Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center for a ceremony as part of the commemoration of the days of remembrance of victims of the Holocaust.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk for H.R. 5.

Mr. Chair, I lend my thanks to the gentlewoman from North Carolina for her stewardship of the legislation we are addressing this week.

I am offering this amendment because I believe it is critically important for parents to have the ultimate say in the education of their children.

I first want to say that I support, as my colleague from Kentucky Mr. Massie does, eliminating the Department of Education altogether and leaving this to parents and the States.

Frankly, I would prefer to just block grant dollars to the States and give them full control in the absence of actually eliminating the Department of Education, which my next amendment will address. If we are going to be operating in this framework, then we might as well ensure that parents at least can have the benefit of dollars getting to them directly to be able to do as they see fit to educate their children.

The Parents Bill of Rights Act is designed to try to empower parents, give them the ability to see what their children are learning, see the curriculum. Despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle with wild accusations of book banning-- which is completely inaccurate and devoid of fact--the fact is, we are trying to empower parents to be able to see what their children are learning.

My amendment, though, would give parents recourse by allowing them to take their tax dollars, the dollars that they send to Washington for a purpose, and put it towards the education of their choice.

Again, I would rather they not be laundering the money through this godforsaken town. I would rather that money go directly to the schools in their neighborhoods. If it is going to come here, I would like them to, at least, get the benefit of getting that money back to be able to use it to educate their children the way they believe is best for them.

I introduced this policy as a stand-alone bill called the SCHOOL Act in 2020 with my good friend, Senator Rand Paul, when parents' tax dollars were going to schools that closed their doors during the pandemic, that shut kids out of schools, that forced them into the corners with masks.

The results of that have been catastrophic. Twenty-three Baltimore schools have zero students proficient in math per State test results. Chicago Democrats are sounding the alarm on 55 schools reporting no proficiency in math or reading.

These are very serious concerns. In 2022, the National Center for Education Statistics evaluated the progress of children during the pandemic and revealed reading ability had suffered the largest decline since 1990.

To my colleagues who say that this defunds schools, first off, whose dollars are these anyway?

They are the American people's dollars. This government takes dollars and then does stuff with it.

We want to make sure that parents can use their dollars the way they feel is best for the education of their kids. We are returning to the families their money, so they have greater flexibility to provide the best possible education for their kids.

Mr. Chair, that is the goal of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I would just add a couple of responses to my friend, the gentleman from Virginia.

Both of us are graduates of the University of Virginia. I am an extraordinarily proud graduate of Virginia, where Thomas Jefferson, frankly, helped frame the public diffusion of knowledge, as the gentleman knows, in trying to set up a structure for public schools in order to have broader access for more Americans and give them the ability and the benefits of public education.

I was public school educated K through law school, as was my wife, raised by a single mom. We went to Texas A&M University and the University of Texas School of Law, where we met. I am a big proponent of the public education system. I am a bigger proponent of empowering parents. I am a bigger proponent of being able to have checks and balances within the education system and allowing parents the ability to take care of their kids.

That is what this is about. When we talk about homeschooling, the purpose here is, you have got parents who are left on the outside looking in while the public school system has abandoned them during the pandemic, and they had to go do something about it.

They are abandoning them now by not providing them the proficiency of education as I just talked about in Baltimore and Chicago and in schools across the country.

To say that we should restrict parents from being able to use those dollars in private schools. Say that to the hardworking parents today scraping by to send $6,000, $7,000, $8,000, $9,000 to a Catholic school because that parent wants the best education for their child. I say let's actually empower parents. That is what this whole debate is about this week. That is why I offered this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, my time is limited, and the gentleman has the right to close this out.

I would just say that we should have a robust debate about that.

This is very limited, as the gentleman pointed out. It is Title I money under the ESEA, so this would be limited in the total economic impact. I think it is just a nice way to give some dollars to parents to be able to go take care of their children.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, again, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for her efforts this week and her efforts and devotion to education, generally, in her career.

I am offering this amendment because I believe that we should be empowering States and local schools in communities to be able to take care of our kids. I don't think the Federal Government has any business in this area for the most part. I don't believe the Department of Education should exist in the first place.

When I look at Article I, Section 8, I don't see anything about education. From my standpoint--and I believe it is a sentiment shared by many on my side of the aisle, and I have heard many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle bemoaning Federal intervention this week--so let's just call the question then.

