Expressing support for developing supportive, inclusive, safe, and responsive public schools that provide all students with a well-rounded education and prepare all students for success in life and for the exercise of their social and economic rights, fostering parental involvement in education in a manner that builds partnerships and trust between parents and educators, and protecting the civil rights of students and families.

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.

Madam Chair, I think I would prefer that we fixed all of the schools so that all students are provided with an opportunity of a high-quality education and a safe and healthy environment.

All this amendment does is give people the right to scurry around and try to find the best schools. Those that are the best at identifying the best schools may end up there, but frankly, all this is going to do is cause confusion because when word gets around as to which are the best schools, everybody will want to go to that school. Then what?

The majority has offered the amendment in committee to let parents know that if they can work the system, they may get their child into a good school but all the rest end up in a school that is dilapidated, unaccredited, or otherwise undesirable.

We need to work to improve all of the schools, not just figure out a scheme where some can figure out how to get their child into a good school and leave everyone else behind.

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

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed.

Madam Chair, I support the amendment because the GAO report will actually expose the legislation for what it is. It is a waste of money, will provide no meaningful rights, and it will adversely affect the education of the children.

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

Mr. 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.

Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5, which we should really call the politics over parents act.

As a mom of three, let me be clear about what this legislation would do. It opens the door to gagging educators, parents, and students, and turns classrooms into archaic tools for a vocal extremist minority.

Worse, it undermines what any mother wants for her child, a supportive classroom space that provides a fact-based education and practical life skills and critical-thinking skills.

Just look at the colossal education nightmare unfolding in my home State of Florida right now. Governor DeSantis and his stooge Florida lawmakers propose prohibiting girls from discussing their menstrual periods with one another while in school. They are already banning books, and they are barring certain elements of African-American history from being taught in school.

Governor DeSantis and his radical allies are also waging a cruel campaign to marginalize Florida's LGBTQ+ community, and suppress the histories of others they deem unworthy.

The Republican revival of the Lavender Scare includes shutting down businesses and passing a ``Don't Say Gay'' law that bans classroom discussions of sexual orientation and gender identity, even in high school.

Like a cancer, this hateful law has spread, with Republicans now censoring educators on a wide variety of topics, so it is no surprise my colleagues across the aisle want to export these same dangerous policies across America.

Make no mistake, H.R. 5 undermines teachers, and instead of offering students more support, it effectively denies it. The result of this law in Florida has cleared bookshelves and canceled coursework and an AP exam on African-American history.

As a mother whose children attended public schools, I speak for millions of moms when I say all we want for our children is a safe learning environment that ensures they discover the wider world, and not force them to grow into narrow-minded, ignorant adults.

This legislation just hands a vocal and extreme minority of parents the power to dictate what every American child learns.

To all my business-friendly Republicans, every classroom move to censor

and ban leaves our children even less competitive on the global stage. Mark my words.

Take it from this mom: We should reject this misguided legislation and, instead, unite to build classrooms where every child gets the resources and support they need to succeed in the 21st century.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the First Focus Campaign for Children.

March 20, 2023.

Hon. Julia Letlow,

Member, Committee on Education & the Workforce, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Kevin McCarthy,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Virginia Foxx,

Chair, Committee on Education & the Workforce, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Bobby Scott,

Ranking Member, Committee on Education & the Workforce, House

of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Congresswoman Letlow, Speaker McCarthy, Leader

Jeffries, Chairwoman Foxx, and Ranking Member Scott: I am

writing on behalf of First Focus Campaign for Children, a

bipartisan children's advocacy organization dedicated to

making children and families a priority in federal budget and

policy decisions, to express opposition to H.R. 5, the

Parents Bill of Rights Act. We do not believe this bill

strikes the right balance between the duties of schools, the

rights and responsibilities of parents, and the oft-ignored

but important rights of children.

Parental Engagement Is Critical

First, let's be clear: Parents are fundamental to the

upbringing of children and absolutely should be engaged and

involved in the education of their children. In fact,

children have better outcomes when their parents are

involved. As a parent of four children myself, I have engaged

with my children's schools by voting in school board

elections, attending all parent-teacher conferences,

volunteering in my children's classrooms, scheduling time to

meet with teachers and administrators when important issues

arise, serving on the PTAs at my children's schools, serving

on athletic booster clubs, and volunteering as an assistant

boys and girls basketball coach for two county schools.

