Democrat proposal is wholly inadequate and 
will do little to solve the problems that parents face.
  Instead, the Democrats' amendment resorts to a tired old Democrat 
strategy: spend more money, hire more people, and hope for the best.
  Madam Chair, parents need more than that. They don't need massive new 
amounts of taxpayer spending at the Federal level controlled by 
bureaucrats when our country is already deeply in debt, nor do parents 
need schools to hire massive numbers of new administrators.
  What parents need is for their rights to be protected. The Democrats' 
substitute does nothing to ensure that parents are the ultimate 
decisionmakers in their child's education.
  Of course, that shouldn't be a surprise. There has been a push to 
silence parents around the country. Powerful teachers unions, several 
school boards, Democrat politicians, and the Biden

[[Page H1381]]

Justice Department have all voiced opposition to the rights of parents 
to have a say in their child's education.
  This kind of rhetoric and political posturing has real-world 
consequences for parents. For example, in 2021, a Rhode Island mother 
of two, Nicole Solas, talked to an elementary school principal in South 
Kingstown, Rhode Island, about what was being taught in schools. After 
persistent stonewalling, the school district directed her to file a 
public records request. She did, and the local teachers union filed a 
lawsuit against her.
  This kind of treatment is outrageous. Ms. Solas was subjected to 
endless stonewalling, public humiliation, and an interminable and 
costly legal battle. No parent should have to go through that.
  The Democrat substitute would do nothing to ensure that stories like 
this never happen again, but the Parents Bill of Rights Act would. Our 
bill will ensure that parents can never be sued for wanting to know 
their child's curriculum.
  Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona recently published an op-ed 
about the Democrat vision for parent empowerment. In his vision, 
parents should be satisfied when the Federal Government spends taxpayer 
dollars on top-down solutions. By contrast, Republicans want an 
authentic give-and-take between parents and the education system about 
what students learn, how they are taught, and how they should be 
protected.
  That is why I am proud to stand behind our bill.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Democrat 
substitute and in favor of the Parents Bill of Rights Act.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, in response, again, I reiterate that every 
single Democrat on our side of the aisle absolutely supports parental 
involvement and parental engagement. We talked about that in the debate 
on the bill.
  About costs, it is my understanding that the so-called Parents Bill 
of Rights Act doesn't have any additional funding with all the extra 
obligations that are put on our schools, districts, and teachers.
  There is no effort to silence parents. We want parents to be 
involved, peacefully, and peacefully state their concerns.
  I know that Ranking Member Scott talked about how Democrats tried to 
put an amendment in to put some reasonableness in there. If you have 
200 parents show up at a school board meeting, and each one of them 
wants to speak for 2 hours, that is not reasonable.
  We absolutely support parental involvement. We want to do that. We 
want to provide that evidence-based engagement and, again, make the 
relationship collaborative, not adversarial.
  That is why I encourage colleagues to support this collaborative, 
evidence-based approach to involve all parents in education.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, I want to say again that the approach our 
colleagues want to take is to spend more money.
  Ms. Solas, who I mentioned earlier; Mr. Smith, who was mentioned 
earlier; and others, they certainly did not have the right to 
peacefully speak to their school boards and get responses, so that is 
not going to happen under the Democrats' amendment.
  We also are not mean, and again, we do not ban books. We do not 
condone the banning of books.
  We think, again, that the substitute presents the perfect picture of 
Republicans' and Democrats' approaches to parent engagement. Democrats 
believe protecting parents' rights means spending more taxpayer dollars 
to impose a top-down vision. Republicans believe in giving parents real 
power to secure the best education possible for their children.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time as I believe I have the 
right to close.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, I want to say again that our bill is meant to 
give parents their God-given rights to be involved with their 
children's education and to seek the best education possible.
  We do not want anyone to be treated unfairly. We want everyone to be 
treated fairly. We do not ban books.
  I urge the public to read this bill. It is fairly short, about 30 
pages, to make sure where the truth lies in terms of this piece of 
legislation.
  Madam Chair, I reject the amendment that has been offered in the 
nature of a substitute. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment and a 
``yes'' vote on H.R. 5.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Crane

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in House Report 118-12.
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 29, after line 20, insert the following:

                   TITLE VII--PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION

     SEC. 701. PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.

