Parents Bill of Rights Act

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.

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.

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.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Was the gentlewoman's request to introduce a statement recognized?

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. 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.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida, (Mr. Frost).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the Democratic whip.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Ocasio-Cortez).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the Democratic leader.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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. Chair, I yield the gentleman from Maryland an additional 30 seconds.

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).

Mr. Chair, I yield the gentlewoman from Minnesota an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. McGarvey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. McClellan), the newest Member of the House.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 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. 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.''

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Landsman).

Madam Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes), a former teacher of the year.

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.

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);

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

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.

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.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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.

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

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.

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.

Madam Chair, did the gentlewoman yield back her time?

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for yielding the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that public education plays a central role in our democracy, helping to ensure the Jeffersonian ideal of having an informed electorate to participate in the governance of our country. I think we can also agree that it is vitally important that parents, as their children's primary caregivers, play an active role in their kids' education in our public schools.

That is why governance of our public schools is entrusted to local boards of education, where most school board members are, in fact, parents and are directly responsible to the communities they serve.

In our fast-paced and online world, the glue that so often holds our communities together is our neighborhood schools, the parent-teacher and home and school organizations that support them, and the extracurricular athletics and activities that we all gather at.

That is why it is so disappointing that the Republican majority has chosen to bring to the floor a bill that undermines those community values and does nothing to address the real issues facing America's schools today.

Contrary to its title, this bill does not give parents any more rights than they already have. Even the conservative Cato Institute has criticized this bill for doing nothing to actually empower parents. In fact, many of the so-called rights this bill claims to establish, like parents' ability to meet with their child's teachers, testify at school board meetings, examine school budgets, or protect their children's privacy, are already enshrined in law and are things school districts nationwide already do and in which parents consistently participate in.

What this bill does do is promote efforts to inject divisive D.C. politics and culture wars into our neighborhood schools and create burdensome new Federal mandates for those schools, dictating to our local communities and our local taxpayers how and when to perform certain tasks.

To add insult to injury, this bill doesn't offer any funding to meet these new Federal mandates or propose resources that would actually help students and families or support our public schools, many of which are already struggling to make ends meet under inequitable funding formulas.

This bill would force schools to invest already scarce time and resources toward onerous compliance requirements and administrative costs and away from crucial measures that actually improve student outcomes, all with no additional money and with no discernible benefit to our children.

Ultimately, this bill is an act of Federal overreach that would hinder students' ability to learn and undermine the important work that educators, librarians, and other school professionals do every day. It would undermine the valuable relationships among parents and between parents, students, and teachers, relationships that are built on trust and shared goals.

The truth is that the primary concerns for too many teachers and parents are to make sure that their children have enough to eat, a bed to sleep in at night, and can get to and from school safely. This bill does not address those critical needs or, for that matter, anything else that promotes student success and well-being.

What this bill does is open the door to allowing a noisy minority to dictate what all students can and cannot read or learn, and that hurts both our kids and our communities.

We have already seen in Florida and other States that have passed versions of this bill that the provisions buried in this legislation have allowed rightwing bullies to ban books, gut history lessons, and marginalize some of our communities.

The beauty of our public schools is that they help our children become critical thinkers and functional adults by meeting and learning about the diversity of people, viewpoints, and experiences in the world around them.

Allowing some parents to dictate their worldview to all parents and students in our public schools does a disservice to our schools, our children, and our communities, particularly when, as has been so often the case recently, those efforts have sought to marginalize people of color and the LGBTQ community.

Perhaps my Republican colleagues are discounting the opportunities for parental engagement that are already baked into our public education system because the views they are pushing, to ban books and whitewash history, are not accepted by the overwhelming majority of Americans.

I know how much children benefit when parents and teachers work together to help them reach their full potential. I know this from experience. I spent a decade providing training and representation for parents and students in the public school system. I spent two decades, while my children attended public schools, as a home and school parent, a classroom volunteer, and, like my father and sister before me, a school board member to help not only my kids but all the kids in our district to succeed.

I often think that school boards are one of the purest forms of local representative democracy. Unpaid members from the community--most of them, like myself, parents--spend endless hours working together with school administrators, educators, and parents, all united by a common goal to do what is best for all of our children.

