Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4790.

This bill is an important step toward ensuring the information required to be disclosed to the Securities and Exchange Commission by issuers be material to voting or investment decisions. It also contains several other measures to push back on activist ESG shareholder proposals.

While shareholder engagement remains an important aspect of corporate governance, the consideration of shareholder proposals that deviate from the company's strategic direction or long-term goals has transformed boardrooms into partisan platforms.

Although the number of shareholder proposals is increasing, support is declining across the board. A 2009 study noted that costs directly incurred by companies due to such proposals were estimated to be about $87,000 per proposal, totaling $90 million annually.

The Performance over Politics Act, which is included in this package, would allow issuers to defer the resubmission of shareholder proposals for 3 years if those proposals are similar in nature.

These thresholds would respect the decisions of the majority of shareholders.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7199.

This bill, which is supported by the entire Wisconsin House delegation, designates the U.S. post office located on Janesville Road in Muskego, Wisconsin, as the Colonel Hans Christian Heg Post Office.

Colonel Heg is nothing short of remarkable.

In 1840, Colonel Heg immigrated to Wisconsin from Norway. At just 10 years old, he quickly learned English and became a trail guide for settlers traveling throughout the region.

Fast forward to 1859, Colonel Heg became the first Norwegian American anywhere to be elected to a State office when he was elected prison commissioner and warden of the State prison in Waupun, Wisconsin.

Just a couple of years later, he was appointed colonel of the 15th Wisconsin Infantry. He traveled throughout the Midwest recruiting Scandinavians to serve in the Civil War. Colonel Heg and his men went on to win a major battle for control of the Mississippi River at Island No. 10 during the war, and they were given the honor of raising the flag by battle commander Flag Officer Andrew Foote. On September 20, 1863, at the Battle of Chickamauga in Georgia, the 33-year-old colonel was shot and killed in action while serving the Union.

After the war, veterans raised funds to erect a cannonball pyramid at Chickamauga National Military Park dedicated to Colonel Hans Christian Heg.

Sixty years after the war, the Wisconsin community rallied together to raise funds to erect a statue in honor of Hans Christian Heg in Madison, and 157 years after the war, the community and his descendants gathered to rededicate the statue.

Colonel Heg was an institution in his community, State, and country, and he was a treasure to his family, friends, and those who served with him.

It is an incredible privilege to honor Colonel Heg and to show his many descendants that he lives on as a legend, both in Wisconsin and nationally, to this day.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Comer for his support on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 109. I don't want to be redundant on some of these points, but the SEC's Staff Accounting Bulletin 121 is a radical departure from how custodians account for all other assets. By requiring custodians to treat digital assets as both an asset and a liability on their balance sheets, SAB 121 makes it nearly impossible for banks to provide custody services for digital assets due to the prudential requirements that it would trigger.

Innovations like the tokenization of assets have the potential to dramatically improve our financial infrastructure, and tokenization will allow new innovations and traditionally illiquid assets to become available to more people more efficiently, like commercial bank deposits, government corporate bonds, money market fund shares, real estate, gold, and other commodities.

However, for tokenization to take hold, it is important for regulated financial institutions to be custodians in order to identify the entitlement holder and to mitigate any single point of failure in the record of the ownership.

Mr. Speaker, this misguided action from the SEC should be struck down, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for this resolution.

Mr. Chair, the debate today is really focused on whether or not the FBI should be required to obtain a warrant to access U.S. person data. As the quote we are all familiar with says, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

I remind my colleagues of the debate on the previous FISA reauthorization bill in the 115th Congress. Many of my current and former colleagues stood behind this very podium and swore up and down that the FISA Amendments Act of 2017 would provide necessary protections for U.S. person information while keeping our country safe.

Yet, since the bill became law, there were nearly 3 million U.S. person queries just in 2021 and hundreds of incomplete FISA applications and the use of section 702 to query data on Members

of Congress, protestors, and even FBI janitors.

It appears to me that the factor that continues to fall by the wayside in all of the debates that are happening is that human nature plays a part.

Mr. Chair, that is the dilemma that we find ourselves in. We didn't pick this. This is where we ended up.

Do we allow human nature to take its course and permit the FBI to continue to abuse U.S. person data, which the Department of Justice IG Special Counsel Durham, the FISA court, and numerous independent review bodies have found to be negligent, inappropriate, and a threat to American privacy, or do we rein in the FBI and fight for our Fourth Amendment rights?