If we have concerns about Federal intervention into State affairs, then let's take the dollars and let's block grant them back to the States.

Now, my friend, Mr. Massie, has a sense of Congress that we should abolish the Department of Education, which I fully support. But if we have true concerns here, to my Democratic colleagues who are concerned about, oh, my gosh, heaven forbid that we have parents be able to see what is in the curriculum. This is too much Federal intervention.

How about we look at overall Federal intervention, in general, and let's block grant those dollars to States and allow State governments, local communities, local school boards and parents to make all the decisions?

We will just take care of your problem right now.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Brecheen).

Mr. Chair, I thank my friend from Oklahoma for his support of the amendment. I agree with every word that he just shared with the body.

I would just note, again, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been raising a lot of concerns that my side of the aisle is inserting the Federal Government into the business of the States and localities.

Look, I will acknowledge, I don't love going down this road. I don't think we should have to. I think this should all be left to the States, and if the folks in California, the folks in New York, the folks in some State want to put this garbage in front of their kids, then let them hash that out.

As long as we are going to have the Federal Government inserting itself, which this body led predominated by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, have been pushing now for years, at a bare minimum, shouldn't we ensure that parents have the ability to see what is in the curriculum, parents know what books are in the library?

That is the debate this week. What we are trying to do with this amendment is essentially call the bluff of my Democratic colleagues. Put your money where your mouth is.

If you don't like the fact that the Federal Government is involved in education, welcome to the party. Let's give the money right back to the States and local governments where they can do what is best for the people in their States and local communities.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, and still I rise. I rise as a proud American--I love my country--but I also rise as a proud, liberated Democrat.

I rise, Mr. Speaker, as a person who is proud of his heritage. I am the proud descendant, Mr. Speaker, of the enslaved people whose hands helped to construct the Capitol itself. I am proud of my history, and because I am proud of my history, I think that many people would agree that the topic I will embrace today is most appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be here today to speak on a resolution that passed this House today. I thank the leadership for allowing the resolution to come to the floor. I am especially proud of the fact that when the resolution came to the floor, all who voted, voted for the resolution. There were no nays, Mr. Speaker. One hundred percent of those voting, over 400--405 to be exact--voted for this resolution. I am proud to be one of the 405 who voted ``yes'' for this resolution.

I didn't have an opportunity to speak on the resolution when it was presented on the floor of the House. I was not available at the time here in Washington, D.C., and not aware of the exact time that it was going to be heard, but I knew that there would be another opportunity for me.

Today, I take advantage of the opportunity afforded me, grateful I am to those who have afforded me the opportunity to speak on H. Con. Res. 25, authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center for a ceremony as part of the commemoration of the Days of Remembrance of Victims of the Holocaust.

I thank those who brought this resolution to the attention of the Congress: Representatives Kustoff, Schneider, Max Miller, and Landsman. I thank all of them for bringing this resolution to the attention of the Members so that we would have an opportunity to express our desire to see this resolution come to fruition; a resolution, Mr. Speaker, that would commemorate the Days of Remembrance of the Victims of the Holocaust.

Mr. Speaker, in all of history there is no event comparable to the Holocaust. It is one of the greatest crimes ever committed against humanity. This is not to say that there are not other crimes against humanity that were committed. This is to say that this one is unlike any other.

I am proud of the way our country has recognized the need for remembrance of the Holocaust. I am proud because I have friends that I have spoken to who are Jewish, and my friends have explained to me some of the things that you don't read in books about the atrocities associated with the Holocaust.

When I last spoke to my friend David Mintzberg about his father and mother, who were survivors of the Holocaust, he and I both had tears well in our eyes as he presented the story to me.

He explained to me, Mr. Speaker, how his mother, Edith, was on a train, how through some quirk of fate they stopped the train, and people were told to just run, run; and they ran for their lives. They ran for their lives. It was about 2 to 3 a.m. They ran and they ran and they ran.

They didn't just run that night. They didn't just run for the next week. They didn't just run for days. They didn't just run for months. They ran for years, surviving as best as they could. It hurts my heart to go through the recounting of what was said to me, but it is important for people to understand why remembrance is important.

His father, Joseph, at 16, 17 years of age, was on a train on its way to one of

the death camps. When persons on the train were able to pry open bars so that he could slip through, he did.

