Parents Bill of Rights Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Chair, I think what we are seeing here today is the Republican Party's attempt to take some of the most heinous legislation that we are seeing passed on the State level to attack our trans and LGBT, as well as people from marginalized communities' right to exist in schools.
This flowery language of ``parental rights and freedom'' hides the sinister fact of this legislative text. If you notice in these arguments, they are not really discussing what is actually in this legislation.
It includes two provisions that require schools to out trans, nonbinary, and LGBT youth even if it would put said youth in harm's way.
One of the highest rates of youth homelessness is in the LGBT community, from parents who want to kick their children out in households that may be unstable or abusive. For so many children of abuse, school is their only safe place to be.
Before they claim that this is not about banning books and not about harming the LGBT community, let's just look at the impacts of similar Republican legislation that has already passed on the State level.
Look at these books that have already been banned due to Republican measures: ``The Life of Rosa Parks''; this apparently is too woke by the Republican Party. ``Song of Solomon'' is unacceptable to Republican politics. Forty percent of banned books reported are significantly addressing and specifically addressing LGBT issues.
To say and talk about government reach and freedom, this Republican bill is asking the government to force the outing of LGBT people before they are ready.
Talking about the rights of parents, the National Parents Union is here in this gallery today saying: Don't do this.
Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter where the National Parents Union is asking the Republican Party to: ``Keep culture wars out of classrooms. Our children need urgent and aggressive educational solutions. . . .'' The National Parents Union Issues Statement Concerning the Introduction
of the Parents Bill of Rights By Chair Foxx, Speaker McCarthy, and House GOP
March 1, 2023--Boston, MA--The National Parents Union, released a statement following a press conference spearheaded by the Workforce Committee Chair Virginia Foxx, Speaker Kevin McCarthy, and members of the House Republican Conference:
Today, Chairwoman Foxx, of the House of Representatives Education and Workforce Committee, released a new bill that claims to be a Parents Bill of Rights. A true Parents Bill of Rights can only be developed following an extensive process that includes bringing together a broad spectrum of parents representing every intersectionality of the modern American family.
Nowhere in this Parents Bill of Rights does it guarantee parents that their student will have access to a high quality education that prepares them for a life of opportunity. In fact, this faux Bill of Rights glosses over the issues identified as the most important issues facing our children: school safety, the mental health crisis impacting students, and aggressively focusing on addressing the academic challenges that have the potential to hinder our children from achieving economic mobility and competing for the jobs of the future.
This bill has nothing to do with parent rights and everything to do with the radical culture wars that serve as a distraction from what our students' really need to recover from the pandemic. This bill would lead to more education bans, which takes books off classroom shelves and will therefore limit access to education for millions of kids across the country. From national polling we know that the top priorities identified by the vast majority of families are the safety of their children while at school and the urgent need for mental health supports. This bill fails to address either issue and therefore is clearly not intended for the millions of families who have been demanding leadership from federal, state and local lawmakers.
There are ways to write a Parents Bill of Rights in a way that guarantees student progress and addresses the crises that our schools and families face across the country. This is not that.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Chair, I also include in the Record a letter from the American Library Association coming out against this Republican proposal. American Library Association, March 16, 2023. Re H.R. 5, ``Parents Bill of Rights Act''--OPPOSE. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Hakeem Jeffries, Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker McCarthy and Leader Jeffries: The American Library Association (``ALA'') writes to express our opposition to certain provisions of H.R. 5 (``Parents Bill of Rights Act'') and to urge a NO vote on H.R. 5.
Unquestionably, parents should have a voice in their child's education. However, we must oppose H.R. S's school library provisions, which ironically would lead to more government interference in family decisions regarding voluntary reading. These provisions:
Are unnecessary and unwarranted;
Would create a catalyst for more book banning and censorship; and
Would create unfunded federal mandates and regulation where none are needed, at the cost of educating students.
This letter explains each of these concerns below and provides background information about school libraries and an analysis of the bill's school library provisions.
School Libraries are Essential to Educational Achievement
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 88 percent of all public schools had a school library in 2020-21. School libraries and librarians play essential roles in promoting educational achievement, including by fostering a love of reading which encourages students' development of key literacy skills. School libraries offer a variety of age- appropriate materials for voluntary reading, which is central to helping students discover the joy of reading. School library collections are typically overseen by school librarians who hold a Master's in Library Science or comparable degree from an ALA-accredited graduate program, and who in many states are required to hold a state certification. Library collections are developed in accordance with professional standards, the school's collection development and reconsideration policies, and the requirements of applicable law, including the U.S. Constitution. Analysis of H.R. 5's School Library Provisions
The following provisions, as contained in Rules Committee Print 118-2, would impose new federal requirements on local school libraries.
Section 104 would require local educational agencies that receive funding under federal Education Department programs to notify parents that they have the right to a ``list of the books and other reading materials contained in the library of their child's school'' and to ``inspect such books or other reading materials,'' and to provide parents with such list and opportunity to inspect such materials at the beginning of each school year.