I choose to side with the latter and support the amendments that limit rather than expand the FBI's ability to query U.S. person data.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2799. American public markets remain the go-to place for innovative companies to grow and build capital. However, the regulatory environment has steadily become more burdensome and costly, creating a real divide between market regulation now and market regulation years ago.

At a time when the markets and regulatory environment were more conducive to small- and mid-cap stocks, groundbreaking Wisconsin companies like Harley-Davidson, Johnson Controls, and Kohler raised capital by going public. Through the IPOs, these upstart enterprises raised the funding necessary to expand their workforce and operations. At the same time, families benefited from the opportunity to invest in these companies to build savings and wealth.

While Americans have started new businesses at record rates since the pandemic, many still struggle to meet their own capital needs. The number of U.S. IPOs has continued to decline since the early 2000s as the cost and regulatory burdens of going and staying public remain high.

Under President Biden, SEC Chairman Gary Gensler proposed over 50 rules. This must be reversed, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for this commonsense legislation.

Madam Speaker, since President Biden's first day in office, he has waged an unprecedented war on American energy. The cost, of course, is ultimately passed down to Americans.

Let's break down a few critical missteps from the White House on energy policy.

This administration has crippled U.S. energy independence, as seen by the administration's most recent decision to halt approvals for new natural gas export terminals.

This administration has also made our country more dependent on foreign energy, propping up our adversaries, as seen by his decision to shut down the Keystone XL pipeline, which impacted many hardworking Wisconsinites.

The latest push from the administration seems to be a political agenda against gas vehicles, which, of course, will levy even higher costs on Americans who cannot afford an electric vehicle.

House Republicans, on the other hand, have remained committed to making energy more affordable and putting American energy first.

We passed the Lower Energy Costs Act, which received bipartisan support and will put the country on a path to responsibly power our future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank over 4,700 credit unions across the Nation, including 111 in my home State of Wisconsin, who are improving the financial well-being of Americans and their communities.

Starting this month, these credit unions are represented by a newly launched America's Credit Unions, which will serve 3.8 million Wisconsinites who are members of a credit union now. This new organization will be headquartered in the great State of Wisconsin. I congratulate them on this new endeavor.

I have recently introduced legislation to allow credit unions to provide

their members with an expanded offer of loan products. My bill, the Expanding Access to Lending Options Act, will increase the cap on the maturity of a loan from 15 to 20 years, allowing the flexibility to offer longer terms with lower monthly payments for consumers, while offering greater competition for lending products, including products for small business, student, and agricultural loans.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this bipartisan bill to support Wisconsin credit unions and their members.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would repeal the subpoena authority of the Treasury's Federal Insurance Office. Additionally, it removes the subpoena authority of the Office of Financial Research.

For over 150 years, State insurance regulators and the law as passed by those State legislatures have regulated insurance companies, and it has worked out very well.

The Federal Insurance Office, FIO, created under Dodd-Frank, has grown increasingly aggressive in collecting data from insurance companies, most recently issuing a proposed data collection to assess ``climate-related financial risk.''

Despite working with State regulators on previous efforts, FIO intentionally chose not to collaborate with State regulators on this climate data call.

Not only has the office been unclear with how they intend to use the data they collect, but the effort would be duplicative in many ways as many States already collect a similar but maybe not exact set of data, as required by the Federal Government.

Mr. Chair, any efforts by Treasury or FIO to sidestep State insurance regulators blatantly undermine congressional intent. That is why I introduced the Insurance Data Protection Act to repeal FIO's subpoena power. The amendment would have the same effect as the bill, and I am pleased many of my colleagues have supported that.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I once again say that State regulators have done a wonderful job in this area for many years, and I think they should continue to be the focus of any of this data collection.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funds being made available to the FTC from being used to issue any rule defining or describing unfair methods of competition for purposes of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

The FTC has issued substantive rules concerning ``unfair methods of competition,'' UMC, as it is referred to in financial services, including a near-blanket ban on noncompete agreements.

Since Chair Khan has taken over, the FTC has become a partisan weapon to enact sweeping antitrust policy that expands agency power and discards decades of precedent. Chair Khan is basing this authority on tenuous legal ground that predates the major questions doctrine.

As the Supreme Court made clear in West Virginia v. EPA, an executive agency needs clear authorization from Congress to issue a regulation that has great ``economic and political significance.''

