Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act

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

Another week, Mr. Speaker, another chance for this Republican majority to show the American people what they actually care about. Once again, sadly, it is not affordability. It is not lowering prices. It is not the issues that my constituents raise with me at townhalls back home.

For 16 long, long months, Republicans have controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House. Republicans have been running the show for over a year now, and what have they done?

Have they lowered prices? Not grocery prices; those are up. Not gas prices; those are up, too. Not healthcare costs; those are up, too. Not utilities or childcare; those are more expensive than ever.

That is the problem with winning power, Mr. Speaker. At some point, the problems you complain about become your problems, and if you fail to fix them, then that failure is yours. That is where this Republican majority finds itself.

You guys have failed to deliver big time.

Donald Trump promised he would end the war in Ukraine. Not only did he fail to do that, he started a new one in Iran.

Republicans promised they would lower prices on day one. We are now in year 2, and where are prices? They are not down. They are up, way up. Ground beef, vegetables, fruit, sugar, it is all up, according to Trump's own USDA.

Whose fault is it? Democrats did not start the war with Iran that is driving up food and gas prices. Republicans did that. It wasn't Biden who put in place tariffs that are hurting American farmers and jacking up costs. Republicans did that. The left did not give massive tax breaks to billionaires paid for by stealing from the program working families use to buy groceries. Republicans did that.

This administration and Republicans in Congress spent years claiming Democrats drove up prices and promising they would bring them down on day one. They failed. If you want to know why, look no further than the bills on the floor this week.

It is a greatest hits album of MAGA extremism, corporate giveaways, and political theater: a culture war bill targeting trans kids; a budget resolution that moves Heaven and Earth to give even more money to ICE and CBP while FEMA, TSA, and the Coast Guard remain shut down because Speaker Johnson refuses to advance a bipartisan Senate agreement that would pass overwhelmingly if brought to the floor; a FISA bill that lets the government spy on Americans without proper warrant safeguards; and a farm bill that locks in long-term cuts to SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, after Trump's big, ugly bill stole nearly $200 billion from the program in order to give tax breaks to billionaires.

We are talking about a food benefit that gives barely over $6 a day to some of the poorest people in this country, many working multiple jobs and still unable to make ends meet and many others who are seniors, who are veterans, who are children, and Americans with disabilities.

That is the meager benefit you guys cut to give tax breaks to rich people. Give me a break.

Let's not forget the provision in this farm bill that helps chemical companies dump toxic chemicals into our food system, poisoning farmworkers and polluting our air and water. Who the hell asked for that? Was it drafted in the Monsanto boardroom?

Thankfully, a popular bipartisan amendment was made in order by the Committee on Agriculture to fix the provision. While I am glad that we will be able to take a vote on it and see where Members lie on this issue--my hope is that it passes--it still doesn't fix the rest of this awful, terrible bill.

Costs are up. Corruption is up. Chaos is up, and you guys are screwing over poor people. This is beyond outrageous. It is immoral. It is sick. It is wrong.

After huddling in back rooms and arguing among themselves, Republicans are now sending to the floor a year-round E15 bill--get this, Mr. Speaker--that adds billions of dollars to the deficit. They are doing it in a very clever way. Once the E15 bill passes, it gets combined with the farm bill before it gets sent to the Senate.

Where are my Freedom Caucus friends? Do you even know that this provision is in the bill? Do you even know what is going on here? I mean, billions and billions of dollars are being added to the deficit. I thought you cared about the deficit, but apparently you don't. It is a reason to vote against this rule. If you don't know about it, then the leadership of this House pulled a fast one on you.

Since the day Trump took office last year, the national debt has gone up $2.8 trillion. Full Republican control--full Republican control has added nearly $3 trillion to the debt, and now we are

adding billions more with another Republican backroom deal.

I mean, during our Agriculture Committee markup, Chairman Thompson said over and over and over again that we had an obligation to remain budget neutral. He said that that is why we couldn't do anything to address the horrible nutrition cuts, why we couldn't do anything to provide any more support for our farmers, and why we couldn't modernize our conservation programs.

We can't do any of those things, but if it is for war or if it is for tax cuts for the rich or for this E15 bill, Republicans are more than happy to add to the debt.

Gut it. Gut it.

Mr. Speaker, people are struggling. They are working hard, and they are falling behind. If Republicans spent half as much time lowering costs as they spend passing nonbinding resolutions congratulating themselves, maybe we could actually get something done around here, but they can't help themselves.

The billionaires say, jump, and the Speaker asks: How high?

Monsanto says: Bail us out. Republicans ask: How much?

Big Tech, Big Ag, and Big Oil, they all run wild. It is pathetic, Mr. Speaker--pathetic.

The American people were promised lower costs. They were promised a Congress that would fight for them. They were lied to. Instead, they got extremism. They got a majority that wakes up every morning and asks how to make life easier for the rich and powerful. They got an administration and a Congress that covers up for Epstein-elite pedophiles instead of fighting for everyday people. Enough already.

This is an awful rule. It blocks 7 of 10 Republican amendments. It blocks 7 of 10 Republican amendments, 8 out of 10 bipartisan amendments, and 9 out of 10 Democratic amendments. No Member of this House has had an amendment debated on the floor in nearly 100 days. Now that we do, here is what we get.