He ran. He didn't run for days or weeks. He ran through the snow. He ran for years, approximately 5 years on the run, his life hanging in the balance.

The story, as told, calls me to understand more how precious the lives of people can be in times of peril when there is seemingly no way out.

Along life's way, for many of them, there were persons known as righteous gentiles. His father is said to have had an encounter with such a person.

These righteous gentiles, by the way, have been recognized for what they did to rescue persons during this time of great peril--righteous gentiles, righteous people who understood that lives were hanging in the balance.

I have been to Yad Vashem. It is my understanding that Yad Vashem has a special place for the recognition of righteous gentiles.

His father ran. His mother ran. They survived. The unfortunate thing is not all did, and many, many millions did not.

We want to remember those who did not. This is a time for remembrance. Remembrance is the honorable thing to do. It is the thing that we ought to do, as we are doing it on an annual basis, so that never again will we face the horrors of the Holocaust.

I am proud to say that if this resolution passes the Senate, then my hope and belief is that, in the visitor center, there will be the opportunity for us to have some of those survivors appear. Hopefully, if it is God's will, we may hear a story from someone who actually survived.

The history that we can record based upon those who are with us and who can share that history is fading. We need to do all that we can to capture as much of it as fast as we can.

So, I am proud. I plan to be in the visitor center. The visitor center is a place, a special place, where this kind of event should take place.

Events that commemorate the lives lost ought to take place in our visitor center. This belongs to the public.

Lives lost ought to be commemorated in such a facility because it is within a dome. There is space there, a huge space.

The dome is adjacent to it, not quite there but nearby. In that center is a replica of the statue that sits atop the dome of the Capitol. The statue is one that I have great reverence for, the Statue of Freedom. This Statue of Freedom was sculpted by Thomas Crawford, and it sits atop the Capitol dome 288 feet high, 96 feet in diameter.

The replica is there in the visitor center, a symbol of freedom, a symbol of freedom so that the world will know what we stand for in this country. We stand for freedom. We stand for liberty and justice for all.

Yes, I agree with those who would say that we still have much work to do. Yes, we do, and I plan to be a part of doing that work, but that doesn't mean that I am not going to recognize the work that has been done.

Many lives have been sacrificed so that we could be at this point in our history. I am proud of the work that has been done, but I am also proud to say that that work affords us the opportunity to be there with this replica of the Statue of Freedom, right there in the visitor center, for a day of remembrance.

I am going to invite friends, to the extent that we have space available for me to do so, to come and be a part of this.

This is a time that all Americans ought to come together. This is a time for us to acknowledge that the world has not always been kind to people; that those who are survivors ought to be respected; and that those who did not survive, their lives ought to be commemorated.

H. Con. Res. 25, I am proud to have voted for it, authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center for a ceremony as part of the commemoration of the Days of Remembrance of Victims of the Holocaust.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of this House, and I thank all the Members who cast their votes and those who made it possible for the votes to be cast. I pray that the God that I worship will stand with us and never allow such an atrocity to visit us again.

I also know that the hands of people created the Holocaust, and it will take the hands of people to prevent it from ever happening again.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is a fairly simple amendment. It would just sabotage public education by transferring money in the public school system to the private school system. It would open up funds to children in public schools to those already in private school. A lot of money would be diverted that way, and it includes homeschooling.

Who is going to audit the money that the parents get for homeschooling their children?

Furthermore, how are you going to figure out how much money each child gets?

Title I is based on a formula that involves poverty. If it is a low- income child, will they get more money to go to a private school than a higher-income person who the formula did not recognize as far as getting money?

Those are just complications. Basically, it is a private school voucher program where those already in private school can take public money out of the public system and reduce the amount of money available for public schools.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this is a well-worn debate. I think people are familiar with what happens when you take public school money and put it into private schools. I thank the gentleman for making the amendment as simple and straightforward as he has.

This would decimate rural districts where there are few school options. People in rural districts would take money out of the rural community and plop it into urban areas.

I would just like to know how much money a family could get if they took two children out of public school and just kept them at home under the guise of homeschooling? How much money could they get from the public school system to do that?

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as I said, we don't know how much money a family could get. If they are financially strapped, how much money would they get for pulling their children out of public schools and using the money for the allowable uses, which includes extracurricular activities?

