Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 429, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 45) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to ``Waivers and Modifications of Federal Student Loans,'' 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 include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 45, which would block the Biden administration's debt transfer scheme and prevent any further extension of the student loan repayment pause.

For Democrats, there is a specter looming over this debate, an incontrovertible truth that disproves all their supposed principles and contradicts all their virtue signaling.

Student loan cancellation is regressive. Let me repeat that for the Progressive Caucus. Student loan cancellation is regressive.

Two-thirds of this debt transfer plan would go to the top half of earners. It takes from those in the lower half and gives to the upper half. It redistributes wealth, but from the bottom of our socioeconomic ladder to the top.

For example, the repayment pause has provided $65,000 in de facto loan cancellation for the average lawyer. This is a professional-class bailout. More specifically, it is a professional-class, graduate-degree holder bailout. Of the loans that will be disbursed in 2024, 70 percent will be borrowed for graduate school. Nearly 40 percent of those people will go on to make over $100,000 annually in their careers. Those are the data absent partisan spin provided directly from the Department of Education.

The spin comes from the left when they use words like ``forgiveness.'' There is no such thing as forgiveness. The Biden administration is simply transferring the debt from borrowers who willingly took out student loans to hardworking taxpayers who did not. The 87 percent of Americans who hold no Federal student debt are paying for the 13 percent who do.

On top of that, the bailout is inflationary, which is always and everywhere a regressive working-class tax.

According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, inflation could rise by as much as 27 basis points if mass student debt cancellation is implemented. Enacting mass student loan

cancellation could also lead to an additional two rate hikes by the Federal Reserve.

Billionaires don't feel the effect of inflation. They don't notice when eggs cost $5.99 a dozen. They don't need to take out a mortgage to pay for their house, but working Americans do.

Inflation already has a vise grip on blue-collar America. In fact, The Hill reported yesterday that ``a record share of Americans in a new survey from the Federal Reserve Board say they are worse off financially than they were a year earlier.''

That is troubling and should be enough evidence alone to pass H.J. Res. 45 and nullify the Biden administration's deficit-increasing inflationary plan, but in typical limousine liberal fashion, Democrats want future taxpayers and hardworking Americans to foot the bill. Americans shouldn't buy it.

America also shouldn't buy accusations from the left that H.J. Res. 45 would charge borrowers backpay on interest payments. It couldn't be further from the truth.

Nowhere in this resolution does it mandate backpay. It is prospective, not retrospective. If anything, it would be Secretary Cardona's decision to enact backpay.

We know who will pay for the loans if the administration's plan is allowed to go forward. Those who will pay are those without degrees and those who paid off their debt, and those who can't afford to put gas in their cars or food on their table. The rest is just political noise.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Congress to cut through that noise and stop this administration from enacting the biggest transfer of wealth from blue- collar workers to white-collar professionals in our Nation's history.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 45, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good), the author of this resolution and the chair of the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments, but we are showing compassion to the 87 percent of the people in this country who played by the rules and paid their bills or didn't go to college. The 13 percent who did take out debt who haven't paid it back should show some similar compassion to their fellow human beings and not ask them to pay their bills.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bean), chair of the Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues want us to feel so sorry for these people who took out these loans and who are not going to pay them back. My colleague in the 12th District of North Carolina said 121,000 people in her district.

Mr. Speaker, you know who I am feeling sorry for? The 622,600 people who are being asked to pay off the bill that those 121,000 people took out willingly and have benefited from. This is a backward way of looking at things. Compassion should be shown to the 622,600 people who didn't take out the loan but are now being asked to pay it back.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise, again, in support of H.J. Res. 45 and urge my colleagues to pass this bill.

The Democrats and the White House have accused Republicans of working against the interests of our constituents; however, this just shows how out of touch Democrats are with the realities of the people in my district.

While the White House likes to point to the fact that 75,000 of my constituents are eligible for the administration's bailout, they conveniently ignore that 675,000 of them, or over 90 percent, receive no benefit from this illegal scam.

Moreover, 212,000 of my constituents have never even set foot on a college campus. According to the National Taxpayers Union estimate, the administration's blanket loan cancellation and income-driven repayment plan will cost over $3,500 per constituent. This will cost the hardworking constituents in my district $1.2 billion alone.

Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as debt forgiveness. The administration's student debt scheme simply transfers the cost from well-off college graduates to the backs of my constituents. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 45, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would let Representative Davis know that in Illinois 11,655,200 people don't have student debt, and they will be the ones bearing the cost of the transfer from 90,800 people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose).

Mr. Speaker, I think our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are doing their best to gaslight the 87 percent of their constituents who are going to be saddled with the debt from the 13 percent.

In Washington's 7th Congressional District, there are 686,200 people who don't have any college debt who are going to be asked to pay the debt off for 84,300 people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Moran), who is a member of the Education and Workforce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand that words be taken down.

Mr. Speaker, I have no objection.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that in the 10th District of Florida, 654,500 people will be paying the debt for 122,500 people.

Mr. Speaker, over the last two decades, tuition and fees have increased nearly three times the rate of inflation.

Democrats continually talk about how college is unaffordable yet fail to realize their failed policies exacerbate the problem of outrageous college costs.

More Federal aid and generous loan subsidies allow schools to increase their prices to capture those additional funds. Economists at the New York Federal Reserve found that for every $1 increase in student loan subsidies, colleges increased their tuition 60 cents. Another study found colleges reduced their own grant aid by as much as 83 cents for every dollar students receive in taxpayer student aid.

The Biden administration is telling borrowers that someone else will pay their loans and telling institutions that someone else will cover the cost of tuition.

