[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.
____________________