In case it was not clear yet, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, let me say to my colleague from Georgia: Keep bragging about gas prices and see how that works for you in November.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article titled: ``U.S. Gas Prices Hit Highest Level Since Beginning of War in Iran.''

Mr. Speaker, I will say to my friend, the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee: We offered amendments because we haven't had a vote on an amendment in nearly 100 days. No Democrat and no Republican has been able to vote on an amendment in nearly 100 days.

Mr. Van Orden, who is sitting there, had two amendments that were blocked. Mr. Neguse offered one of them last night, and every Republican voted against it.

Some of the amendments that we offered, quite frankly, I support. The Biggs amendment on FISA, I support. That was really an interesting display of theater because we had the votes, but one of the Republicans, Mr. Griffith, every time we brought it up, conveniently got up and walked out of the room so he didn't have to cast a vote. We called it up several times, and he kept on walking out of the room. If you want to talk about theater, that really does deserve an Academy Award.

There were a lot of other amendments, quite frankly, that we brought up that I support. By the way, we brought up amendments that I don't support, but just because I don't support them doesn't mean they don't deserve to be debated on the House floor.

That is one of the problems with the Republican leadership right now in Congress. You don't believe that this place is a deliberative body. You believe it is kind of your way or the highway, and it is not just Democrats who are getting locked out.

What is the percentage of Republicans? Republican amendments were blocked 70 percent of the time. Most of them were germane. Some of them weren't even particularly controversial in any way, shape, or form. They were blocked.

Bipartisan amendments were blocked 80 percent of the time. I know you don't care about Democrats, but 90 percent of our amendments were blocked. I mean, 70 percent of your own party were denied amendments in the Rules Committee. Again, it has been nearly 100 days since we have had a debate on any amendment, Republican or Democratic amendment.

Again, if that is how you all want this place to be run, have at it, but I would urge my Republican colleagues to take a stand now. Say ``no'' to this. Say ``no'' to this, and I guarantee you that it will change. Yet, going along to get along has resulted in even Republican Members being denied the right to offer their amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Craig), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture who has done an incredible job standing up for our farmers and for the most needy in this country.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to say to the gentleman who just spoke, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I have great respect for him, but that is a lot of words basically to say that Democrats and Republicans will be denied the right to be able to debate and vote on a warrant requirement.

Madam Speaker, I have already spoken about how terrible the bills in this rule are, but let me just take a minute to talk about how much of a dumpster fire the last 48 hours have been from a process standpoint.

The way this place is being run by your so-called leadership, Madam Speaker, is beyond incompetent. It is pathetic.

We spent all night waiting around while Republicans fought amongst themselves. We were told nearly at midnight on Monday to go home. We were then told Rules would meet at 8 a.m. on Tuesday. We showed up for that meeting only to be told there would be no meeting because Republicans were still busy fighting with each other.

Madam Speaker, you guys had all weekend. Didn't you think to do a Zoom call or something like that with your members to find out where they were? On FISA, this thing has been going on for weeks. Didn't you have a meeting or a phone call or a text thread or something to try to work that out?

Finally, at long last, we convened and reported out a rule, but based on public reporting, it is not clear whether the rule that we are debating right now can pass.

So what the hell are we doing here? I mean, can somebody please, please call the Republican whip and ask his office if they have the votes? Maybe they can ask them if they know how to count. We keep running around in circles here, Madam Speaker, and I will tell you why.

You guys have a tiny, slim majority. Rather than trying to work things out with Democrats, you cut us out of the process. The result is endless chaos, endless incompetence, and endless delay, and everyday Americans are the ones who pay the price.

Here is just one example. Democrats tried to make in order many Republican amendments in the Rules Committee last night. One of them, authored by Representative Biggs, would require a warrant before the government spies on Americans. Last time the amendment came to the floor, it tied. Clearly, this is an important issue with members of both parties on both sides. It is exactly the kind of debate Congress should be having out in the open.

What did Republicans do? Well, there were two Republicans who voted with us to bring the amendment to the floor--again, an amendment to make sure the government can't spy on Americans without warrants. That was what the amendment was. Then, a third Republican, as I mentioned before, kept getting up and leaving the room every time we called the vote. It was really comical.

That is why we won't be having a floor debate, again, on a Republican amendment. That was a Republican amendment we tried to bring to the floor, and it was blocked by a Republican who literally had to get up and leave the room because if he didn't, it would pass. I just wonder who asked him to leave. What an embarrassment to this institution.

For the record, it isn't just one amendment Republicans have blocked here. It is hundreds. Seven out of 10 Republican amendments are blocked. Eight out of 10 bipartisan amendments are blocked. Nine out of 10 Democratic amendments are blocked. Let me repeat that: Nine out of 10 Democratic amendments are blocked in this rule.

Over 50 times in the Rules Committee last night, we asked to simply have an up-or-down vote on these important issues on the floor. Over 50 times, we were blocked.

I understand my ideas won't always prevail and win, but to not even be able to get a vote--I mean, what the hell are Republicans afraid of? Isn't it our job to debate and to vote?

This is an interesting statistic. For the record, we had more amendment votes in the Rules Committee last night than we have had on the House floor this entire year. That is not okay. We call ourselves one of the greatest deliberative bodies of the world, and we aren't deliberating on anything, for God's sake.

Republican leaders are blocking nearly every amendment, and that is what this rule does. It blocks idea after idea after idea from being debated and voted on.