Section 202 would require local educational agencies that receive funding under federal Education Department programs to make available for inspection by parents ``any books or other reading materials made available to students in such school or through the school library of such school,'' and to adopt a policy providing for such inspection upon the request of the parent.
Section 202 also contains reporting provisions, which would require:
Local educational agencies that receive funding under federal Education Department programs to annually ``report to the State educational agency any enforcement actions or investigations carried out for the preceding school year to ensure compliance with this section'' and to ``publish such information on its website;''
State educational agencies, in turn, to annually report information received from local educational agencies to the federal Education Department, as well as ``a description of the enforcement actions the State educational agency took to ensure parents' rights were protected;'' and
The federal Secretary of Education to annually report information received from states to Congress, along with ``a description of the enforcement actions taken by the Secretary [. . .] to ensure full compliance.''
Finally, Section 202 directs the Secretary to ``take such action as the Secretary determines appropriate to enforce this section;'' including the authority to terminate federal funding ``if the Secretary determines that there has been a failure to comply with such section, and compliance with such section cannot be secured by voluntary means.''
The bill would not provide funding to implement these requirements.
The Bill's School Library Provisions Are Unnecessary and Unwarranted
The bill's school library provisions appear to be a solution in search of a problem. We are not aware of any situations where parents were not allowed access to the school library's catalog or materials. It is standard practice in today's school libraries to maintain online catalogs of their library materials and make such catalogs available to parents and students. School librarians welcome the opportunity to engage with parents in support of the student's education and fostering a love of reading. That is precisely why school libraries exist, and why school librarians have chosen their profession.
Furthermore, these provisions are unwarranted. As described above, school libraries provide access to a variety of age- appropriate materials. Notably, these are not mandatory instructional materials, but voluntary choices for student- directed reading. If a student isn't interested in a particular book, they can simply choose another book. The Bill's School Library Provisions Would Create a Catalyst for More Book Banning and Censorship
We are very concerned about the potential negative unintended consequences of book banning and censorship of viewpoints if these federal requirements are imposed on local schools.
The federal government should not dictate which materials local school libraries can or cannot offer. Indeed, current federal law prohibits the Education Department from exercising ``any direction, supervision, or control [. . .] over the selection or content of library resources'' by local schools (20 U.S.C. 3403(b)). However, the school library provisions of H.R. 5 would expand federal involvement in that quintessentially local decision and invite more attempts to censor information and ban books.
Imposing new federal regulation--including a federal mandate for local schools to adopt new policies--would be weaponized by a small minority who seek to censor what other parents' children can read. The sad reality is that an increasing number of state and local politicians in recent years have acquiesced to extreme demands to censor reading choices, and we fear that censorship may become even more prevalent if these provisions are enacted.
We have already seen how destructive censorship can be with the banning of books in many communities. Book bans now include many shocking examples, including the banning of children's books regarding the contributions to society by individuals like Condoleezza Rice, Rosa Parks, and Malala Yousafzai. We cannot support provisions that will, even if unintentionally, lead to greater censorship and the banning of children's books that contain subjects such as the contributions of these historic figures.
The Bill's School Library Provisions Would Create Unfunded Federal Mandates and Regulation Where None Are Needed, At the Cost of Educating Students
As described above, the bill's requirements for school libraries are essentially duplicative of standard local practice. Nonetheless, by imposing new federal regulation on local schools, the bill would create new paperwork requirements, compliance burdens, and administrative costs, including for rural and small schools that can least afford them. These unfunded mandates would be another distraction from schools' fundamental work to educate students. These same provisions would hand the federal Education Department new, broad authority to defund schools deemed to have inadequately complied with these new federal regulations. If enacted, these provisions would take dollars that should be used to pay for books, librarians, and teachers, and require that they instead be spent on administrators, bureaucrats, and paperwork--to the detriment of the students our schools should be focused on serving. Conclusion
We believe that parents should be partners in their children's education. However, H.R. 5's school library provisions do nothing to advance that goal. Instead, they would create unnecessary and unfunded federal mandates on local school libraries that likely would result in more government censorship of reading choices.
Congress should support freedom for parents and students to choose what they want to read. Inspired by the wisdom of our country's Founders, the First Amendment must be our guide star. If anyone is to tell a child that they can't read a book, it should be the child's parent, not a politician. Congress should support students by strengthening school libraries and protecting the freedom to read--not imposing more bureaucratic burdens and invitations to censorship.
We are confident that parents want more books, not fewer, in their children's school libraries.
Thank you for your consideration. If we can provide more information, please contact Gavin Baker. Sincerely, Alan S. Inouye, Ph.D.,
Senior Director, Public Policy & Government Relations and Interim Associate Executive Director American Library Association.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Chair, when we talk about progressive values, I can say what my progressive value is, and that is freedom over fascism.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source