It is no wonder the Congressional Budget Office found that the Biden administration's new income-driven repayment plan alone will increase student borrowing by 12 percent.

Let's work toward actually lowering college costs, not dumping hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on well-off college graduates to make the problem worse.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 45, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we all know that access to college is available to every single person in this country. It is not a matter of access. It is a matter of who is paying back their loans.

Coupled with the permanent repayment pause, expansive new regulations, and a radical new income-driven repayment plan, the Biden administration's student loan scam could end up costing taxpayers $1 trillion. That is more than the Federal Government has ever spent on postsecondary education.

The Biden administration's policies do nothing to solve the root issues of student debt. If this bailout moves forward, then outstanding student debt will return to current levels in just over 5 years. We will be right back here again.

The Federal student loan system is broken, and real reform is needed. Simply put, the administration's action will mean that future students will come to expect their loans will be canceled, and colleges will continue to increase already skyrocketing tuition because they know Democrats will leave taxpayers to foot the bill.

We need to hold colleges accountable for charging outrageous prices for degrees with no value. We need a student loan program that has the best interests of students and taxpayers in mind.

As the institution that holds the power of the purse, Congress has the responsibility to protect the interest of taxpayers. A vote in support of today's resolution will do just that.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 45, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, next Monday, we will pause and pay tribute to the men and women who have died in service to our Nation.

It is a solemn time: one for deep reflection, patriotism, and gratitude. This upcoming Saturday, members of the High Country chapter of the Military Officers Association of America will be honoring deceased military veterans for Memorial Day by placing 600 flags on their gravesites.

Joining them will be members of The American Legion, ASU military staff, as well as local Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. Mr. Speaker, seeing members of the High Country come together in this fashion is heartwarming.

Let us never forget that we are blessed to live in the freest, greatest country in the world and that the selfless sacrifices made by those who have served should always be revered and recognized.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Education and the Workforce Committee passed H.J. Res. 45, a Congressional Review Act resolution to overturn Biden's student loan bailout.

I thank Representative Bob Good for sponsoring this crucial resolution.

If passed through both Chambers, the joint resolution being debated today would nullify President Biden's radical plan to cancel up to $20,000 in student debt by executive fiat. For 2 years, President Biden has attempted to push a free college agenda through radical regulations including income-driven repayment, executive actions like blanket cancellation, and his permanent pause on repayment.

Student loan forgiveness is nothing more than a transfer of wealth from those who willingly took on debt to those who did not or had the grit to pay off their loans.

Just 13 percent of Americans hold student loan debt, and over one- half is held by graduate students. In other words, President Biden is forcing the very people Democrats claim to care about--low-income families, disadvantaged populations, and blue-collar workers who never stepped foot on a college campus--to pay someone else's tuition bill.

How much would it cost the American taxpayer?

President Biden's student loan bailout alone will cost taxpayers an estimated $315 billion according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Coupled with his reckless income-driven repayment plan and other expansive regulations, his student loan scams could cost as much as $1 trillion. In fact, at a cost exceeding $3,500 per taxpayer, the President's income-driven repayment plan and mass cancellation represent the most expensive executive actions in American history, period.

These illegal actions also come at a time of rip-roaring inflation as Democrats' reckless spending sprees push our economy to the precipice of recession. The President's debt transfer plan alone could increase inflation by as much as 27 basis points, making it even harder for families to put food on the table and gas in their car. With our national debt quickly approaching $32 trillion, a bailout for graduate students and high-income households is the last thing we need on our Nation's credit card.

Our economy is a debt-fueled balloon waiting to pop, and this plan could be the proverbial needle. With all this spending, one would, at the very least, expect the broken student loan program to be repaired. Yet, even if the President is able to move forward with his debt transfer plan, we will be right back to $1.6 trillion in outstanding debt in less than 6 years.

Why?

Because colleges will increase their tuition and force students to borrow even more because they know taxpayers will foot the bill.

The problems that plague postsecondary education cannot be solved by one-time debt jubilees. Solutions require hard work.

Specifically, it means addressing the lack of accountability for the hundreds of billions of dollars that flow to colleges and universities that charge far too much for degrees with little or no financial value and reforming our student loan program which Democrats are dead set on running into the ground.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize National Charter School Week, during which we celebrate the work that charter schools are doing to expand education freedom and help students thrive in an environment that fits their needs.

Gone are the days of one-size-fits-all education solutions. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the flaws of rigid learning systems. Millions of students were trapped in failing school districts simply because of their ZIP Code.

Now, parents are waking up and making their choices heard. Education freedom is the future.

Charter schools offer students an alternative pathway that provides access to high-quality education options that would otherwise be unavailable.

As the chairwoman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I will continue to advocate for educational pathways like charter schools that put students, not politics, first.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Marcus Smith, who is the president and CEO of Speedway Motorsports and the owner of the North Wilkesboro Speedway.

Marcus and his family have helped lead the charge to restore the 75- year-old racetrack so that countless racing enthusiasts can experience and celebrate the history of stock car racing.

The entire Wilkes County community is buzzing with anticipation over the upcoming NASCAR All-Star Race which will be hosted at the North Wilkesboro Speedway on May 21.

Thanks to the dedication of Marcus and his family in seeing this project through to fruition, a piece of North Carolina's history is back in the spotlight for the entire country to see.

This is no small feat, Mr. Speaker.

Congratulations to Marcus Smith and the Smith family on this monumental accomplishment.

Recognizing Terri Parsons

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Terri Parsons, an exemplary North Carolinian and someone who has played an important role in restoring a piece of our State's rich history.