We can't debate more aid for farmers. We can't debate more help for hungry families. We have Republican Members who are publicly threatening to take down this rule because their amendments were blocked, too. I disagree strongly with some of their ideas, and I would vote ``no,'' but they deserve a vote, don't they?

These bills are take it or leave it. The leadership dictates every single letter, every comma. This is no way to run this place. It is no way to run a banana stand. It is pathetic. It is a disgrace. The Speaker and the majority ought to be embarrassed by what is going on here. You are screwing over your own Members.

Madam Speaker, you write bad bills, and you block good ideas. You refuse to work with Democrats in a bipartisan way. You bend over backward to appease the people in your Conference who have no interest in governing.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), a member of the Rules Committee who was there during the entire fiasco in the Rules Committee yesterday, to further expand on what I have been talking about.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would remind the gentleman from Wisconsin that he is in the majority party and that 100 percent of his amendments were blocked. I don't know what he did to tick off Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia, but he voted against his amendments in the Rules Committee last night.

By the way, I am somebody who believes that we ought to debate amendments, even the ones that I don't always agree with, because I think this is a place where diversity of opinion and ideas ought to be brought to the floor and ought to be debated.

I am sorry the gentleman doesn't share that passion. I will tell you this: If you vote for this rule, as you just said you would, you can look forward to your future amendments being blocked by the majority in your own party, because that is what they have been doing.

We haven't had a debate on a single amendment on this floor in nearly 100 days. I am not okay with that, and I hope my Republican colleagues are not okay with that, either.

They ought to send a message to your leadership that this bs has to stop now. Individual Members have to be respected, and their ideas need to be brought to the floor.

I will say one final thing on the E15 matter. I think it is a legitimate issue. Our problem with it is that we are told that we can't address the issue of hunger and food insecurity because it adds to the deficit and the debt.

The Republican leadership in here knows that the Office of Management and Budget has said that the E15 provision will cost billions--billions with a b. Rather than offset it, they came up with a clever way to vote on it separately and then merge it with the farm bill at the end and send it to the Senate.

Again, none of this is paid for. What happened to fiscal responsibility? I guess when it comes to helping poor people, everybody on that side is: Oh, we can't do it because we have to be fiscally responsible. On other things, the sky is the limit.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Dexter).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I am sorry that my colleague from Georgia does not believe that we can help both farmers and hungry families, but I do. That is what I am fighting for.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to adopt the Senate amendment to H.R. 7147, the bipartisan compromise bill that the Senate unanimously passed twice now to fund all the law-abiding agencies under the Department of Homeland Security.

Enough is enough. This is the deal to fund the Department of Homeland Security while we discuss changes in ICE and CBP. It is a bipartisan measure. It passed unanimously in the Senate twice.

The situation is so dire now that even the White House has sent a letter urging the House to pass the bill.

I am, once again, giving all Members of this body a chance to do the right thing and to provide a vote on this bipartisan DHS bill. Stop the games. Stop the games.

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

I urge all Members to reject this madness and the games my friends are playing on the other side of the aisle and vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can fund, finally, DHS.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I just wish the E15 measure was paid for and wasn't going to explode the deficit.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Madam Speaker, I don't have any more speakers, and I am prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time I have remaining.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, prices are up, debate in this House is down. We are debating culture war nonsense instead of adhering to an affordability agenda. We are giving more money to ICE and CBP that are lawless and that don't need any more money. We are giving more tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires. Farmers are getting screwed over, poor people are getting screwed over, hunger is going up in this country, and enough is enough. Enough is enough.

My friends on the other side do not care.

I will say to my Republican colleagues: If you are tired of getting rolled by your own leadership, then vote ``no'' on this rule. Vote ``no'' on this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1224 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate

only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, last night the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1224, providing for consideration of H.R. 7567, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, to be considered under a structured rule.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture or their respective designees, provides for one motion to recommit, and makes 57 amendments in order.

The rule provides for consideration of S. 1318, the Foreign Intelligence Accountability Act, to be considered under a closed rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees and the chair and ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence or their respective designees, and provides one motion to commit.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2616, the Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act, to be considered under a closed rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Education and Workforce or their respective designees and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule provides for consideration of S. Con. Res. 33, setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2026 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2027 through 2035 to be considered under a closed rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Budget or their respective designees.

Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1346, the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act of 2025, to be considered under a closed rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees and provides one motion to recommit.

Additionally, the rule provides that in the engrossment of H.R. 7567, the clerk shall add the text of H.R. 1346, should it pass the House, as new matter at the end of H.R. 7567.

The rule also provides that in the engrossment of S. 1318, the clerk shall add the text of H.R. 1919, as passed by the House, as new matter at the end of the House amendment to S. 1318.

Finally, the rule allows the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules at any time through the legislative day on May 1, 2026.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate the rule on five pieces of legislation, beginning with H.R. 7567, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026.

Mr. Speaker, our country's farmers and ranchers are currently experiencing years of high input costs, shrinking margins, and uncertainty heading into the growing season. Misguided policy decisions from the previous administration have led to overregulation and consolidation, leaving the American producer to pay the price.

However, Mr. Speaker, through the body's work on H.R. 1, we achieved the first meaningful investments in the farm safety net since 2002, we brought integrity back to our nutrition programs, and we provided relief to our farming families through tax cuts.