Unfair competition rulemaking would be a claim of quasi-legislative power that would distract the agency from its core mission of case-by- case expert application of the FTC Act through administrative adjudication. It would also be inconsistent with the explicit grants of rulemaking authority that Congress has given the FTC on consumer protection issues.

This is not what they are looking for on competitive grounds. Allowing this much authority to the FTC, which oversees nearly all aspects of our economy, would open the door to significantly more harmful rules that would empower this administration to coerce companies to bow to what I consider to be a radical agenda.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, my short answer would be because this is our job, not the Commission's job. This is our job. That is the point of the amendment, to put the power back in the hands of Congress and not have these rogue agencies.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack).

Mr. Chair, I simply, once again, urge an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funds from being made available to the FTC to enforce the suspension of early terminations to merger filings made under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act.

The FTC is authorized to terminate this waiting period early upon the request of the parties or on their own. After determining that the transaction does not pose significant competitive concerns, the ruling will be made.

In February 2021, the early termination process was ``temporarily'' suspended due to the impact of COVID, and the suspension remains in place nearly 3 years later. Prior to the suspension, early termination was granted in approximately half of all reported transactions.

The world obviously has moved on from COVID, and it is time for the FTC to move on, as well.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I simply move an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 495, I call up the bill (H.R. 288) to amend title 5, United States Code, to clarify the nature of judicial review of agency interpretations of statutory and regulatory provisions, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam 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. 288.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 288, Separation of Powers Restoration Act or SOPRA. The Constitution separates the powers of the Federal Government into a system of checks and balances.

Article I, Section 1 grants Congress all legislative power, while executive power is granted to the President, and judicial power is vested in the courts, as we all know.

However, since 1984 when the Supreme Court ruled that courts must defer to an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute rather than what Congress intended, the executive branch has begun usurping the legislative branch to issue regulations with the force of law.

This consolidation of power departs from the constitutional principles and harms our own liberties. It is certainly not what our Founders intended. Yet, this 1984 ruling, known as Chevron, has paved the way for unelected bureaucrats to issue sweeping rules with no consequences.

Just in 2021, for example, executive branch agencies issued more than 3,200 rules that imposed vaccine mandates on workers. They were also involved in overturning the Keystone pipeline, and required a $15 minimum wage for Federal contractors, and allowed the IRS to spy on Americans' bank accounts.

Meanwhile, that same year, only 143 bills passed by Congress were signed into law. This means executive branch agencies impose more than 20 times as many mandates as actual legislators. These regulations are not without cost. According to the American Action Forum, Federal agencies collectively finalized $200 billion in regulatory costs in 2021, equivalent to more than $600 per U.S. household.

In 2022, we saw an additional $117 billion in regulatory costs added to the bottom line. Taken with rules from previous administrations and according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the total annual costs of regulation is almost $2 trillion, or about 8 percent of the

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a cost estimate for H.R. 288, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

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

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

Once again, I remind everyone that SOPRA is not deregulatory. That has not been the goal at all. The goal is to forward this discussion between what should be legislative powers and the administration so that, in the future, it also sets a ground floor for many of the statutes. Congress remains free to regulate in a very detailed way and so do the administrative agencies.

I have heard this before. We heard it in committee, that somehow we were setting up or juxtaposing these two different goals, and it just isn't true.

I think that the other thing we would see is that you would find that legislators would do a much better job of drafting bills in the first place. I mean, shame on us if we leave a piece of legislation so vague that it opens the door for an administrative agency to somehow go in and interpret.

There are many times when the scope of the legislation is the first thing that should be determined before you even sit down and actually write the bill.

So, I know it is a criticism that has existed, but I don't think it is valid.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The other thing I will mention came up in our discussions during the committee. When you find yourself in a situation--we just had this discussion in relationship to the REINS Act--where the administrative powers continue to kind of escalate and bloom out from that original piece of legislation, what you will find is, later on, that has to be revisited because oftentimes it is done hastily, doesn't make sense, is arbitrary in nature. It is very difficult for legislators to even read through those powers that have been granted and try to make sense of that. It is another thing that came up in committee that I think is valid.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The other thing I will relay is that SOPRA does not turn judges into legislators. SOPRA helps to restore the court's constitutional role as the branch that construes the law.

Specifically, SOPRA requires that courts apply de novo review to all relevant questions of law when reviewing agency action. This means that the courts, not agencies, will interpret what a law means.