       (a) In General.--A parent aggrieved by a failure to comply 
     with a provision of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) amended by title I of 
     this Act, or a provision of the General Education Provisions 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.) amended by title II of this Act, 
     may commence a civil action against the individual or entity 
     responsible for the failure.
       (b) Relief.--In any action under subsection (a), the court 
     may award appropriate relief, including--
       (1) temporary, preliminary, or permanent injunctive relief;
       (2) compensatory damages;
       (3) punitive or exemplary damages; and
       (4) reasonable fees for attorneys.
       (c) Statute of Limitations.--An action under this section 
     shall be brought not later than 30 days after the date on 
     which the failure to comply occurred.
       (d) Attorney General.--In a case in which a parent 
     commences a civil action under subsection (a), the Attorney 
     General shall have the exclusive authority to oversee, as 
     appropriate, any investigation conducted by the Federal 
     Government in connection with such action.
       (e) Definition.--In this section, the term ``parent'' has 
     the meaning given such term in section 8101 of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 241, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Crane) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, I think it is pretty sad that we even have to offer this 
bill and that I have to offer this amendment, but I think the American 
public realizes and is completely outraged with what is going on in 
this country--how they don't feel like they have a voice anymore, how 
they don't feel like they are being recognized in their rights to be 
parents and have authority over their own children.
  It is also very disgusting, quite frankly, what has been going on in 
our kids' schools. Parents across this country--Democrats, Republicans, 
Independents, all of us--are furious with what is going on at these 
schools. That is why we even have to do this.
  My amendment adds a private right of action for parents to hold 
schools accountable for not honoring the rights set forth in title I 
and title II of this bill. It seeks to strengthen enforcement 
mechanisms within the Parents Bill of Rights Act. My amendment, if 
passed, would ensure parents can sue if school districts force teachers 
or students to accommodate critical race theory curriculum, compel 
students to observe obscene or sexual material without parental 
consent, use pronoun changes without parental consent, violate student 
privacy without parental consent, or neglect to report sexual assault 
or harassment on school property.
  The bill as it is currently written puts the protection of parental 
rights

[[Page H1382]]

in the hands of Department of Education bureaucrats. It is not enough 
for Congress to leave enforcement to Department of Education 
bureaucrats or wait for the corrupt Department of Justice to file a 
lawsuit on a parent's behalf. I don't trust the Biden administration to 
go after woke school administrators that force dangerous ideologies on 
innocent children.
  Parents should have the opportunity to sue these schools. For far too 
long, the public school system has undermined parental involvement in 
education decisions. If we want to truly empower parents' rights, we 
should give parents the tools to enforce those rights through this 
amendment, not leave it in the hands of bureaucrats.
  Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Good).
  Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Madam Chair, I support passage of the 
underlying bill, but I also rise in support of this amendment, which I 
think would truly empower parents.
  Adding a private right of action places the ultimate protection of 
parental rights back where it belongs, in the hands of parents, not 
Department of Education bureaucrats.
  For too long, the public school system has undermined parental 
involvement in education decisions, and parents have been helpless to 
hold them accountable.
  The union-driven COVID policies in our schools served as a wake-up 
call for many parents, and school boards across the country have tried 
to stop them from raising their voices in protest.
  A private right of action would make a meaningful change to the 
balance of power so parents can rightfully have a say in what their 
children are being taught.
  This amendment wouldn't unleash lawsuits against schools. The private 
right of action could only be used if the school is not forthcoming 
with the commonsense provisions of this bill. If the school shares 
curriculum, teaching materials, and their budget openly, then there is 
no problem. If the school notifies parents about actions from the 
school administrator to change a child's pronouns, then there is no 
standing under this bill. There is also a limit that the private right 
of action must be filed within 30 days of the violation.
  Parental rights precede government. Our government was created to 
protect our God-given rights. When government is working to subvert 
those rights, it is the right of the people to put new guardrails in 
place to secure our precious liberty.
  Guaranteeing a private right of action will ensure public schools are 
held accountable to the important tenets of this bill.
  Madam Chair, I urge support for the amendment.
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I think the amendment speaks for 
itself. If a hundred parents show up at a school board meeting, and 
each demands to be heard for as long as they want to speak, this bill 
will give them a private right of action in Federal court to enforce 
their right to speak to the school board.
  My local school board limits people to 3 minutes. I think that is a 
reasonable limitation, but when the amendment to allow reasonable 
limitations was defeated, you have the bill that they have--everybody 
has a right, each and every one of the hundred people who show up, no 
matter how repetitive or irrelevant it may be.
  I think people need to know what is in the amendment and can judge it 
for themselves.
  People have said that some parents have been arrested by the police 
for showing up at the school board. Let me tell you, that can only 
happen if the police believe that a crime is being committed.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Crane).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.