Thanks to Terri's staunch advocacy and support, the North Wilkesboro Speedway will be hosting the 2023 NASCAR All-Star Race on May 21.

Benny Parson, Terri's late husband and a NASCAR Hall of Famer was very fond of the North Wilkesboro Speedway. His dying wish was to have NASCAR return to Wilkes County and to this historic location.

Mr. Speaker, his wish has come true.

Terri has made the Wilkes County community and all of North Carolina incredibly proud through her continued work. I congratulate Terri on this magnificent accomplishment.

Freedom Must Be Handed Down to Our Children

Mr. Speaker, the National Assessment of Educational Progress recently revealed that history and civics scores among students hit record lows. The scores are staggering.

Eighty-seven percent of eighth graders have a basic or below basic knowledge of American history while only 2 out of 10 of those students are proficient in civics.

For a decade, we have watched these scores decline. The culprit isn't a singular event but a culture shift where an ideology-charged curriculum is rapidly replacing a core understanding of our Nation's history and our role in it.

Our past matters--the good and the bad. Our civic responsibility matters. It is the duty every one of us holds. The moment we neglect these truths from textbooks or classroom discussions is the day America is no longer free.

Ronald Reagan said that freedom is never more than one generation from extinction. We did not pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

There are no easy solutions to address this problem.

We stand at a crossroads where there are two competing visions for America: one is predicated on tearing down the pillars that built America, and one is based on the principles of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

I stand firmly with the vision of the latter.

Unfortunately, the Biden administration stands with the vision of the former.

They recently proposed to hijack the Federal American history and civics grant program to redirect those efforts toward the left's indoctrination agenda.

We must stand against this radical vision. America is more than a nation. It represents freedom--an ideal that countless generations protected and often died for.

These abysmal test scores reflect what happens when we allow ideologically charged indoctrination to trump basic instruction in our Nation's history.

We can and must do better. We owe it to those who came before us, we owe it to those who will come after us, and we owe it to every person around the world who looks at America as that shining city on a hill--a beacon of freedom for all.

Let us not take our great Republic for granted.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Kiley for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, President Biden is waging a war on America's workforce. First, he made the anti-worker PRO Act a legislative priority.

Then his Department of Labor proposed a rule to extinguish opportunities for workers who want to be independent contractors.

Now his handpicked nominee, Julie Su, has barely made it through the Democrat-controlled Senate HELP Committee on a party-line vote, paving the way for her to head the agency overseeing our Nation's workforce.

As California's Secretary of Labor, Su was the architect and chief enforcer of AB 5, a bill that mirrors current Federal anti-worker proposals like the PRO Act and DOL's proposed rule.

Nearly 80 percent of independent contractors prefer their current status to traditional employment. AB 5 forced many independent contractors to be reclassified or lose work opportunities. Many Californians lost their livelihoods. Most rejected the bill through a Statewide referendum.

AB 5 sank in such spectacular fashion that over 100 industry exemptions were created; from recording artists and song writers to dog walkers and home cleaners.

This is the policy that Democrats tacitly endorsed by supporting Julie Su for Secretary of Labor. I have talked at length with independent contract workers whose livelihoods are put in peril by Julie Su.

Let me explain her nomination and confirmation from their perspective. In the eyes of truckers, Su places 350,000 owner-operator jobs at risk. Truckers worked tirelessly to keep our economy afloat during the pandemic. This is their repayment?

In the eyes of journalists, Julie Su's confirmation tells them the independence of freelancing is not valuable to their industry.

In the eyes of tutors, Su is a slap in the face for those who helped save students from falling through the cracks during the pandemic.

Many tutors are independent contractors, and two of every three are women. They wouldn't have a place in Su's workforce.

In the eyes of every worker who files a 1099 on tax day, Julie Su is an assault on their way of life.

Many Members have rightly criticized Julie Su for her long track record of incompetence, like how she lost $31 billion to unemployment fraud in California.

Biden has already proven he will staff his Cabinet with woefully unqualified and incompetent Secretaries. Look at Mayor Pete.

I am worried about Su being an activist for Biden's pro-union boss and anti-worker agenda. It is no wonder that industry groups lined up against her confirmation in a rare display of agreement in Washington.

Her destiny might be out of the House's hands, but I can end with a promise. As chairwoman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I promise to conduct robust oversight of the Labor Department or the department of any radical who threatens our Nation's workforce.

We will deliver to independent workers, to truckers, journalists, tutors, and more, much deserved accountability from their Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding and for his wonderful work on this package.

Mr. Speaker, America's position as the most trusted line of credit in the world is at stake. In other words, our reputation is at stake. Republicans' commonsense proposal, the Limit, Save, Grow Act, recognizes the twin interests of avoiding defaulting on our debt while reining in future inflationary spending.

Yet, the President has signaled that he will stall, he will risk, and he will forbid paying our debt obligations if he doesn't get his way. He refuses to compromise.

One such compromise, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, includes blocking the President from spending half a trillion dollars to provide backdoor free college.

The Limit, Save, Grow Act would nullify the President's plan to transfer up to $20,000 per borrower onto the backs of blue-collar Americans, as well as his radical income-driven repayment plan, which would turn student loans into untargeted grants and cost more than any other regulation in our Nation's history.

If the President's student loan scheme is enacted, taxpayers could end up spending almost $1 trillion since the beginning of the pandemic.

Our solution preserves the fiscal integrity of our Nation for Americans today and the generation tomorrow. It offers a promise to the American public that we will not pursue trillion-dollar policies that risk our financial future.