In addition to my personal experiences, I have learned a

great deal over the years from both of my parents, my step-

mother, step-brother, my uncle, and several cousins, who are

all educators. Consequently, I have immense respect for the

work, talent, dedication, and concern that the vast majority

of teachers and educators bring to their profession on a

daily basis--all with the goal of educating our nation's

children to best achieve their hopes and dreams while also

trying to provide a place of safety and compassion for

each and every one of their students.

Again, we strongly support parental engagement in

education, but parents should not control all curriculum and

educational decisions. Doing so is unworkable.

For example, imagine an elementary school of 500 students

where 12 parents oppose the teaching of evolution, 8 parents

believe the early is flat, 21 are Holocaust deniers, 14

oppose learning about slavery, 7 believe in racial

segregation, 17 believe in the concept of schools without

walls, 27 believe in corporal punishment, 12 want Harry

Potter books to be banned, 25 want books banned that mention

the Trail of Tears, 31 believe parents should be allowed to

overrule a physician's decision that a child with a

concussion should refrain from participating in sports, 39

oppose keeping kids out of school when they have the flu, 4

believe that a child with cancer might be contagious, 34

believe students should be ``tracked'' in all subject areas,

12 believe students should not be taught how to spell the

words ``sinal tap'', ``quarantine'', or ``isolation'' because

they are too ``scary of words''. 41 don't like the bus

routes, 45 want a vegan-only lunchroom, 4 demand same-sex

classrooms, etc. Even though most parents oppose these

demands by some parents and many of them are completely

false, undermine the purpose of education, threaten the

safety of children, or promote discrimination, H.R. 5 would

seek to push their accommodation in some form.

The Real Parents Agenda for Children

We must all do better by our kids.

By an overwhelming 77-11 percent margin, a May 2022 poll by

Lake Research Partners found that parents believe ``policy

involving children should always be governed by a `best

interest of the child' standard.'' By a 60-19 percent margin,

the American people believe we are spending too little as

opposed to too much on public education. And when it comes in

investing in children, 9-in-10 voters (90-7 percent) agreed

with the statement that ``investing in children helps improve

their lives, development, and outcomes.''

When it comes to children's policy overall, a nationwide

survey by Global Strategy Group in February 2023 found that

American voters have strong priorities in favor of ``creating

more effective childcare options for all families'' (87-8

percent), ``expanding family and medical leave'' (82-12

percent), bringing back the improved Child Tax Credit (76-13

percent), and ``expanding universal preschool for all 3- and

4-year-olds'' (73-16 percent). The support for this agenda

stands in sharp contrast to the opposition that American

voters express to an agenda that would call for ``passing

legislation banning transgender-focused health care options

for young Americans'' (41-47 percent), ``banning books that

some parents find to have questionable content'' (32-57

percent), and ``banning high school classes like AP African-

American history'' (21-68 percent).

Children Have Fundamental Rights Too

Before diving into the details of H.R. 5, it is important

to acknowledge that children need the support BY parents and

government to be successful, and that they also sometimes

need protection FROM parents and government.

The fact is that children have unique and fundamental human

rights that should not be ignored or dismissed. These include

the right to an education, the right to health care, the

right to be protected from abuse and violence at home and in

schools, the right to be protected from gun violence and

school shootings, the right to not be discriminated against

because of their race, ethnicity, gender (including gender

identity and sexual orientation), economic status,

disability, religion, immigration status, or age.

As for parental rights and H.R. 5's attempts to modify the

Protection of Pupil Rights Act (PPRA) and the Family

Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), it is important to

highlight that PPRA was originally enacted nearly 50 years

ago (in 1974) and has been modified several times, including

in 1978, 1994, and 2002, in order to broaden access and

consent requirements.

H.R. 5 Adds New Bureaucracy to Schools and Detracts from the Time,

Attention, and Funding Dedicated to Students

While the impetus for aspects of H.R. 5 are well-

intentioned, our first concern is that the language is

duplicative of language already in federal law, policies in

state law, and general practice by school districts all

across this country in many respects but also potentially

adds new bureaucracy and red tape to schools and school

districts all across this for no apparent benefit.

Unfortunately, these proposed changes may potentially harm

children. Any funding, time, and attention that is shifted

away from students and their learning toward added

bureaucracy and red tape can be detrimental to students. But

H.R. 5 provides no funding to address the many newly imposed

bureaucratic requirements upon schools.