That could be a vacation to Disneyland. I don't know what they could use the money for, but they would significantly benefit financially by taking their children out of school.

Rural districts will benefit, those already in private school will benefit, and the ones that will be disadvantaged will be the school systems that are struggling to provide an education for low-income students today.

Mr. Chair, I hope we defeat the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this would eliminate all of the targeted resources under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act consolidated into one view. If you just take Title I, that money is targeted toward low-income areas. There are targets to rural areas, to migrants.

Generally speaking, the mainstream education can be well done with the local and State funding. There are areas where there are troubles, English as a Second Language, migrants, low income, where the Federal Government comes in and targets money because, generally speaking, within the political give-and-take, these are the ones that are left out. Those who are generally left out and supported by ESEA are the exact ones that would be disadvantaged under this.

When you fund education with the real estate tax, as we do in the United States today, you almost guarantee inequity in education because the more wealthy areas can do better.

ESEA, primarily under Title I, goes into areas that are low income, have less resources, and they can get help from the Federal Government. That would be decimated by this amendment. I would hope we would defeat it.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this would concentrate funding where there are a high concentration of students, not where there is a high concentration of poverty, as the present formula gives.

It would remove targeted money for teachers, and, incredibly, it would remove targeted funding for family engagement. I thought that is why we were here. This amendment would remove money targeted for family engagement.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill has a lot of ambiguity about things like what is an injury? What is violent activity? Does there have to be an injury?

If there has to be an injury, then a shooting where the bullet misses and there is no injury would not be covered. But somebody pushes somebody and they slip and get a bloody nose, that would be an injury and that would be violent activity. It is very poorly defined.

Second is, aware of a video recording. Does that include fellow students' cell phones and other things? Does it include a monitoring of the school system monitoring?

It doesn't say anything about numerous rights and laws, rights of privacy, and what to do after you find out, what can you do about it. That is a little unclear.

It doesn't say what rights you have to the video or anything like that. I think it causes more questions than answers, and I hope we would defeat the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, this is another unfunded mandate placed on school systems that they have to do as a condition to receive Title I funds.

Then, look at what is involved if the class is eliminated because there is no teacher for that class or no student interest. For example, if no one signs up for a particular foreign language and the course is dropped, we have to now notify all the parents as a condition of getting Title I funds. If the only teacher who taught that language decides to retire and that course is not taught, you have to notify everyone as a condition of getting Title I funds.

This amendment does nothing to improve parent engagement. It just adds another Federal law. Along with the bathroom bills that we have heard, attacks on LGBTQ individuals, attacks on trans youth, now we have another report that has to be made.

Mr. Chair, I hope we defeat the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

We have heard a lot about people who can't speak at school board meetings because they are being arrested. I reiterate, the only ones being arrested at school board meetings are those the police believe are committing crimes.

I would point out that this is another Federal law, along with the bathroom bill that is in the bill that attacks LGBTQ and trans youth, but there is nothing in this amendment to increase parental say over which courses are being offered. Some courses are deleted, like African-American studies and AP African-American studies in Florida.

There is no money for new courses. There is no money for school construction in this legislation. There is no after-school program funding. There is no money for teacher salaries. There is no money for counselors or psychologists. It is just a list of things that most parents can do anyway. There is no money for actual parental involvement. Those amendments were defeated.

Mr. Chair, I hope that this additional requirement, as a condition of receiving Title I funding, will not be adopted and that the entire bill will be defeated.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding and for her amendment to such an important bill.

The Parents Bill of Rights Act is a basic concept, but it is a powerful statement that says we stand with parents and children in the ability for them to have a say in their kids' education. You would think: Who would be against this? Why do we need a law to do what everybody should think is the right thing to do?

Unfortunately, what we have seen through this debate is that the left is scared to death of parents having more of a say in their kids' education. Union bosses are scared to death of parents having a say in their kids' education.

It begs the question: Why would they be so afraid of parents wanting to see the curriculum that their kids are experiencing when they go to school?

I think we all saw why their concern is so vocal. This all happened during COVID. As we went from classroom learning to virtual learning, millions of parents actually got a glimpse into what was going on in the classrooms of their kids.

I am sure most of those parents thought they were just going to be watching their kids learn how to read, how to write, how to break down sentence structures, and how to learn math. Some of that was going on, but what alarmed parents were all the other things that had absolutely nothing to do with their kids having an opportunity to achieve the American Dream.