In other words, SOPRA enhances, not violates, the separation of powers under our Constitution. Within that discussion, the interpretation of the law is also something that I think would, once again, focus where we are.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).

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

Once again, I will say that by forcing the courts to apply the de novo review, this standard would reclaim the court's constitutional role as the branch that interprets the laws and Congress' role as the branch that writes them.

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

Mr. Speaker, due to unforeseen travel delays, I was unable to be recorded for votes on Monday, June 5, 2023. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 245 and YEA on Roll Call No. 246.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 467, the HALT Fentanyl Act.

This critical legislation accomplishes a top legislative priority I have been advocating since coming to Congress, which would permanently classify fentanyl-related substances as Schedule I drugs.

I'd like to share two moving stories of constituents from my district taken from their families too soon. Archie Badura, of Oconomowoc, tragically passed away at the age of 19, due to an accidental overdose in 2014. Since then, his mother, Lauri Badura has dedicated herself to advocate on behalf of those struggling with mental health and substance abuse and started a grassroots organization called, ``Saving Others For Archie'' to help fight the opioid epidemic. Logan Rachwal (Rockwall), of Pewaukee, who was also 19 and a freshman at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, passed away in 2021 from an overdose of three different forms of fentanyl, His parents, Erin and Rick Rachwal, also started an organization, the Love, Logan Foundation, to work to end the stigma surrounding mental health and substance abuse disorder and raise awareness of the dangers of fentanyl and other illicit substances.

As a father and grandfather, this issue hits close to home. No parent should have to experience the pain the Badura and Rachwal families have had to endure. We need strong congressional action on fentanyl, and we need the permanent designation of fentanyl-related substances to Schedule I. I want to thank Congressman Griffith for leading this effort alongside Congressman Latta.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3089) to amend title 18, United States Code, to modify delayed notice requirements, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3089, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation, H.R. 3089, the NDO Fairness Act. This bill makes much-needed changes to the way law enforcement obtains and utilizes nondisclosure orders, also known as secrecy orders.

Before modern advancements in cloud computing, when a law enforcement officer wanted to search someone's office, they would be required to obtain a search warrant based on probable cause, as we are all well aware of. When the officer executed the search, they would notify the individual, who would then have an opportunity to challenge the search in court. However, the era of cloud computing has ushered in a new method of storing sensitive information, whereby, as we know, individuals are replacing file cabinets with digital file folders.

Unbeknownst to them, by surrendering this physical office in favor of a digital office, individuals are also surrendering their expectation of privacy. That is because a provision within the Electronic Communications Privacy Act allows law enforcement to access an individual's data by subpoenaing the third-party service provider, such as Microsoft, Google, or Apple, rather than the individual.

The law enforcement officer then imposes a secrecy order on the company, preventing them from notifying the individual of the search. The secrecy order is often boilerplate in nature and without a time limit, leading to abuse and overuse.

According to Microsoft, between January to June 2022, Federal authorities requested U.S. citizen data from more than 5,500 accounts, an average of 15 requests per day. Over the same time period, Google received more than 21,000 subpoenas for nearly 50,000 accounts. Apple, whose public data is only available through calendar year 2021, received more than 6,600 requests between July and December of that year.

In nearly all the cases, a secrecy order was imposed on the company to prevent the disclosure of the search. The NDO Fairness Act would stop this abuse, which has allowed the circumvention of Fourth Amendment protections in favor of simple convenience.

This legislation ends indefinite secrecy orders, instead requiring the court to certify that disclosing the search is likely to jeopardize an investigation, result in the destruction of evidence, or endanger the life of an individual.

This legislation also imposes a 90-day limit on secrecy orders, with an extension available if and only if the need for secrecy is justified based on the facts and approval by a judge.

Finally, this legislation gives the individual subject to searches a chance to be heard and a chance to request a copy of the information that was disclosed.

Today's legislation, while not a major overhaul of ECPA, provides us with an opportunity to address the threat to our constitutional freedoms. These changes, I believe, will bring searches of the cloud more closely in line with Fourth Amendment searches.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, for co-leading this bill, and I thank the chairman of the committee, Chairman Jordan, for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I urge swift passage of the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reiterate my strong support for this bipartisan bill, H.R. 3089, which will provide much-needed safeguards on the secrecy order process.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that all my colleagues will support this bill, I urge its passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 363) expressing support for recognizing ``National Police Week,'' as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 363, as amended, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, this week we celebrate National Police Week. In doing so, we honor those officers who were killed in the line of duty.