H.R. 7567 builds on the accomplishments of H.R. 1 and completes the long-delayed farm bill process, addressing the remaining farm country needs. H.R. 7567 reinforces the farm safety net, allowing our producers the certainty they need to endure unpredictable markets, volatile weather, and rising input costs.

Strengthening ARC and PLC, expanding disaster assistance tools, and improving support for specialty crops gives producers the stability needed to keep producing the safest, most abundant food supply in the world.

The bill reaffirms our Nation's commitment to locally led, science- based conservation practices through improvements to programs like EQIP, CSP, and CRP. Promoting precision agriculture and science-based practices helps protect our natural resources while keeping working lands productive for generations to come.

Additionally, H.R. 7567 modernizes trade and global food assistance, codifying the move of the Food for Peace program to the USDA. Streamlining Food for Peace authorities and reinvesting in proven export promotion programs strengthens U.S. competitiveness abroad, while ensuring American commodities remain central to feeding vulnerable populations worldwide.

H.R. 7567 bolsters the future of American agriculture by improving access to farm credit, especially for those beginning, young, and small farmers. This farm bill ensures they have the capital they need to build and sustain their operations.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is centered on affordability and is a win for rural America. Investments in broadband, childcare, healthcare, workforce needs, and critical water and infrastructure projects strengthen our rural communities and give them the support to thrive in the years to come.

The Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 delivers for our producers, strengthens our rural communities, and protects the security of America's food supply.

This is thoughtful legislation that has culminated from years of listening to farmers, ranchers, and families across our country in response to current realities with real solutions.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues and all the staff for the work that went into the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Moving on to S. 1318, the Foreign Intelligence Accountability Act, Mr. Speaker, this would authorize section 702 for 3 years. I will be clear: We cannot allow section 702 to expire at a moment when our adversaries are expanding their capabilities, accelerating their operations, and exploiting every gap in our intelligence posture.

Allowing this authority to expire would leave the United States blind to threats that move at the speed of the modern conflict. Section 702 allows the United States Government to collect intelligence on foreign nationals located overseas--I repeat, foreign nationals located overseas--who are reasonably believed to possess foreign intelligence information.

The FBI can only access FISA 702 data if the foreign section 702 target is relevant to an existing, open, predicated, full national security investigation. Section 702 cannot be used to target any U.S. person at home or abroad. That prohibition is explicit and reinforced by multiple layers of oversight.

While section 702 was first authorized in 2008 and has been reauthorized since with bipartisan support, it certainly has not been perfect. To account for needed reforms, Congress passed the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act in 2024, the largest FBI and FISA reform in decades.

This law mandated 56 different reforms, including strict limitations on FBI queries involving U.S. persons and a severe reduction in the number of FBI personnel with access to 702 data.

Additionally, to address concerns about the FBI's compliance on U.S. person queries, RISAA required the Bureau to provide an annual report detailing any noncompliant queries and what accountability measures were imposed on each FBI person who was determined to have conducted a noncompliant query.

This has led to 100 percent of queries on U.S. persons being reviewed by the

National Security Division and the FBI's Office of Internal Auditing. These reforms were not symbolic. They were structural, enforceable, and designed to ensure that section 702 remains both effective and accountable.

A quick example of effectiveness can be seen when comparing 2021 FBI queries, which numbered 2.9 million, to 2025 queries, which numbered 7,413.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this bill contains additional reforms that Congress has worked to include over the last few weeks. Failing to reauthorize this authority, which allows us to stop terrorist attacks on United States soil, would be a massive setback, one that our adversaries would exploit immediately.

The time is now to reauthorize section 702.

Next, Mr. Speaker, we have H.R. 2616, the Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act. This legislation addressed an important issue facing our country today: protecting a parent's right to be informed and involved in conversations regarding their children's education and what is happening inside their classrooms.

The Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act does that. It would prohibit any federally funded public elementary or middle school from changing a child's name, pronoun, or access to facilities such as bathrooms or locker rooms without parental consent.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about elementary and middle schools. This legislation emphasizes the fundamental role of parents in making sensitive decisions regarding their children's identity and accommodations in school. This legislation responds to recent developments across the country where parental rights are being trampled on in favor of a progressive agenda that is completely out of touch with the average American family.

This is an urgent moment for Congress to stand up for parents and children and to reinforce the critical need for parental engagement and awareness in their child's education. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, we have S. Con. Res. 33, setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2026 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2027 through 2035.

This legislation would unlock the budget reconciliation process to fully fund both Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection through early 2029, continuing to deliver on the GOP- led Congress' promise to ensure our borders are secure and the brave men and women of ICE and CBP have the necessary resources to do so.

Over the last 18 months, President Trump has delivered on his promise to America to secure the southern border, deport violent illegal aliens, and support the law enforcement officers at Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection.

These officers work tirelessly to secure our borders and ensure Americans remain safe from foreign threats. It is time for Congress to do the same.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have H.R. 1346, the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act of 2025. This legislation allows the option to sell gasoline that is blended with 10 percent to 15 percent ethanol year-round. Furthermore, it provides additional reforms to the renewable fuel standard.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the consideration of these important points of legislation, and I urge passage of this rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the gentleman brought up corruption. Certainly, we have seen what is going on in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and many of the other Democratic-run cities and States.