                              {time}  1715


                Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Davidson

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in House Report 118-112.
  Mr. DAVIDSON. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following:

              TITLE VII--MANDATORY OPEN ENROLLMENT PERIODS

     SEC. 701. MANDATORY INTRA- AND INTER-DISTRICT OPEN ENROLLMENT 
                   PERIODS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, a local educational agency may not receive Federal funds 
     under title I or title II of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.; 20 U.S.C. 6601 
     et seq.) for a school year unless the agency--
       (1) holds an open enrollment period as required under 
     subsection (b); and
       (2) complies with the notification requirements under 
     subsection (d).
       (b) Open Enrollment Period.--To be eligible to receive 
     Federal funds as described in subsection (a), each local 
     educational agency shall, before the beginning of each school 
     year, hold an open enrollment period during which--
       (1) a child who is eligible to attend an elementary or 
     secondary school served by the agency may apply to attend any 
     other elementary or secondary school served by the agency; 
     and
       (2) a child who is not otherwise eligible to attend an 
     elementary or secondary school served by the agency because 
     that child lives outside the geographic region served by the 
     agency may apply to attend any elementary or secondary school 
     served by the agency.
       (c) Application and Approval.--
       (1) In general.--A parent of a child seeking to enroll in a 
     school pursuant to subsection (b) shall submit an application 
     to the local educational agency involved at such time, in 
     such manner, and containing such information as the agency 
     may reasonably require.
       (2) Approval.--A local educational agency that receives an 
     application under paragraph (1) shall--
       (A) give the application full and fair consideration;
       (B) approve or disapprove the application within a 
     reasonable time; and
       (C) give the parent who submitted the application prompt 
     notice of such approval or disapproval.
       (3) Duration of approval.--A child with an application 
     approved under paragraph (2) shall remain eligible to attend 
     the school for which approval was given for a period of not 
     less than one school year.
       (d) Notice.--To be eligible to receive Federal funds as 
     described in subsection (a), each local educational agency 
     shall post on a publicly accessible website of the agency or, 
     if the agency does not operate a website, widely disseminate 
     to the public, the following:
       (1) Information and procedures for open enrollment under 
     subsection (b).
       (2) Information on the application process under subsection 
     (c), including--
       (A) how and where to obtain an application;
       (B) when and how parents will be notified when approval or 
     disapproval occurs; and
       (C) approval rates based on the most recent data available 
     to the agency.
       (3) Information on how long an enrollment approved under 
     subsection (c) remains valid.
       (4) Contact information for at least one individual 
     employee of the agency who is responsible for answering 
     questions on the open enrollment process.
       (e) ESEA Terms.--In this section, the terms ``child'', 
     ``elementary school'', ``local educational agency'', 
     ``parent'', and ``secondary school'' have the meanings given 
     those terms in section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 241, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Davidson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. DAVIDSON. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, this amendment requires any public school receiving 
Federal funds under Title I and Title II of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act to hold an open enrollment period both for 
students living inside and outside the school district.
  Parents have a right to decide where their child goes to school, and 
this amendment grants parents this important right to choose the best 
education for their child, no matter the ZIP Code.