Mr. Speaker, we ask the President to come to the negotiating table and quit pursuing brinkmanship over partisanship.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 734.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 734, the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act.

The Democrats have gone to great lengths to call this bill extreme. The Democrats have gone to great lengths, being almost hysterical, to call this bill discriminatory. It is neither of those things.

It is a one-page bill, which is rare in Congress, that strengthens existing protections for women, ensures a level playing field for female athletes, and protects women and girls from the Biden administration's radical regulatory scheme.

It is quite telling when the other party attempts to tear things down without offering an alternative vision. Democrats refuse to posit a reason for allowing biological men to compete in women's sports that comports with principles of athletic competition like fairness and integrity.

Democrats also refuse to address the implications of their position. If men can compete in women's sports, should they be able to take roster spots from women, to rob women of hard-earned achievements?

Instead, they appeal to emotion and call the other side bigots. It is such a tiring act, Mr. Chair.

How about providing evidence that self-identification is rooted in biological truth? Explain that a post-adolescent male athlete has zero physical advantages over women.

Democrats like to pretend they are the party of science. Where is the data?

The Democrat vote against this bill, including Biden's threat to veto it, is a vote against continuing to give women and girls equal opportunity to participate and compete in athletics.

We on the Republican side are grounded. We live in reality. So does the rest of America. Ask working-class Americans if Muhammad Ali should have been allowed to box women in his heyday or if Usain Bolt should have run the women's 100 meters.

It is not about callousness or lack of emotion. This is about grounding a leftist ideology that has lost its collective mind back in reality. In fact, Republicans are teeming with admiration and support for the women and girls who have come so far to get much-deserved recognition for their athletic achievements.

The left wants to talk about erasure. Let's talk about how American female athletes are being erased. We are not sensationalizing this problem. It exists. Females are being hurt by it, and action must be taken to stop that.

Mr. Chair, I hope this debate and the eventual passage of H.R. 734 help bring sanity to women's sports, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Steube), the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens), chairman of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bean), chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Moran), a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Williams), a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. McClain), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and secretary of the Republican Conference.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good), chairman of the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast), a true hero here in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I want to briefly discuss the proposed regulation the Department of Education recently issued on this topic.

Frankly, either you believe women's access to athletic opportunity should be protected or you don't. Either you believe fairness and safety in women's athletics should be protected or you don't.

The Department of Education clearly doesn't believe in those things. If it did, it wouldn't have proposed a rule that will upend the laws 20 States have on the books protecting women's sports.

More shockingly, the Department's rule provides no meaningful guidelines as to what will be an acceptable level of protection for female athletes. That decision will apparently be made on a case-by- case basis by Secretary of Education Cardona.

Democrats apparently believe one man should get to decide whether or not women athletes are guaranteed equal access, fairness, and safety. Once upon a time, Democrats would have recognized the cruel irony of that. Unfortunately, that day is long gone.

Fortunately, Republicans haven't lost sight of our obligation, and that is why we will pass this bill.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time, and I am ready to close whenever the gentleman from California is ready to close.

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

Mr. Chair, I have spoken to the absurdity of this debate, but let me conclude by clarifying what this bill does and does not do by reading two paragraphs of this bill--it is one page long.

``Section 901 of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``(d)(1) It shall be a violation of subsection (a) for a recipient of Federal funds who operates, sponsors, or facilitates athletic programs or activities to permit a person whose sex is male to participate in an athletic program or activity that is designated for women or girls.

``(2) For the purposes of this subsection, sex shall be recognized based solely on a person's reproductive biology and genetics at birth.''

All of these ridiculous things that we have been accused of are not in this bill. This bill does not discriminate against anyone. It does not exhibit any hate toward anyone.

What it does is prohibit Federal funding to institutions that ``permit a person whose sex is male to participate in an athletic program or activity that is designated for women or girls.''

The reason for this is simple. Men have certain physiological advantages over women, such as more size and speed. Because of that, allowing biological males to compete against women and girls robs females of equal athletic opportunities and fair playing fields.

H.R. 734 restores the integrity and fairness of women's sports.

Mr. Chairman, Republicans, contrary to what our colleagues have said and accused us of, Republicans love all God's children, male and female, born and unborn. Do not question our commitment to fairness to life or to treating people equally. We hate no one.

As my colleagues have pointed out, it is ridiculous that we have had to stand here today to defend the rights of women and girls to participate in sports against other women and girls and they not being taken advantage of by biological males.

Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues across the aisle to do what is best for America's women and girls and support this important bill.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Bean for his leadership on the Education and the Workforce Committee and also his leadership in leading this Special Order tonight.

It is a very important issue to the people of the United States, and I am very proud of him for taking the leadership and putting this Special Order together.

Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in a new era of warfare with our foreign adversaries who are vying for influence and control not only over America but especially over America's postsecondary education system.

Losing on this 21st century battleground has serious consequences for free thought, economic competitiveness, and national security.

Foreign adversaries like the Chinese Communist Party have used power and monetary influence to infiltrate colleges and universities to grow their sphere of influence in American society.

Mr. Speaker, make no mistake: When we talk about China and its exertion of force and its exertion of power, we are not talking about the Chinese people. We are talking about the Chinese Communist Party, the CCP.

So let us be clear on that tonight so that nobody mistakes who we see as the enemy. It is the Chinese Communist Party.

At face value, foreign contributions coming into universities might seem harmless, but the reality is foreign money often comes with strings attached. We know with the CCP, there are always strings attached.

Every dollar that institutions accept from undisclosed foreign entities that do not share our Nation's values sends them deeper into a dangerous entanglement that undermines our Republic.