The measure before us, H. Res. 363, recognizes countless law enforcement officers who serve their communities with valor, dignity, and integrity. It also explains the history behind Peace Officers Memorial Day and National Police Week. It also lists the 556 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty or whose stories were recovered during 2022.

Mr. Speaker, I will take this opportunity to individually memorialize the Wisconsin police officers killed in the line of duty in 2023: Officer Peter Jerving, age 37, of the Milwaukee Police Department, died in the line of duty on February 7; Officer Emily Breidenbach, age 32, of the Chetek Police Department, died in the line of duty on April 8; Officer Hunter Scheel, age 23, of the Cameron Police Department, died in the line of duty on April 8; and Deputy Kaitie Leising, age 29, of the St. Croix County Sheriff's Office, died in the line of duty just on May 6.

These four brave individuals, and the 556 who went before them in 2022, represent the best of Wisconsin and this country, and we are grateful for their service and their heroic effort in a time of crisis.

National Police Week is a solemn reminder of the actions our law enforcement officers take each day to keep our communities safe.

I myself am the proud son of a law enforcement officer, as well as the proud father to a former law enforcement officer. I have seen their sacrifice firsthand: the long hours, the nights away from family, and the missed holidays. They do it over and over again without complaint because it is the job and because it keeps our community safe.

In recent years, we have seen an increase in the number of ambush- style and targeted attacks on law enforcement officers. These senseless acts of violence are reprehensible, and they must stop.

Today, I hope that the House speaks with one voice in support of law enforcement and to the families of the officers who have fallen.

I thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Guest) for introducing this important resolution of which I am a proud cosponsor.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to swiftly pass this resolution to honor our fallen law enforcement officers and celebrate those still wearing the uniform.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Guest), who is the sponsor of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I inform the Speaker that I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I, once again, reiterate my strong support for this bipartisan resolution celebrating National Police Week and law enforcement officers.

Mr. Speaker, I urge its passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Jordan, Chairman Green, and Chairman McCaul for their leadership and contributions to the bill that we see before us today.

Mr. Speaker, I will comment briefly on my experience and what I saw at the border at the invitation of members of the Judiciary Committee. I was able to kind of see, I think, two very diverse parts of the border.

First and foremost, in McAllen, Texas, where we spent a couple of days and had an opportunity not only to talk to border agents themselves, but also sat through a full presentation by Homeland Security, one of the things that struck me, and I think is very pertinent to what we are discussing today, is every time I asked a border agent or every time I spoke with someone from Homeland Security, I would say: What can we do as Members of Congress?

There are a lot of times you go on these trips and there are tours, and you feel like when you are done, it is overwhelming, and you really want to know how we can have an impact.

What made an impression on me was every person I spoke to said title 42. I don't think you could find somebody, probably at the times when I was at the border, who could really describe what title 42 meant or what the impact would be.

Guess what? Those agents knew. They knew what it meant. They knew it would be an unbelievable unleashing of many different factions of people that were immigrating for any number of reasons across the border, and they knew it was going to overwhelm them.

As we stand here today and debate this bill, when you are watching it on TV right now, quite honestly, it is overwhelming. You can see the masses of people that are gathering.

Mr. Speaker, I will, once again, thank Chairman Jordan, Chairman Green, and Chairman McCaul for putting all this together.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 5, the Parents Bill of Rights. Our students are the future. They need support, particularly parental support. However, school administrators have decided to undermine this support by keeping parents from getting involved in their own children's education, teaching divisive curriculum, and protecting themselves from accountability.

It is abundantly clear that parents want to be involved. In fact, just the other day in Wisconsin, the School District of Waukesha approved a resolution that established parents' rights and transparency. In this resolution, the school board affirms their commitment to parents, protection for students' religious and moral beliefs from discrimination, and keeping controversial issues out of the classroom.

There is an innate need for parental involvement in education, which is why I strongly support H.R. 5. In fact, my own bill, the CRT Transparency Act, is included in this legislation. This important bill requires schools to post their curriculums online so that parents can see what their students are being taught. Parents across the nation are seeing violations of their rights and their important role replaced. We must pass H.R. 5 to protect parents' right to be heard and put our children first.