[[Page H1383]]

  It is important to note this applies only to Federal funds. Some 
might argue, well, local schools have different tax jurisdictions. This 
is only for the Federal funds.
  School choice is critical to not only the parent, but also to the 
student who deserves a safe, high-quality education, not 
indoctrination.
  We must provide families with freedom to choose. It is the parents' 
duty to make the best choice for their children, and choice is the 
ultimate enforcement mechanism for this Parents Bill of Rights Act.
  My amendment also requires that these schools post an announcement on 
their website with details about the open enrollment period to ensure 
parents have all the information needed to make an informed decision, 
such as an application deadline, the approval rate of applications, and 
how long the enrollment period will be valid. Again, this gives parents 
the power and ability to make the most informed decision.
  Under this amendment, schools must give every student that applies 
via the open enrollment process, ``a full and fair consideration,'' an 
important detail to ensure that every student receives the opportunity 
to succeed.
  Open enrollment and the increase in educational freedom is imperative 
to the success of our youth. It is a parental right and it is in the 
best interests of every student to be granted this opportunity.
  This amendment provides every single parent with the power to choose.
  Madam Chair, I urge support for my amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I think I would prefer that we 
fixed all of the schools so that all students are provided with an 
opportunity of a high-quality education and a safe and healthy 
environment.
  All this amendment does is give people the right to scurry around and 
try to find the best schools. Those that are the best at identifying 
the best schools may end up there, but frankly, all this is going to do 
is cause confusion because when word gets around as to which are the 
best schools, everybody will want to go to that school. Then what?
  The majority has offered the amendment in committee to let parents 
know that if they can work the system, they may get their child into a 
good school but all the rest end up in a school that is dilapidated, 
unaccredited, or otherwise undesirable.
  We need to work to improve all of the schools, not just figure out a 
scheme where some can figure out how to get their child into a good 
school and leave everyone else behind.
  Madam Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be 
postponed.


               Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Fitzpatrick

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in House Report 118-112.
  Mr. FITZPATRICK. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following:

                         TITLE VII--GAO REPORT

     SEC. 701. GAO REPORT.

       Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     submit to the Committee on Education and the Workforce and 
     the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education, 
     Labor, and Pensions and the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the Senate a report that evaluates and analyzes the impact of 
     this Act, and the amendments made by this Act, on--
       (1) protecting parents' rights in the education of their 
     children; and
       (2) costs to State educational agencies, local educational 
     agencies, elementary schools, and secondary schools (as such 
     terms are defined in section 8101 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801)).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 241, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FITZPATRICK. Madam Chair, I rise today in favor of my amendment, 
designated as amendment No. 8 to H.R. 5, the Parents Bill of Rights 
Act.
  Madam Chair, we have a responsibility to be mindful of the cost and 
implementation of this bill on our schools, parents, and communities.
  My amendment would require the GAO to report on the impact of this 
legislation and provide peace of mind to taxpayers, educators, and 
families alike.
  Our priority must be to set our children up for success. That means 
giving parents the transparency and voice they deserve in their child's 
education.
  It also means making the Federal Government answerable to the 
potential costs of this bill on State and local educational agencies 
and individual schools throughout our Nation.
  We have made a commitment to our constituents to demand more 
accountability from their government over the use of their taxpayer 
dollars, as well as to safeguard a better future for the next 
generation of Americans. My amendment would guarantee that we keep that 
promise.
  Madam Chair, I urge the amendment's adoption, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim 
the time in opposition, although I am not opposed.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I support the amendment because 
the GAO report will actually expose the legislation for what it is. It 
is a waste of money, will provide no meaningful rights, and it will 
adversely affect the education of the children.
  Madam Chair, I support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. FITZPATRICK. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FITZPATRICK. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
will be postponed.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. 
Fischbach) having assumed the chair, Ms. Greene of Georgia, Acting 
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 5) to ensure the rights of parents are honored and protected in 
the Nation's public schools, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________