He brought up gas prices, as well. I am thankful that Donald Trump has believed in energy independence, and gas prices are lower than they were under the Biden administration, even when we weren't at war, simply because of the stupid rules and regulations passed by that administration.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), my friend and chairwoman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, before we go any further, I would just like to remind the American citizens that under the Biden administration, over 82 percent of farm bill spending was going to SNAP, and they virtually eliminated any of the support for the American farm families.

Again, Democrats demanded that over 80 percent of farm bill spending go to SNAP benefits. That is one of the reasons that the American farm family is suffering so hard today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), my friend and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Van Orden).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, starving farmers the way Democrats did over the last several years, where they took and put 82 percent of farm bill spending into SNAP benefits, doesn't allow farmers the resources they need to grow the food that hungry people need.

We exempted anyone under 18 from the changes that we made. Anybody over 65 was exempted from the changes that we made. Anybody who is medically or psychologically disabled or unable to work is exempt from the

changes we made. Anybody who puts in the effort to work 20 hours a week is exempt from the changes we made.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Mann), my friend who has done tremendous work on the farm bill and

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Baird).

Madam Speaker, I am not aware of any recorded vote on the floor of the United States Senate. I am aware of a couple of actions being taken when nobody was on the floor of the United States Senate, but I am not aware of any recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nunn), who has done tremendous work on the farm bill and the E15 issue.

Madam Speaker, I, again, want to give great credit to Mr. Nunn and the Iowa delegation as well as many others for their work on the E15 issue and the farm bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I will just remind the gentlewoman that New Mexico has experienced a historic financial boom driven by what President Trump has done in unleashing America's domestic energy production. I think it was the Senate later that said they had more money than they could figure out how to spend in New Mexico.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, Customs and Border Protection is an extremely important part of protecting the United States of America. While the Democrats might want to eliminate Customs and Border Protection so that they can make the borders wide open, the American citizens want those borders secure.

This week, the House has the ability to advance five pieces of legislation, including the Farm, Food, and National Security Act, representing years of committee efforts and stakeholder engagement, strengthening rural America, improving conservation tools, and supporting American producers.

The Foreign Intelligence Accountability Act reauthorizes section 702, with reforms, providing the continued ability to collect intelligence on foreign nationals overseas, who are reasonably believed to possess foreign intelligence information, in order to stop terrorist attacks on United States soil--again, stopping terrorist attacks on United States soil.

We have no idea who the Democrats let into this country over the last several years.

The Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act supports parents, strengthens transparency, and protects our children in educational environments.

The budget resolution is an essential first step toward ending this Democrat-driven shutdown at DHS and strengthening our Nation's national security and keeping our borders secure, which is what Democrats' real opposition is to the Department of Homeland Security.

Finally, the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act allows the option to sell gasoline that is blended with 10 percent to 15 percent ethanol year-round and provides additional reforms to the Renewable Energy Standard.

Together these measures advance our commitments to American families, American procedures, and responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

Madam Speaker, in order to keep America's border secure, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2616, the so-called Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act, because the name bears little resemblance to what the bill actually does.

What it does is require schools to obtain parental consent before changing a student's gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form or changing a student's sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms, and that is for all students in middle school or elementary school.

This bill would prohibit the use of Federal funds to teach so-called gender ideology, whatever that is. Specifically, it bars any discussion of transgender people or topics in the classroom, banning books with transgender characters or that even discuss the existence of transgender people.

It is well established in statute that the States and districts determine their curriculum without interference from the Federal Government. This bill takes away State and local control of curriculum in education, the very thing that the current administration claims they are giving back to States by illegally dismantling the Department of Education.

Parental involvement is important, and I support that. It works in virtually all cases, but this bill is not about involvement. It is about Federal coercion forcing schools into situations where they may have to disclose sensitive information about a student, even when they know it could put that child's safety at risk.

It goes beyond theory. It creates absurd situations. For example, my name is Robert. I go by Bobby. Under this bill, my middle school coach would need parental permission before listing me as Bobby on the sports roster. What if they write ``Rob'' instead? Would they have to go back and get parental consent?

This bill fails to clarify key questions, such as whether both parents must be notified and give permission.

Who will oversee these requirements if this administration continues illegally dismantling the Department of Education?

What it does make clear is that if the school gets it wrong, then they risk losing Federal funding. That is not protecting kids. It won't make trans students disappear. It is just micromanaging schools and wasting everybody's time.

This bill does nothing to improve literacy, improve teacher shortages, promote safe learning environments, support student mental health, or otherwise improve education. The bill is unnecessary, overbroad, and potentially harmful.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Grijalva).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Vermont (Ms. Balint).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frost).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter opposing the bill from PFLAG. They say that this harmful bill would strip schools of Federal funds for even acknowledging the existence of transgender people and would make schools less safe for all students by putting barriers between vulnerable students, their teachers, counselors, and other trusted adults.

PFLAG National,

Washington, DC, May 20, 2026.

House Democratic Members

C/O: House Democratic Legislative Directors and Education

Staff

RE Vote NO on H.R. 2616.

To whom it may concern: PFLAG National, the nation's

largest organization dedicated to supporting, educating, and

advocating for LGBTQ+ people and those who love them, urges

all Representatives to vote NO on H.R. 2616.

This harmful bill would strip schools of federal funds for

even acknowledging the existence of transgender people and

would make school less safe for all students by putting

barriers between vulnerable students, their teachers,

counselors and other trusted adults.