For years, this influence scheme has been going on, yet neither the Chinese Communist Party nor institutions of higher education have faced repercussions for their actions.

Indeed, during the Trump administration, it discovered $6.5 billion in previously unreported foreign money to universities from adversarial countries.

For the first time, real progress was being made to hold institutions accountable for undisclosed contributions.

But mysteriously, when the Biden administration came into office, all progress toward discovering these contributions stopped.

The Department of Education is shirking its duty to enforce the law and has abandoned robust scrutiny of undisclosed foreign gifts and contracts that violate section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965.

Mr. Speaker, we have known since 1965 that the potential for damage done to our institutions through foreign contributions was possible.

Section 117 is the single most important enforcement tool at the Biden administration's disposal to protect against the threats posed by our foreign adversaries attempting to steal research and buy off students and faculty on our Nation's campuses.

Republicans have sent multiple letters to Secretary Cardona demanding answers about this foreign money. Yet, this administration continues its pattern of stonewalling Congress with limited and woefully insufficient responses.

This is a part of Congress' oversight responsibility, Mr. Speaker, and is not being done on a whim.

It is unacceptable that the Biden administration has exercised minimal effort to expose the lack of integrity happening at so-called ``elite'' institutions.

The possible consequences of the department's limited engagement are dire. Section 117 is effective only if it is enforced.

That is why congressional oversight is necessary to hold the Department of Education accountable to enforce the law.

We must fight money and coercion beginning with accountability and transparency. Without accountability and transparency, the Chinese Communist Party could win this new-age battle because America has been fighting with one hand tied behind its back.

Mr. Speaker, I say: No more. My Republican colleagues and I will not stop until we see rigorous enforcement of section 117 that hold the universities responsible and hold the Chinese Communist Party responsible for what it may be trying to do.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the American Flood Coalition for 5 years of driving proactive solutions to combat flooding.

During this time, the American Flood Coalition has brought together political, military, business, and local civic leaders to build resilience against stronger storms and more frequent flooding.

In North Carolina's Fifth District, recent tropical storms have brought inches of rain in only a matter of hours, triggering destructive floods and landslides. These storms can leave behind millions of dollars in damages that burden communities for years.

The American Flood Coalition works across all levels of government, supporting process improvements and projects that directly protect against such impacts while lifting the experiences and needs of members to drive transformational adaptation policy at the Federal level.

Congratulations, American Flood Coalition, on 5 years of protecting our Nation's residents, economy, and military installations from flooding.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today to recognize the profound importance of H.R. 5, the Parents Bill of Rights Act, and what it means for families across the country.

Over the past several years, parents witnessed the consequences of lessons taught in classrooms firsthand. Math scores declined by the largest margin ever, and reading scores plummeted to the lowest levels in over three decades. These results are devastating.

Teachers' unions and education bureaucrats worked to push progressive politics in classrooms while keeping parents in the dark. The Parents Bill of Rights Act aims to end that and shine a light on what is happening in schools. This bill will reaffirm a parent's right to review course curriculum, meet with the child's teacher, and be heard at school board meetings without fear of reprisal.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem convinced Republicans are using this bill to punish teachers or push an extreme rightwing agenda. This is false.

Our education system is spiraling out of control as parents are pushed further outside the classroom. This bill will restore the role of parents in schools and provide new mechanisms to promote parent- teacher partnerships.

When parents are involved in their child's education, students thrive. That is the guiding principle of this bill. With the Parents Bill of Rights Act, Republicans will help parents steer the education of their children back onto the correct path where they can learn the skills they need for a lifetime of success.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, here is the truth about this bill. This bill will not ban any books. I repeat: This bill will not ban any books.

What is dangerous right now is when people misrepresent what is in legislation before us.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens), my distinguished colleague, the chair of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from New York for his questions.

Mr. Chair, I can confirm that the bill does not require a teacher to disclose any of the information that the gentleman described.

The bill does not address a student's identity or statements but is solely focused on notifying parents about actions taken by school personnel to act on a gender transition, such as changing pronouns or switching locker rooms.

I would add, despite the claims from my friends on the other side of the aisle, even The New York Times acknowledged that this is not a partisan issue, writing in January that, ``Parents of all political persuasions have found themselves unsettled by what schools know and don't reveal.''

Our bill enshrines commonsense transparency for parents of children to reflect these concerns but it does not force any teacher to reveal private conversations or any information about sexual orientation.

The legislation is also clear that education is largely the responsibility of the States and any State or local school district would work with the Department to ensure their compliance with these provisions without violating student privacy. I yield to the gentleman.

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

Mr. Chair, there is no question that over the past several years, we have seen parents being denied the right to make decisions about their children's education. I don't quite understand the argument from the other side.

The reason I stand before this body today is not because I happen to be in Washington; it is because I am representing parents in my district who want to know what their children are being taught and what they are required to read.

In fact, parents across this country, certain groups, have gone so far as to label the parents ``domestic terrorists'' just because they wanted a say in their children's education. That is what we are talking about today is giving control back to the parents of our children.

This is not the way our education system was created, and it is not the way it is supposed to work. Allowing families to have a say in their children's education should not be a controversial subject. I don't get it.

Parents have a right to know what is being taught to their children, to give consent for medical evaluations, and to be heard. My goodness, it is in the top 10: Honor thy father and thy mother.

Unfortunately, we have seen Washington Democrats and outside groups push to radically reshape our education system by injecting divisive concepts and curriculum into our schools and classrooms regardless of whether families approve.