For example, H.R. 5 proposes new reporting requirements for

schools to include in their ``local educational agency report

card'' a budget that is detailed ``for each elementary school

and secondary school served by the local educational

agency.'' Requiring detailed accounting of costs, some of

which are shared across school campuses (e.g., school nurses,

bus drivers, etc.), for the more than 90,000 public schools

across this country will likely greatly increase the

employment of accountants. However, H.R. 5 does not provide

funding to pay for such a mandate. Before proceeding, we

should acknowledge that this newly-imposed mandate detracts

from the funding, time, and attention school districts and

educators have for improving the education and well-being of

children.

First Focus Campaign for Children supports tracking funding

that is allocated for children's programs as a share of

government spending, and thus, annually produce a Children's

Budget that analyzes the funding of more than 250 federal

programs. We share this report with Congress to raise the

awareness and transparency of funding for children. However,

we would urge Congress to focus as many of those dollars as

possible on the children themselves and not on excessive

accounting and reporting measures that consume much of the

attention and focus of H.R. 5.

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

Another important concern is language from Sec. 104 and

Sec. 202 that would require schools to share with all parents

of students at every school ``a list of books and other

reading materials available to the students of such school in

the school library.'' Again, compiling, cataloging, and

sharing such information to all parents would come at great

time and expense that is not paid for by H.R. 5. That money

and time would come at the expense of librarians and other

educators focused on the education of children. Parents

already have the right to visit their child's school and its

library, to request such information, and to ask their own

children what they are learning and reading in school.

Rather than adding the burdens of more bureaucracy and red

tape to schools and creating a chilling effect through

increasing incidences of censorship and book bans, we should

be working together to pass legislation to encourage students

to read and learn through greater access to books, such as

Reach Out and Read, First Book, Reading Is Fundamental, and

other literacy programs. An individual parent should not

solely be allowed to object to a book and cause its

censorship for all of the children in a school or school

district. This violates the parental rights of the vast

majority of parents who do not support book bans or

censorship.

Even more importantly, it violates the fundamental rights

of children. As Justice

Abe Fortas wrote in his majority opinion in Tinker v. Des

Moines Independent School District (1969):

Students in school as well as out of school are ``persons''

under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental

rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves

must respect their obligations to the State . . . In the

absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid

reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to

freedom of expression of their views.

Justice Fortas adds:

It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers

shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or

expression at the schoolhouse gate.

In the Supreme Court case Island Trees School District v.

Pico (1982), the Court ruled that children have a fundamental

right to an education and access to learning that is not

limited by the censorship of books based on ``narrowly

partisan or political'' grounds. As Justice William Brennan

writes:

Our Constitution does not permit the official suppression

of ideas. Thus, whether petitioners' removal of books from

their school libraries denied respondents their First

Amendment rights depends upon the motivation behind

petitioners' actions. If petitioners intended by their

removal decision to deny respondents access to ideas with

which petitioners disagreed, and if this intent was the

decisive factor in petitioners' decisions, then petitioners

have exercised their discretion in violation of the

Constitution.

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

Students

Concern about access to health care for our children leads

us to oppose the language in H.R. 5 with respect to school

health. There were more than 4 million children in this

country that were uninsured in 2020. In 2016, the Children's

Health Fund estimated that over 20 million children lacked

``sufficient access to essential health care.''

Therefore, the role of school based health clinics, school

nurses, school counselors, coaches, social workers, and

physical trainers in schools is critically important to the

health, education, and well-being of children. The language

in H.R. 5 appears to dramatically expands the potential

incidences in which all of these school personnel would have

to seek out parental notification and consent prior to

performing care, such as to check whether a student has a

fever, has an ankle sprain, may have experienced a

concussion, or need to check for a possible broken bone. In

many cases, these may not be considered emergencies, but in

the meantime, children languish or must wait while school

personnel spend large amounts of time trying to track down

parents for consent.

In the report accompanying H.R. 5, the House Education and

Workforce Committee majority write, ``Americans should never

be forced to relinquish these parental rights to government--

whether that involves curriculum decisions or personal

medical choices'' (emphasis added).

We strongly disagree.

First, such a statement would threaten the health, safety,

and lives of some children in our country. For example, based

on that statement, does the Committee majority reject the

ability of schools to set graduation requirements? Oppose the

teaching of evolution? Allow parents to send children to

school even if they are vomiting, have a fever, diarrhea, or

have a communicable disease? Does the Committee majority now

oppose school vaccine mandates? School concussion protocols?