America is a country of freedom of speech and freedom of

ideas. Those freedoms end when politicians start banning

books and censoring curriculum simply because some people

find them uncomfortable. Children deserve an honest and

accurate education that enables them to learn about diverse

identities and experiences to help create a better future.

A public-school education helps students prepare for their

future by encouraging curiosity and critical thinking through

math and science, art and music, history and literature. But

H.R. 2616 would force schools to purge books from their

libraries that merely acknowledge that transgender people

exist. It sets a dangerous precedent when politicians simply

start censoring school content and books they don't like.

The politicians and groups behind these bills want to use

our laws to control what students can and cannot read, what

they can and cannot learn, and--most troublingly--who they

can and cannot be. Our schools should protect all students--

including LGBTQ students--so they can learn and thrive in a

safe environment where they can see themselves reflected in

the books they read.

H.R. 2616 also forces school counselors, teachers, and

other staff to out transgender children to their parents,

regardless of the child's wishes and well-being. What this

bill does is tell every student, LGBTQ+ or not, that they

cannot trust the adults at school.

Kids who have one trusted adult in their life are more

likely to reach out for help

when they need it and less likely to engage in harmful or

self-harming behaviors. For LGBTQ+ youth, the process of

coming out is deeply personal and involves risk--because 4 in

5 LGBTQ+ youth face stigma, discrimination and harm at school

and 2 in 5 youth who are homeless are LGBTQ+ kids whose

parents rejected them. Having a trained, trusted adult who

can help a student navigate the coming out process safely,

including helping them develop a safety plan to bring in

their parents, is vital to an LGBTQ+ youth's safety. H.R.

2616 yanks their safety net away.

Please OPPOSE H.R. 2616 and get back to work ensuring ALL

students can get a quality public education.

Sincerely,

Brian K. Bond,

CEO, PFLAG National.

Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record a letter from Advocates for Trans Equality, which says, in part, the bill would harm transgender and nonbinary students in kindergarten through 8th grade by erecting barriers to best-practice student supports, such as recognizing a student's name, pronouns, and providing access to appropriate sex-based facilities. The bill would also impose broad unconstitutional limits on the speech and academic freedom of students and educators alike, while prohibiting any discussion of ``gender ideology,'' a term coined by anti-trans activists to dehumanize trans people.

Advocates for Trans Equality,

May 20, 2026.

Dear Members of Congress: On behalf of your transgender

constituents and their allies, Advocates for Trans Equality

urges Members of Congress to vote NO on H.R. 2616. This bill

would harm transgender and nonbinary students in grades

Kindergarten through 8th grade by erecting barriers to best-

practice student supports, such as recognizing a student's

name and pronouns and providing access to appropriate sex-

based facilities. The bill would also impose broad

unconstitutional limits on the speech and academic freedom of

students and educators alike by prohibiting any discussion of

``gender ideology,'' a term coined by anti-trans activists to

dehumanize trans people.

Trans students are being driven out of traditional school

settings by pervasive harassment and discrimination. Survey

data has found that 71 percent of trans and nonbinary

students have felt unsafe at school due to their LGBTQI+

identity and that 7 percent of LGBTQI+ students have changed

schools due to concerns about safety and comfort. This bill

will make it harder for educators to provide trans students

support in the form of respecting a student's pronouns and

name, which data shows produces better mental health outcomes

for trans youth. Moreover, the bill could force schools to

prohibit trans students who cannot obtain parental consent

from using the appropriate facilities, exposing transgender

students to higher risk of sexual assault. This, in turn,

results in a less safe educational environment for all. Trans

students must have access to the support and protection

necessary for them to enjoy a quality public education.

The bill goes further by censoring any discussion of

transgender identity at any K-12 school--an unprecedented

attack on the free speech and academic freedom of students

and educators. No school curriculum can be complete without

some acknowledgement of transgender people, who have always

been a part of North American history, predating the arrival

of European colonists. Transgender children will exist

regardless of whether their schools acknowledge them. This

bill would further stigmatize and isolate them by all but

erasing them from their very own classrooms. This is a

patently unconstitutional, un-American restriction of free

speech that will profoundly harm vulnerable children if

passed.

Advocates for Trans Equality urges every Member of Congress

to defend civil liberties and the right of every student to a

safe learning environment and a quality education by voting

NO on H.R. 2616.

Sincerely,

Advocates for Trans Equality.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, we should be asking who this bill actually helps. It is not needed for most situations where you can involve parents in constructive dialogue about a student, but it does not help students who confide in a trusted teacher because they feel unsafe at home. It does not help educators trying to create a supportive learning environment. It does not help students already stretched thin and trying to meet students' real needs.

What it does is impose a rigid Federal mandate that ignores context, disregards student safety, and prioritizes politics over people.

We can support parents without putting children at risk. We can respect local control without Federal overreach. We should be focused on legislation that improves students' lives, not bills that create new problems.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows:

EC-3455. A letter from the Secretary, Department of War,

transmitting notification that General Randy A. George,

United States Army, was removed from his position as Chief of

Staff of the Army and Member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on

April 2, 2026, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 151(h); Added by Public

Law 99-433, Sec. 201 (as amended by Public Law 119-60, div.

A, title IX, Sec. 911(a)); (139 Stat. 1015); to the Committee

on Armed Services.

