Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

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

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

Ms. FOXX. 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.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. 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.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment.

Ms. FOXX. 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.

Ms. FOXX. 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.

Ms. FOXX. 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.

Ms. FOXX. 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.

Ms. FOXX. 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.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. 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

Ms. FOXX. 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.

Ms. FOXX. 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.

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

Ms. FOXX. 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.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. 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.

Ms. FOXX. 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.

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

Ms. FOXX. 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.

Ms. FOXX. 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.