House Republicans are working to fulfill our commitment to America by building a future that is built on freedom, for crying out loud, a future where parents' rights are protected and families are given a seat at the table.

I am calling on all my colleagues to join us in support of H.R. 5, the Parents Bill of Rights Act.

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

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

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

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, it has been a pleasure to work on the Parents Bill of Rights Act. While working on this bill, I have heard from parents' groups who offered their support. I would like to mention what just a few of them said.

The Independent Women's Voice wrote: ``The Parents Bill of Rights Act acknowledges parents' fundamental right to make decisions for their children.''

``Parents do not simply turn children over to government schools with the assumption that the school will make every decision without parental input. As parents, we have a right to direct the upbringing, care, and education of our children.''

The Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee said: ``Americans have been awakened to the troubling fact that public schools are failing our children. The lack of educational standards combined with the radical ideologies being taught in the classroom have led more and more parents to question the public education system. . . . This act reasserts the proper role of parents in their children's education.''

Finally, Parents Defending Education Action said: ``There is an intentional and universal lack of transparency and accountability among school districts. Concerning incidents

are major and widespread. . . . The Parents Bill of Rights Act, introduced by Congresswoman Julia Letlow, addresses the primary issues parents have vocalized over the last 2 years: academics, free speech, safety, fairness, and transparency. We hope Congress will be receptive to the Parents Bill of Rights Act and vindicate parents who have spoken up and yearn for such legislation.''

After hearing statements like this, it should be clear that this bill gives parents what they want. Polling shows that overwhelming majorities of parents want more control over what their children are taught. According to survey results, 72 percent of Americans support curriculum transparency. Additionally, 67 percent believe that parents should be able to opt their children out of curriculum they believe is inappropriate or harmful. Nearly 8 in 10 parents polled nationally want to have influence over what is taught in K-12 classrooms.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Madam Chair, I am going to say again and again and again and again, this bill does not do anything to ban books.

My understanding is that the book ``To Kill a Mockingbird'' was banned by a liberal school board in California, so don't blame us for what liberals do.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Williams).

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

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

Madam Chair, I will respond to a comment that my colleague on the other side of the aisle mentioned a few minutes ago.

I point out that the manager's amendment that we will debate clarifies the intent of the language the ranking member was reading.

The manager's amendment makes it clear the school district's responsibility is to the parents' child, not any child.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, we have heard a lot about what this bill is going to do in the future, and it is all bad from the other side.

What has been particularly disturbing to me to hear today are comments that truly misrepresent what is in the legislation before us. That scares the public, and that is not what we should be about.

This bill is not going to cause people to be mean to schoolchildren. It does not attempt to hurt anyone. It is not going to ban books.

Our colleagues say, on one hand that a list of all the books is already available out there to parents, and then they say, this bill is going to force those lists to be put out and that will cause the banning of books.

We have heard that books have been banned. In the Rules Committee last night, books that they said had been banned inappropriately--those assertations were refuted.

It has been truly troubling, in our committee markup in the Rules Committee last night and today, to hear the terrible misrepresentations about this bill.

As my colleagues and I have said, this Parents Bill of Rights Act is to help parents be more involved with their children's education, as they should be.

I am urging my colleagues to support H.R. 5, the Parents Bill of Rights Act, and by doing so we will send a strong message that parents are an integral part of their child's education and must be respected.

For too long, parents have been kept at a distance in schools and classrooms. Teachers' unions and education bureaucrats made significant efforts to conceal what was truly being taught in classrooms. What came out of COVID was parents saw what was being taught and they didn't like it.

For years, students were falling behind in critical subject areas such as mathematics and reading, but prolonged school closures hastened the deterioration of learning.

Now, the Parents Bill of Rights Act will foster robust parent/teacher partnerships and close the gap between families and educators. That is what this bill is about--setting up true partnerships between families and educators.

We respect educators. We want to support what they are doing in the classroom. But parents want to know what is being taught in the classroom. We want transparency and we want accountability.

To recover lost learning and promote a safe learning environment, parents must be involved in the classroom. Parents are the best advocates for the best interests of their child, and teachers are an important part of enhancing the well-being of students.

I hope our colleagues will not continue to misrepresent what is in this bill but will work with us for the benefit of America's children. That is what we are about on our side of the aisle, not to hurt, not to be mean, but to support.

Madam Chair, I encourage my colleagues across the aisle to do what is best for students, support this important bill.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment.

Madam Chair, it has been a pleasure to support the Parents Bill of Rights Act. I am especially proud of the work that our committee has put into crafting this bill.

Our committee worked late into the night and early morning and considered dozens of amendments. Nearly 20 were adopted to make the bill even better. I am proud that we have reported to the floor a commonsense bill that has broad support and aligns with what the vast majority of Americans want.

The amendments we passed during the committee markup accomplished the same goal we had when writing the bill: protecting parents' rights and making sure that schools can never cut parents out of their children's education decisions.

This manager's amendment makes a few minor technical changes to make sure that the amendments we passed during the committee markup will be implemented correctly and that the rights promised are fulfilled.

In addition, the manager's amendment adds language to the First Amendment's sense of Congress included in the underlying bill. The new language affirms the fundamental rights of parents to direct the education of their children and encourages courts to use the strict scrutiny standard in evaluating cases related to parental rights.

Schools should always be accountable to parents, and the parents should always know what their children are being taught and what their children are being exposed to. The Parents Bill of Rights Act protects those fundamental rights.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of both this amendment and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, the gentleman from Virginia I think will remember that I believe it was in the Loudoun County Public Schools where the father of a child who had been sexually molested in a bathroom by a young boy dressed as a girl who then was transferred to another school, and the parents were never notified that this had happened, when the father stood up at the school board meeting to bring this issue up, he was not allowed to speak. Furthermore, he was arrested. He was wrestled to the ground and arrested.