EC-3456. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for

Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services,

transmitting the Department's 2025 Report to Congress on the

Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services for Children

with Serious Emotional Disturbances Program, pursuant to 42

U.S.C. 290ff-4(c)(2); July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title V, Sec.

565(c)(2) (as amended by Public Law 106-310, Sec. 3105(c));

(114 Stat. 1175); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

EC-3457. A letter from the Senior Bureau Official, Bureau

of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting

notification that the request of the Drug Enforcement

Administration was authorized for danger pay for employees of

the DEA temporarily or permanently assigned to Embassy Belize

and Embassy Dominican Republic at the rate of 10% in both

countries, effective April 05, 2026; to the Committee on

Foreign Affairs.

EC-3458. A letter from the Senior Bureau Official, Bureau

of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting

notification of the Ratification of the Treaty Between the

Government of the United States of America and the Government

of Australia Concerning Defense Trade Cooperation (Treaty

Doc. 110-10); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

EC-3459. A letter from the Chairman of the Council, Council

of the District of Columbia, transmitting D.C. Act 26-307,

``Mu Lambda Foundation, Inc. Real Property Tax Exemption

Amendment Act of 2026'', pursuant to Public Law 93-198, Sec.

602(c)(1); (87 Stat. 813); to the Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform.

EC-3460. A letter from the Chairman of the Council, Council

of the District of Columbia, transmitting D.C. Act 26-308,

``Increasing Support and Grandparent and Close Relative

Caregivers Amendment Act of 2026'', pursuant to Public Law

93-198, Sec. 602(c)(1); (87 Stat. 813); to the Committee on

Oversight and Government Reform.

EC-3461. A letter from the Chairman of the Council, Council

of the District of Columbia, transmitting D.C. Act 26-309,

``Statutory Neglect Amendment Act of 2026'', pursuant to

Public Law 93-198, Sec. 602(c)(1); (87 Stat. 813); to the

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

EC-3462. A letter from the Chairman of the Council, Council

of the District of Columbia, transmitting D.C. Act 26-310,

``Safe Pregnancy, Delivery, and Postpartum Care for Youth at

DYRS Amendment Act of 2026'', pursuant to Public Law 93-198,

Sec. 602(c)(1); (87 Stat. 813); to the Committee on Oversight

and Government Reform.

EC-3463. A letter from the Chairman of the Council, Council

of the District of Columbia, transmitting D.C. Act 26-311,

``Strengthening Capacity and Transparency at DYRS Amendment

Act of 2026'', pursuant to Public Law 93-198, Sec. 602(c)(1);

(87 Stat. 813); to the Committee on Oversight and Government

Reform.

EC-3464. A letter from the Chairman of the Council, Council

of the District of Columbia, transmitting D.C. Act 26-312,

``Empowering Parents in CFSA Investigations Amendment Act of

2026'', pursuant to Public Law 93-198, Sec. 602(c)(1); (87

Stat. 813); to the Committee on Oversight and Government

Reform.

EC-3465. A letter from the Chairman of the Council, Council

of the District of Columbia, transmitting D.C. Act 26-315,

``First Responder Retention Efforts Amendment Act of 2026'',

pursuant to Public Law 93-198, Sec. 602(c)(1); (87 Stat.

813); to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

EC-3466. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the

District of Columbia, transmitting DC Act 26-302, ``Rental

Housing Registration Data Integrity Temporary Amendment Act

of 2026'', pursuant to Public Law 93-198, Sec. 602(c)(1); (87

Stat. 813); to the Committee on Oversight and Government

Reform.

EC-3467. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the

District of Columbia, transmitting DC Act 26-303,

``Archdiocese of Washington Parish Real Property, Deed

Recordation, and Transfer Tax Exemption Temporary Amendment

Act of 2026'', pursuant to Public Law 93-198, Sec. 602(c)(1);

(87 Stat. 813); to the Committee on Oversight and Government

Reform.

EC-3468. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the

District of Columbia, transmitting DC Act 26-304, ``Full

Accountability in Arrest Reporting Temporary Act of 2026'',

pursuant to Public Law 93-198, Sec. 602(c)(1); (87 Stat.

813); to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

EC-3469. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the

District of Columbia, transmitting DC Act 26-305, ``Body-Worn

Camera Transparency for Use of Force Temporary Amendment Act

of 2026'', pursuant to Public Law 93-198, Sec. 602(c)(1); (87

Stat. 813); to the Committee on Oversight and Government

Reform.

EC-3470. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the

District of Columbia, transmitting DC Act 26-299, ``Promoting

Parental Engagement at DYRS Amendment Act of 2026'', pursuant

to Public Law 93-198, Sec. 602(c)(1); (87 Stat. 813); to the

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

EC-3471. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the

District of Columbia, transmitting DC Act 26-300, ``Child

Fatality Review Committee Amendment Act of 2026'', pursuant

to Public Law 93-198, Sec. 602(c)(1); (87 Stat. 813); to the

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

EC-3472. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the

District of Columbia, transmitting DC Act 26-301, ``Holding

Company System Amendment Act of 2026'', pursuant to Public

Law 93-198, Sec. 602(c)(1); (87 Stat. 813); to the Committee

on Oversight and Government Reform.

