[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 54 (Friday, March 24, 2023)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E251-E253]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





                       PARENTS BILL OF RIGHTS ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 23, 2023

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5) to ensure 
     the rights of parents are honored and protected in the 
     Nation's public schools:

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I include in the Record the following 
letter from First Focus Campaign for Children in opposition to H.R. 5.

                                                  First Focus,

                                   Washington, DC, March 20, 2023.
     Hon. Julia Letlow,
     Member, House Education & Workforce Cmte, 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, House Education & Workforce Cmte, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Bobby Scott,
     Ranking Member, House Ed & Workforce Cmte, 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 earth 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 ``spinal 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% 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% 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%) 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

[[Page E252]]

     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 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?
       Even more fundamentally, the sweeping statement in the 
     Committee report would seemingly reject actions by government 
     to protect the lives of children, such as that by a 
     Hillsborough County judge in Florida who ruled in 2019 that a 
     3-year-old should continue chemotherapy treatment at Johns 
     Hopkins All Children's Hospital at the advice and consent of 
     doctors rather than the parents desire to stop cancer 
     treatment and use ``other methods such as an alkaline diet 
     and cannabis.''
       At its extreme, parental rights are granted in virtually 
     all matters related to the health of their children in Idaho, 
     including the use of faith healing rather than medical 
     treatment. This has resulted in tragic health outcomes, 
     including the death of children. The Washington Post reported 
     in 2018 that, ``Child advocates estimate that 183 Idaho 
     children have died because of withheld medical treatment 
     since states across the nation enacted faith-healing 
     exemptions in the early 1970s.''
       We urge the Committee majority to reconsider its language, 
     as it raises grave concerns about the role some parents have 
     played in decisions to impose female genital mutilation, 
     conversion ``therapy,'' rebirthing ``therapy,'' certain types 
     of involuntary institutionalization of children, seclusion 
     and restraint, forced sterilization of children with 
     disabilities, and other harmful or detrimental ``personal 
     medical choices.''
       On this last point, there are also very troubling stories 
     in which some parents bought into an array of false or 
     dangerous treatment for autism that included ``industrial 
     bleach. . ., turpentine or their children's own urine as the 
     secret miracle drug for reversing autism.'' We would hope 
     that everyone would agree that children should be protected--
     by government--from that.
       We also support the affirmative right of children to seek 
     out health care services in schools and, when requested, to 
     have their privacy and confidentiality respected. And for 
     decades, so has Congress. In fact, some of the language being 
     amended by H.R. 5 comes from the Protection of Pupil Rights 
     Act.
       Therefore, for a student that seeks out a medical 
     professional at school and desires privacy and 
     confidentiality, we strongly urge that the request be 
     respected. As Abigail English and Dr. Carol Ford explain in 
     The Journal of Pediatrics, confidentiality and privacy is 
     critically important to adolescents:
       Decades of research findings have documented the ways in 
     which privacy concerns influence adolescents' willingness to 
     seek healthcare, where and when they seek care, and how 
     candid they are with their healthcare providers. In the 
     absence of confidentiality protections, some adolescents 
     forego care entirely, some delay care or avoid visiting 
     providers they perceive as not assuring confidentiality, and 
     some limit the information they are willing to disclose.''
       The authors highlight an important reality:
       Not all adolescents have parents who are available, 
     willing, and able to communicate with them about sensitive 
     issues, and not all adolescents are willing to share 
     information about all sensitive health issues with their 
     parents. In this context, confidential consultation with a 
     healthcare provider can play an essential role. Eliciting 
     candid information about adolescent concerns, health 
     behaviors, and symptoms clearly increases clinicians' 
     opportunities to address concerns, provide evidence-based 
     prevention and risk-reduction counseling, and ensure timely 
     diagnosis and treatment.
       With potentially tragic consequences, H.R. 5 appears to 
     undermine the affirmative rights of young people to seek out 
     or health care providers for suicide prevention, mental 
     health, substance abuse, asthma, infectious diseases, or 
     other health care services without schools first obtaining 
     written parental consent. Furthermore, H.R. 5 is silent on 
     the matter of when parents may disagree over consent and the 
     default should never be that kids are denied or left to 
     languish with respect to access to essential services that 
     are important to their health, well-being, and safety.