So, again, we hear from our colleagues two different scenarios: one, well, parents already have the right to address their school boards. Yes. That is in our First Amendment. We have the right to petition our elected officials for grievances. However, that is not happening as we have seen in certain places.

Whether or not there is a time limit, I would hope that people would be reasonable about that, but we are not dictating that. That will be dealt with. As the gentleman says, those school board members in most cases are elected, and it will be up to them to deal with the public in that respect. If they don't do it correctly, then my assumption is that there will be consequences.

Madam Chair, the manager's amendment, again, strengthens the underlying bill, I urge its adoption, and I also urge passage of H.R. 5.

With this legislation we have an opportunity to make a stand for the rights of parents. I hope all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will vote with what they say they believe, which is that parents have rights and that we want to have the best education for children.

Madam Chair, join us in this effort, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, while I appreciate the substitute put forward by the Congresswoman, the Democrat proposal is wholly inadequate and will do little to solve the problems that parents face.

Instead, the Democrats' amendment resorts to a tired old Democrat strategy: spend more money, hire more people, and hope for the best.

Madam Chair, parents need more than that. They don't need massive new amounts of taxpayer spending at the Federal level controlled by bureaucrats when our country is already deeply in debt, nor do parents need schools to hire massive numbers of new administrators.

What parents need is for their rights to be protected. The Democrats' substitute does nothing to ensure that parents are the ultimate decisionmakers in their child's education.

Of course, that shouldn't be a surprise. There has been a push to silence parents around the country. Powerful teachers unions, several school boards, Democrat politicians, and the Biden

Justice Department have all voiced opposition to the rights of parents to have a say in their child's education.

This kind of rhetoric and political posturing has real-world consequences for parents. For example, in 2021, a Rhode Island mother of two, Nicole Solas, talked to an elementary school principal in South Kingstown, Rhode Island, about what was being taught in schools. After persistent stonewalling, the school district directed her to file a public records request. She did, and the local teachers union filed a lawsuit against her.

This kind of treatment is outrageous. Ms. Solas was subjected to endless stonewalling, public humiliation, and an interminable and costly legal battle. No parent should have to go through that.

The Democrat substitute would do nothing to ensure that stories like this never happen again, but the Parents Bill of Rights Act would. Our bill will ensure that parents can never be sued for wanting to know their child's curriculum.

Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona recently published an op-ed about the Democrat vision for parent empowerment. In his vision, parents should be satisfied when the Federal Government spends taxpayer dollars on top-down solutions. By contrast, Republicans want an authentic give-and-take between parents and the education system about what students learn, how they are taught, and how they should be protected.

That is why I am proud to stand behind our bill.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Democrat substitute and in favor of the Parents Bill of Rights Act.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I want to say again that the approach our colleagues want to take is to spend more money.

Ms. Solas, who I mentioned earlier; Mr. Smith, who was mentioned earlier; and others, they certainly did not have the right to peacefully speak to their school boards and get responses, so that is not going to happen under the Democrats' amendment.

We also are not mean, and again, we do not ban books. We do not condone the banning of books.

We think, again, that the substitute presents the perfect picture of Republicans' and Democrats' approaches to parent engagement. Democrats believe protecting parents' rights means spending more taxpayer dollars to impose a top-down vision. Republicans believe in giving parents real power to secure the best education possible for their children.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time as I believe I have the right to close.

Madam Chair, I want to say again that our bill is meant to give parents their God-given rights to be involved with their children's education and to seek the best education possible.

We do not want anyone to be treated unfairly. We want everyone to be treated fairly. We do not ban books.

I urge the public to read this bill. It is fairly short, about 30 pages, to make sure where the truth lies in terms of this piece of legislation.

Madam Chair, I reject the amendment that has been offered in the nature of a substitute. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment and a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 5.

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

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the veto message on H.J. Res. 30.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of overriding President Biden's veto of H.J. Res. 30, a Congressional Review Act resolution nullifying the Biden administration's attempt to politicize the retirement savings of Americans.

This is deja vu for the American people. With this veto, the President once again insists on undermining the financial security of the very people who elected him.

Republicans will stand with American workers and retirees in protecting their savings.

ESG investing puts the future of millions of Americans in jeopardy when they are already facing economic hardships and inflation brought on by this administration's reckless spending.

The President says H.J. Res. 30 would make it, ``. . . illegal to consider risk factors . . .'' but that statement is blatantly false and misleading.

The Trump rule, which H.J. Res. 30 would reinstate explicitly states, ``Nothing in the final rule is intended to or does prevent a fiduciary from appropriately considering any material risk with respect to an investment.''

Last year, the Department of Labor, DOL, published a rule encouraging retirement plan fiduciaries to consider ESG factors when making investment decisions. Biden protected this rule with his veto.

Now, thanks to Democrats, workers can be placed into ESG investment vehicles by default. If a fiduciary finds that two investments are equal, the fiduciary is allowed to use collateral ESG factors to break the tie without justifying or documenting that decision.

This is especially concerning since ESG investments often underperform and are riskier than other investment strategies.

The left is using ESG investment criteria as a political tool to cudgel companies into accepting leftist policies. If we do not override this veto, the left will use ESG investing to push noncompliant companies out of the marketplace.

Congress debated and it came to the bipartisan conclusion to overturn the Biden rule. Now the administration persists through executive fiat.