EC-3473. A letter from the President and Chairman, Export-

Import Bank, transmitting the Bank's Fiscal Year 2027 Annual

Performance Plan and Fiscal Year 2025 Annual Performance

Report to Congress, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1115(b); Public Law

111-352, Sec. 3; (124 Stat. 3868); to the Committee on

Oversight and Government Reform.

EC-3474. A letter from the Director, Equal Employment

Opportunity Office, Federal Trade Commission, transmitting

the Commission's annual report prepared in accordance with

section 203 of the Notification and Federal Employee

Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act),

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 2301 note; Public Law 107-174, Sec.

203(a) (as amended by Public Law 109-435, Sec. 604(f)); (120

Stat. 3241); to the Committee on Oversight and Government

Reform.

EC-3475. A letter from the Senior Bureau Official, Bureau

of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting the

Department's report titled ``Conservation of Sea Turtles

Certification'', Department Report Number: 007157; ; jointly

to the Committees on Appropriations and Natural Resources.

EC-3476. A letter from the United States Trade

Representative, Executive Office of the President,

transmitting a periodic report on the total expenditures

incurred by the U.S. Government that are directly

attributable to the national emergency declared in Executive

Order 14257 of April 2, 2025, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c);

Public Law 94-412, Sec. 401(c); (90 Stat. 1257) and 50 U.S.C.

1703(c); Public Law 95-223, Sec 204(c); (91 Stat. 1627);

jointly to the Committees on Foreign Affairs and Ways and

Means.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1224, I call up the bill (H.R. 2616) to require public elementary and middle schools that receive funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to obtain parental consent before changing a minor's gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form or sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 2616.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2616, the Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act.

For years, concerned parents have felt ignored as education bureaucrats push radical agendas in schools without their knowledge or input.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, when kitchen tables became classrooms, parents got a firsthand look at what was really being taught. What many saw raised serious concerns. Instead of focusing on the basics like math and reading, many teachers and schools were introducing controversial lessons on gender ideology and pronouns, all while student achievement plummeted and continues to this day.

In the years since then, those concerns have only grown. Many schools are engaged in systematic attempts to erode parental rights. Schools are facilitating gender transitions or encouraging students to change their names and pronouns without telling parents.

These are enormously consequential decisions that have lasting impacts on a child's well-being and development. Parents deserve to be part of those conversations.

One study from Defending Education found that at least 21,000 schools across the United States have policies that allow or encourage staff to hide a student's name change or gender identity. This lack of transparency risks confusion, undermines trust, and weakens the essential partnership between families and schools. It also places teachers in difficult positions, sometimes expecting them to withhold information from parents or be less than fully transparent.

These policies are incredibly harmful to children and families. In fact, we are now seeing a wealth of data to prove that children and teenagers who seek out drastic, life-altering medical procedures often struggle with mental health issues now and beyond. Instead of supporting kids, these secretive gender transitions, often encouraged by radical school officials, do more harm than good.

At the same time, many parents are asking a simple question: Why aren't schools more focused on helping students recover academically?

Test scores in key subjects remain stagnant or have declined, and students are still working to overcome pandemic-era learning loss.

Parents, teachers, and school leaders should be working together to support student success, not be at odds with one another.

That is why I am proud to lead H.R. 2616, the Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act, alongside my friend and colleague, the vice chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, Congressman Burgess Owens. This bill takes monumental strides to restore parental rights and educational sanity.

H.R. 2616 affirms the right of parents to be in charge of their children's upbringing and ensures schools remain partners in a child's education, instead of usurping the role and rights of parents altogether. The bill also establishes clear guardrails to ensure taxpayer dollars are used to support learning, not indoctrinate kids in radical ideology and agendas.

At its core, this bill is grounded in a simple principle, Mr. Speaker. That principle is that parents want what is best for their kids. Schools should be partners in that effort.

I believe Members on both sides of the aisle share the goal of helping students succeed. This legislation moves us in that direction by strengthening trust, improving transparency, and keeping the focus where it belongs: on students' education.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly would agree that this bill will promote good mental health and security and probably academic success in the process.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens), who is the bill's co-lead and vice chair on the Education and Workforce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messmer), a great member of the Education and Workforce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller), a special member of the Education and Workforce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Harris), a great member of the Committee on Education and Workforce.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am ready to close if the gentleman from Virginia is, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, this issue is about parents, their children, and the protection of both.

This bill also protects teachers. It gives them the opportunity to use the resources already available to them to protect students, but not do that at the expense of parental rights.

Every parent in this country wants the same basic thing: to know what is happening in their child's life and to be able to guide them through it. That is not political. It shouldn't be. That is just being a parent.

Too many families today--and it is the majority of them--feel like they are being cut out of decisions that matter: decisions that affect their child's identity, their well-being, and their future. These are life-changing decisions that are being allowed and encouraged that are destructive. That is not how our schools are supposed to work.

Schools should be partners with parents, not replacements for them. Trust between families and educators is essential. That trust starts with honesty and transparency.

The Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act is just what it says. It is about restoring that trust. It is about making sure parents are informed, respected, and involved. It is making sure kids are protected.

At a time when students are still working to recover from significant learning loss, our focus should be clear: strong academics, honest communication, and helping every child succeed.

That is what this legislation does, Mr. Speaker. It puts parents back where they belong: at the center of their child's life and education. In fact, it mandates and strongly encourages parents to be back there with their kids. That is a good thing.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 2616, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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