Over the years, I had countless conversations with involved parents and constituents in grocery stores, at school concerts, on soccer fields, and at formal board meetings about how our schools could best serve our children and taxpayers, where we could do better, and where our options were limited, usually by financial constraints.

Those discussions were sometimes emotional or passionate, and people didn't always agree, but everyone respected our democratic processes and the boundaries of protected speech as we sought to reach the best possible solutions for our community.

Those conversations and deliberations also reflected a core principle of our civil society, one that is important to remember as we struggle to reduce the hyperpartisanship and lack of civility in our politics and to model good behavior for our children. That is the principle of cooperation and compromise, that having the loudest voice or being a bully doesn't mean that you always get to win.

This bill, H.R. 5, does not help parents, educators, and school districts to work together more effectively. Instead, this bill pits parents against each other and against teachers in a way that creates more chaos and community discord. That hurts students and families, disregards talented educators, undermines public schools, and detracts from what should be our ultimate goal, providing the best possible public education for America's children.

Our national motto is ``e pluribus unum,'' ``out of many, one,'' not ``my way or the highway.'' We form a stronger and more perfect community when we bring our diverse talents and strengths together, and this bill undermines that goal.

I now represent a congressional district with 21 school districts in it, including one of the largest in the country, and I talk to a lot of parents in my community.

Parents in my district want to talk about how to help our kids succeed. They want to talk about hiring enough teachers, librarians, and guidance counselors. They want to talk about fixing crumbling school buildings and preparing our children for the jobs and challenges of the 21st century.

They want schools in our communities that serve the healthy food kids need to learn and grow, offer mental health resources, and teach the skills

that every American needs to be engaged and informed citizens and taxpayers to ensure our long-lasting democracy.

Overwhelmingly, these parents are appalled that bills like H.R. 5 threaten to open the floodgates to book bans, more restrictions on what can be said in the classroom, and attempts to rewrite history and censor facts, all at the expense of our students.

While it sounds benign, this bill will be used to eliminate classroom conversations about racism in the American story or portrayals of LGBTQ people in books, all while refusing to deliver on what parents are actually asking for to keep their children safe, the kind of policies that House Democrats are bringing to the table to keep children safe from dangerous toxins like asbestos and lead that are still prevalent in too many schools and to keep children safe from gun violence, now the leading cause of death for American children.

We need commonsense gun safety laws that keep weapons out of classrooms and out of the hands of children so parents aren't scared that one day they will send their kids to school and they will never come home.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle often talk about being the party of small government and local control. They condemn the intrusion of the Federal Government into local affairs, but this legislation is nothing more than an attempt to nationalize our education system and mandate a one-size-fits-all approach across the country, assuming that the size that fits is a rightwing straitjacket.

Even the conservative Cato Institute has said that H.R. 5 suffers from a fundamental flaw: It is not constitutional.

We should give young people the resources they need to learn and grow, not stifle their ideas, threaten their civil rights, censor their classrooms and teachers, or take books off library shelves. We should not promote chaos and bullying in our communities.

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record a letter from the American Library Association opposing H.R. 5, saying that the bill would create a catalyst for more book banning and censorship.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take a minute--or not even a minute--to correct a couple statements that were made.

First of all, I include in the Record an article from Jax Today titled: ``Duval Schools to keep 73 `diverse, inclusive' books out of classrooms.''

[From Jax Today, Dec. 22, 2022]

Duval Schools To Keep 73 `Diverse, Inclusive' Books Out of Classrooms

(By Claire Heddles)

Dozens of books the Duval County school district ordered in

the summer of 2021 will never hit classroom shelves. That's

the result of an ongoing review after the district pulled

almost 200 books this spring while the Florida Legislature

passed limits on what teachers can say about race, gender and

sexual orientation in classrooms and set new rules for

purchasing classroom materials.

After a 10-month process--delayed by staffing shortages,

according to the district--47 titles are being returned to

the distributor. Twenty-six others will remain in storage,

awaiting further state guidance.

Among the rejected titles are a book about Martin Luther

King Jr. intended for fourth graders; a biography of Rosa

Parks for second grade classrooms; a first grade Berenstain

Bears book about God; and multiple titles including LGBTQ+

characters and families. District staffers are sending the

rejected books back to the distributor, Perfection Learning,

for exchange.