Americans invest to secure their future, not to fund the Green New Deal or leftist pet projects. That is why I supported the resolution to nullify the Biden administration's destructive rule.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to quit playing petty politics and vote in accordance with the best interests of the American people.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close if the gentleman from Virginia is prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I obviously disagree with my colleague on the other side of the aisle that a compelling argument to override the veto has not been made. I believe that we have offered a compelling argument.

I believe there are two points of view on what my colleague said about the successes of what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have done for the last 2 years.

We have the highest debt that we have ever had in this country. We are staggering under an inflation rate that is historic, and so we obviously don't think what we have inherited from the last 2 years of total Democratic dominance in this country is positive.

I think we can make a small attempt to make some changes here by overriding the President's veto. I urge even my Democratic colleagues to vote ``yes'' to protect workers and retirees. Override the President's veto.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, parents have a fundamental right to know what their children are being taught, and it should not depend on how rich or poor they are.

The amendment under consideration would strike the phrase ``at no cost'' from the clause stating that parents have the right to review and make copies of curricula. In other words, this amendment would allow schools to charge parents for copies of what their children are being taught.

On principle, that is a terrible idea. Republicans believe that every parent, no matter how much money they have, should be free to know what their child is being taught.

This amendment is also terrible policy. Under the provision, schools could charge every parent exorbitant

amounts for copying curricula and effectively make it impossible for parents to access the curriculum of their children. We know that schools can use cost as a weapon to keep curriculum a secret.

I spoke earlier about a Rhode Island mother of two, Nicole Solas, who became concerned that her child's school was teaching radical leftist ideology. She asked for the school's curriculum but was persistently stonewalled and told to file public records requests. She did, and the school hit her with a $75,000 bill.

That kind of conduct is outrageous. No parent should have to pay $75,000 to learn what their child is being taught. Just the threat of this kind of a bill has a chilling effect on other parents.

That is why it is essential we defeat this amendment. Parents should be able to see their child's curriculum without worrying the school will slam them with an exorbitant bill.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and in favor of the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Again, we should defeat this amendment that would encourage schools to throw up roadblocks in front of parents.

We should defeat this amendment that would make money a barrier to parental engagement. We should defeat this amendment and support the underlying bill.

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

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

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

We all know the impact that a good teacher can have. A good teacher can be motivating, challenging, and life changing for young students. We all want to have good teachers.

I spent my career in education. I have met countless teachers over the years who care deeply about students and want to do the right thing.

Unfortunately, too many in the education bureaucracy are working against teachers with professional development materials that seek to push radical ideologies meant to be passed on to students. Furthermore, there are numerous professional development groups that want to supply teachers with these talking points.

That is why it is essential we know exactly what teachers themselves are being taught, what kind of professional development they are receiving, and who is providing it.

We Republicans believe that parents have a fundamental right to know these answers. Parents need to know who is teaching the teachers, and taxpayers have a right to know what kind of professional development they are paying for.

Frankly, opposition to giving parents access to this information and these materials is evidence of the need for this bill. What is it that proponents of this amendment are trying to hide?

During the Rules Committee hearing, one of the Democrat Members even recognized that reviewing professional development materials is a fundamental right. He told me: ``I agree with you. These are really important, vital rights every parent in the country ought to have. . . . I would think that the best place to start would be . . . to ask the local school board and make sure that the right to review, for example, any professional development material is secured.''

I agree with the Democratic Congressman. Reviewing professional development material is a vital right of every parent.

His mistake, however, is to think that every local school board will voluntarily allow such. Many do not. That is why we need the Parents Bill of Rights Act.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and in favor of the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, this amendment seeks to remove information about the education children are receiving from parents. We should defeat this amendment and support the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Madam Speaker, I have had enough with the Biden Department of Education's utterly dishonest accounting tricks. The Department of Education's 2022 financial statement doesn't have a leg to stand on.

KPMG, an independent auditor, stated that there were material weaknesses in the department's estimates regarding how much the Biden administration's student loan debt relief plan would cost.

The Biden administration claims that its plan would cost $30 billion annually over 10 years, but this is assuming that the Department of Education has properly estimated the participation numbers. According to KPMG, the Department has no evidence behind these numbers, and these numbers matter a lot.

If these numbers are off by just 10 percent, then the cost of Biden's program would rise to $400 billion according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Folks in the Biden Education Department need to go back and learn some math.

At worst, the department is trying to hide the true cost to taxpayers of these debt bailout schemes. At best, the department is practicing shoddy accounting again. Either way, this is a completely irresponsible way to govern such a major program.

It is obvious to anyone paying attention that the department hasn't learned anything from its past mistakes. It was assumptions like this that got our student loan systems into this mess in the first place.

When Democrats passed the Income-Driven Repayment program, IDR, they grossly underestimated the number of borrowers who would participate. This, in conjunction with the student loan moratorium, has led to a $311 billion budget deficit within the Federal student loan program.

In other words, the Federal student loan program is already costing taxpayers a fortune, and the Biden administration's actions will make the problem far worse.

To put salt in the wound, the Biden administration's proposed changes to IDR will cost far more than they are letting on. While the department claims that its changes will cost taxpayers $138 billion over the next 10 years, a nonpartisan student loan expert has estimated that the true cost could be $1 trillion.

Senator Everett Dirksen said: ``A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you are talking real money.''

This is real taxpayer money.

Once again, the Biden administration is trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

As chairwoman of the Education and the Workforce Committee, I cannot let this pattern of deception and mismanagement continue. I will spend the 118th Congress doing everything in my power to hold this administration accountable. Taxpayers deserve nothing less.