 School Personnel Should Not Be Subjected to Threats, Intimidation, or 
                                Violence

       Finally, although we often do not comment on language that 
     expresses the Sense of Congress, language in Sec. 105 argues 
     that ``[e]ducators, policymakers, and other stakeholders 
     should never seek to criminalize the lawfully expressed 
     concerns of parents about their children's education.'' While 
     we agree with that sentiment, it should also be said that 
     parents should never bully, threaten, dox, or seek to 
     intimidate educators, teachers, and even students themselves. 
     The numerous stories of threats, violence, and efforts to 
     intimidate school board members, administrators, teachers, 
     and even students is disturbing and should never be 
     considered acceptable.
       In fact, many examples of threats, intimidation, and 
     violent behavior cited in footnote 16 would never be 
     tolerated if such behaviors were conducted by children. Kids 
     would be punished and even arrested for far less. 
     Furthermore, I would highlight that H.R. 5 would require such 
     violent behavior ``on school grounds or at school-sponsored 
     activities'' to be reported to parents (Sec. 104). Would that 
     also include reporting violent acts of parents on school 
     grounds or at school-sponsored activities, such as those 
     cited in footnote 16, to all other parents in the school 
     district?
       On this point, we should all be deeply concerned about what 
     message adults engaging in such behaviors are sending to our 
     children. Our children are watching and listening, and it is 
     sad that so many adults are trying to make education all 
     about themselves rather than keeping the focus on the 
     education, needs, and well-being of children. H.R. 5 should 
     not promote such behavior.
       In the report accompanying H.R. 5, the Committee majority 
     cite the ``Nicole Solas's story'' as a ``prime example of how 
     school administrators can stonewall even the most basic 
     attempts to uncover what children are being taught.'' Left 
     unsaid is that Solas and her husband filed over 300 Access to 
     Public Records Act (APRA) requests with multiple

[[Page E253]]

     requests within each individual request that the school 
     district estimated would take nearly 5,000 hours at enormous 
     cost to the schools and to taxpayers (and again, time and 
     money diverted away from serving children). These requests 
     included demands for all emails, personnel records related to 
     individual teachers, and records that contain personal 
     information, including the home addresses and medical 
     information of numerous teachers and educators in the school 
     system.
       Also left unsaid is that Rhode Island's APRA explicitly 
     protects the disclosure of information about ``individuals 
     maintained in the files of public bodies when disclosure 
     would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal 
     privacy.'' This is an important fact that should not be 
     ignored. One APRA request could have asked for the 
     curriculum, as Solas claimed that she wanted, but that was 
     accompanied with hundreds of other requests: many of which 
     would invade of personal privacy of targeted teachers and 
     other educators in schools. We would urge the Committee to 
     not try to make Solas the ``poster adult'' for parental 
     engagement. She is not.
       Furthermore, Congress should be more discerning with 
     respect to the types of behaviors that it finds acceptable. 
     Supreme Court Justice Warren Berger explains, ``Even the most 
     heated political discourse in a democratic society requires 
     consideration for the personal sensibilities of the other 
     participants and audiences. In our Nation's legislative 
     halls, where some of the most vigorous political debates in 
     our society are carried on, there are rules prohibiting the 
     use of expressions offensive to other participants in the 
     debate.''
       For example, Congress would not allow the behaviors 
     exhibited in footnote 16 to take place as it attempts to 
     conduct its own congressional business. Thus, it is 
     unreasonable to expect school boards and educators to subject 
     themselves to extremely unproductive behavior as cited in 
     footnote 16 when Congress would never tolerate the same. 
     Threats of violence and intimidation are threats to 
     democracy. Instead, Congress should promote discourse and 
     civility.
       Again, we strongly support the critical importance that 
     parents have in the upbringing and education of their 
     children. Unfortunately, we believe there is language in H.R. 
     5 that would prove to be unnecessarily detrimental to the 
     education, health, privacy, and well-being of children. We 
     urge you to go back to the drawing board and work with 
     educational and child and family organizations to improve and 
     rebalance the focus of this legislation, and to remember that 
     children have fundamental rights too.
       Rather than a self-centered agenda focused upon parents, 
     the vast majority of parents really want what is best for 
     their children. They do not accept that, as a nation, the 
     U.S. ranks 36th out of 38 wealthy nations on measures of 
     child well-being. They demand that we do better by children. 
     That should be all of our focus.
       As such, parents are far more interested and focused on 
     improving education, child health, and reducing child 
     poverty, hunger, and homelessness than book bans, censorship, 
     the whitewashing of history and science, and the excessive 
     filing of numerous records requests for personal and 
     confidential information about school teachers.
       Let's work together toward those goals.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bruce Lesley,
     President.

                          ____________________