The rest of the 179 books that had been held for review

were determined to meet ``statutory guidelines and are useful

toward our reading goals,'' and were distributed to

classrooms in October, a district representative tells

Jacksonville Today in an email.

All of the books are from the Essential Voices Classroom

Libraries collection, which the distributor says are meant to

engage students in ``independent reading through these

diverse, inclusive'' stories.

Explore the full list of books that were pulled for review:

`Banned books'

In September, PEN America, an organization advocating for

free speech, released a tally of books they said were banned

across the country, including more than 550 in Florida, the

second-most of any state. Only Texas banned more.

The list included the Essential Voices books the district

withheld from classrooms. Duval Schools contested the

characterization as a book ban because none of the books was

challenged by the public--the district pulled them before

they ever went on shelves.

Ami Polonsky is the author of one of the recently rejected

books, Gracefully Grayson, a transgender coming-of-age novel

intended for fifth grade classrooms. A teacher herself,

Polonsky believes books like hers are blocked to appease a

small subset of parents.

``Books can save kids' lives, and to know this, but still

refuse to take them out of storage is nonsensical, it's

immoral. A parenting perspective cannot outweigh a national

mental health crisis among trans children,'' Polonsky told

the School Board this month. ``Books that are ordered with

the best of intentions gather dust, and the LGBTQ children

continue to receive the message that their existence is

controversial.''

Polonsky and two other authors came to Jacksonville to

address the Duval School Board in early December at the

urging of national free speech organizations PEN America, We

Need Diverse Books and Freedom to Read. At the time, the

district had not yet publicly released the list of 106 books

it now says were distributed to classrooms in October.

New state laws

Another of the authors, Linda Sue Park, wrote a book about

South Sudanese sisters on a two-hour walk to get water for

their family called Nya's Long Walk. Her book was among the

179 titles initially pulled, but it was since distributed to

kindergarten classrooms, according to the district.

Park was in Jacksonville advocating for all the books in

the Essential Voices collection, many of which are written by

authors of color with main characters of color.

``You never know what book is going to do it for them, what

book is going to hit them, and that's why more choice, more

access, more variety is so important,'' she said.

Duval decided to pull the books for review as it grappled

with limited state guidance for how to implement at least

three new Florida laws that restricted school curricula: HB

1467, HB 7 and HB 1557.

HB 1467, sponsored by Rep. Sam Garrison, R-Fleming Island,

requires school districts to maintain a list of library

materials and make it easier for the public to contest school

books. Districts are also required to have a state-certified

media specialist sign off on new materials.

Starting in January 2023, school librarians and media

specialists will have to complete an online training program

developed by the state Department of Education. In an email

this week, a Duval Schools spokesperson said the remaining 26

Essential Voices book reviews will be the first use of this

training.

``Once that training [is] released, the district will use

this as a great opportunity to go through this process

applying the required training,'' the spokesperson wrote.

Another new law, HB 7, which Gov. Ron DeSantis nicknamed

the Stop WOKE Act, limited how teachers can talk about race

and

racism and in the classroom. A federal judge blocked the law

from taking effect last month, calling it ``positively

dystopian.'' The DeSantis administration is appealing the

ruling in federal court.

Though HB 7 is not currently in effect, Duval Schools

blocked multiple books that deal with race and history,

including a Memphis, Martin, and the Mountaintop by Alice

Faye Duncan, about Martin Luther King Jr. and the 1968

sanitation strike; Other Words for Home by Jasmine Warga,

about a 12-year-old Syrian refugee in the U.S.; and Separate

Is Never Equal: Sylvia Mendez and Her Family's Fight for

Desegregation by Duncan Tonatiuh, a children's book about the

fight to end segregation in California schools seven years

before Brown v. Board of Education--the Supreme Court

decision that found school segregation unconstitutional.

A third new law, HB 1557, or Parental Rights in Education,

bans instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity

in first through third grade, ``or in a manner that is not

age-appropriate'' in older grades. Rather than define ``age

appropriate,'' the law that critics call ``Don't Say Gay''

allows parents to sue districts if they believe something is

not.