In fact, some of the things that were going on undermined the basic values that those parents are teaching their kids at home, things that had nothing to do with helping those kids learn and be prepared for better opportunities in the future. They started asking questions, and they were right to ask those questions.

Except the Biden administration got concerned because the union bosses didn't want those parents to see what was going on. You had the Justice Department trying to tag parents as domestic terrorists for showing up at school board meetings, for God's sake, because they cared about what was happening in their kids' schools.

It shouldn't have taken an act of Congress to give parents that right. If it does, I am proud to stand with the

parents and kids against the union bosses who don't want parents to have that right to care about their kids' education.

For God's sake, we shouldn't have to be here doing this. The unions shouldn't be fighting this every step of the way, but it really shows you what they care about if they don't want parents to have these rights.

Thank goodness we have Virginia Foxx's committee, Julia Letlow's bill, and Members of Congress coming together and saying parents ought to have that ability. Republican, Democrat, Independent, it doesn't matter what your political viewpoint is because, for anybody in this country, part of the American Dream is being able to pass on better opportunities to your kids than what you had. The best way to do that, the greatest equalizer, is education.

If you have to be concerned about what is happening in your kid's classroom, and the school doesn't want you to see what is happening in your kid's classroom, you really ought to be alarmed. Every parent ought to have that right because when kids are sent to school, they should be learning how to get more opportunities, how to advance and have more success than we had. If they are being taught things that undermine that, every parent ought to be able to know about that. Under this bill, they finally will.

This is a power that every parent should already have. We saw during COVID some parents had that ability, but unfortunately, many parents were denied that ability to have a basic understanding of what was happening in their kids' classrooms. Millions of kids were denied education, which ultimately means those millions of kids are denied opportunity. No one should stand for that.

Mr. Chair, on this day and on every day, I am proud to stand with the parents and the kids. Nobody should get in their way, especially union bosses who don't want parents to be able to have that opportunity to stand up for their kids.

Let's stand with the parents and the kids. Let's pass this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank Chairwoman Virginia Foxx for the extraordinary job she is doing on this important parental rights legislation, H.R. 5.

I thank my friend from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for this civil debate. It has been disciplined. Obviously, we have a major fundamental difference, but there is respect on both sides.

Mr. Chairman, last month, Adriana Olivia Kuch, a student at Central Regional High School, in my congressional district, tragically took her own life just days after a group of students violently attacked her in the school hallway and then shared the video of the horrific assault online.

Adriana's family told the Asbury Park Press that she ``took her own life after being threatened online, attacked on school grounds, and then later harassed when video of the attack was spread via social media.''

My amendment today, Mr. Chairman, would add to the bill's disclosure requirement of violent incidences a provision that schools notify parents of whether recordings exist of such violence.

The amendment recognizes that bullying and violence are often compounded, and the victim further traumatized, further humiliated, and further mocked, when the crime is videotaped and shared on social media.

Once informed, the parents are empowered to, hopefully, be better able to shield, to better comfort, and to protect their child.

This amendment is a step in the right direction of what must be a full-court press to tackle online bullying. Many school districts, as my colleagues already know, do have harassment, intimidation, and bullying, or HIB policies, which should include parental notification of online bullying occurrences.

What happened in the Central Regional High School must never happen again. There must be no higher priority for us than school safety and protecting every student from violence.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, after the terrible incident and the loss of this young woman, there were meetings with the school board, and the number of students who came forward who talked about the bullying and the videotaping of bullying that happens, and how threatened they feel, it seems to me, out of an abundance of caution and respect and concern for the

well-being of these individuals, these young people, having the school leaders step up and say we know of a video recording, we have got to make sure the parents know.

That young woman, in this case, sitting in her room watching the video over and over again, and all the extreme mockings that she endured, that may have driven her to suicide. We don't know absolutely, but we do know that it has a very debilitating impact on a young person to see all of that.

I watched the video, Mr. Chairman, and I was moved to see her on the ground, being kicked and punched. Again, there was a video of this.

So many of the parents have no idea. They don't monitor social media necessarily. Why not have the school leaders make sure that that is transferred over to the parents, so they can step in and love their child and try to protect their child from all the psychological and other harms that accrue from that video.

This is a simple amendment, and I would hope that my colleagues would vote for it.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.