Polonsky's rejected book, Gracefully Grayson, was intended

for fifth graders. Other books meant for older grade levels

with LGBTQ+ stories are also being sent back, including the

fourth grade book, Rainbow Revolutionaries: Fifty LGBTQ+

People Who Made History, by Sarah Prager, and The Stonewall

Riots: Coming Out in the Street, by Gayle E. Pitman for fifth

graders.

Also in response to HB 1557, the Duval school district

dramatically shrank its LGBTQ+ support guide, removed rainbow

stickers and posters that supported LGBTQ students from

classrooms and took down a 12-minute anti-bullying video that

taught middle and high school students how to support their

gay and transgender peers.

Ellen Oh, author and CEO of the national nonprofit We Need

Diverse Books, says Duval's actions are particularly

concerning because the decisions were made before any parent

complained about the books.

``It's the secretive, the silent censoring part of it that

is so troublesome to us,'' Oh said ahead of the Dec. 6 School

Board meeting. ``Books that have been banned have been done

publicly. People have challenged books. In this case, these

books were pulled because of fear. We can't live in a society

like that.''

Mr. Speaker, also, it is not the first time my colleague mentioned the book ``Flamer,'' which he described as a graphic book about a child at summer camp. In fact, it is a graphic novel, which is kind of a trend that he may not be familiar with.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes), who is a teacher.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Landsman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. Speaker, there are many issues that we should be dealing with here.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a resolution that states the House's unyielding responsibility to defend and preserve Social Security and Medicare for generations to come and to affirm that it is the position of the House to reject any cuts to these vital programs.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, Social Security and Medicare are foundational to our constituents' economic and health security. Republicans have demanded unconscionable cuts to these programs in exchange for raising the debt limit and paying our Nation's bills.

Some of my Republican colleagues have recently changed their rhetoric and now say that they don't want to eviscerate Social Security and Medicare benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I am offering my friends the opportunity to back up their newfound position.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Rules Committee, I do feel compelled to comment upon the amendment process that we have with respect to this rule and bill.

I am astounded that, once again, the Republican majority has reported such an imbalanced rule. This rule actually makes in order every single germane Republican amendment submitted before our meeting yesterday, but for Democratic amendments, the rule blocks 28 of the 31 germane amendments offered by the Democrats. That is a 90 percent suppression rate of the ideas submitted by the minority party, all of which were compliant with the rules of the House but have been blocked by Republicans from being debated or voted upon.

The Rules Committee Republicans actually complained about amendment disparities during the Democratic majority, saying, ``There is no context in which such a stifling of minority voices is consistent with the designs of this institution or in the best interest of the American people we represent.''

That complaint was written after we made in order 30 percent of the amendments submitted by Republicans to structured rule bills. When we do 30 percent, it is a crisis for the institution, but when they do 5 percent this month, it is okay.

Speaker McCarthy actually promised both sides ``. . . more openness, more opportunity for ideas to win at the end of the day.''

Mr. Speaker, that promise has been broken. This Republican majority knows their bills fail to address real problems, so they continue to block our good ideas from coming to the floor rather than actually debating them. It is wrong, and they need to do better.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to H.R. 5, it does not promote the rights of parents, but it does open the door to censoring teachers and textbooks, threatening the rights of students and their parents, imposing costly burdens on our neighborhood schools that they cannot afford, and infringing on core American values, including freedom of speech and ideas.

It puts rightwing politics over parents and would let a noisy minority push their own agenda and impose their beliefs of what children can or should read or learn onto all parents and students.

Our schools carry out important responsibilities of educating the next generation of Americans, and all children deserve access to an equitable and well-rounded education that equips them for the future.

We should give our schools the resources to help young people feel supported and ready to reach their full potential. We should not create hostile environments for our most marginalized students. We should not pit parents against each other and against educators, and we should not drive wedges between families and their neighborhood schools. I want to do better than that for our kids, and I hope others today want the same.

Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and the rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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?

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.

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

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.

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----

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.

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. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Louisiana (Ms. Letlow).

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bean), chair of the Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), the chair of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller), who is the vice chair of the Education and Workforce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mills).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Moran).

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. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler) for purposes of a colloquy.

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. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

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. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Guest).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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.

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).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley), a member of the committee.

Madam Chair, I yield the gentleman from California an additional 30 seconds.

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.

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.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment.

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.

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.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

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.

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.

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.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

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.

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

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.