By Leonard Chan

Recently, AACP received emails from the American Booksellers Association (ABA) about House of Representative Bill 7661 (H.R. 7661).

The ABA, to which we are a member of, is advocating that we should oppose this bill and encourage others to oppose it too.

Because of our nonprofit status, we cannot directly take part in a political action. However, with this article, we hope to inform you of the issues pertaining to this bill.

------------------

Here is a link to the actual text of H.R. 7661. We encourage you to read it. It is very short (about one page) and pretty simple to read. It is much simpler than some of the propositions that you may regular read and vote on.

------------------

The ABA and the American Library Association (ALA), which also opposes this bill, have web pages that describe the reasons for their opposition to H.R. 7661.

You can find them with the following links –

ABA’s webpage on H.R. 7661, which also includes a form on how you can take action

ALA’s webpage on H.R. 7661

------------------

The House Committee on Education and Workforce had a hearing on this bill on March 17, 2026. The official transcription of their hearing is not yet available, but you can watch a video of the hearing by clicking on this link.

------------------

We created our own transcription (with the aid of YouTube’s transcription feature) and will highlight some of what was said in the following excerpt.

------------------

Chairman Walberg

I now recognize Miss Miller for five minutes to explain the amendment…

Rep. Mary Miller (from the state of Illinois, is the author and sponsor of the bill)

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for including my bill in this week's markup.

The COVID 19 pandemic response wrecked havoc on our education system by isolating children and cutting them off from in-person learning and school sports. Yet, it was during the pandemic when parents began paying closer attention to what their children were being taught. When these parents showed up to school board meetings to voice their concerns or read excerpts from books, the National School Boards Association sent a letter to the Biden Harris administration that accused engaged parents of domestic terrorism.

Meanwhile, reading and math scores have stagnated or declined nationwide. Schools should be laser focused on improving educational outcomes, not pushing sexually explicit material in the classrooms. Yet, in many schools, inappropriate content is available to children in kindergarten. And I've seen and read some of this curriculum. I've been married 46 years. I am embarrassed to talk about what we are putting in front of our children. What we're talking about is obscene and it's being funded by taxpayer dollars. In fact, books like Gender Queer, Lawnboy, and It's Perfectly Normal are so explicit that even their authors admit they were never intended for children.

According to Max Eden from the American Enterprise Institute, if a stranger were to read these books to a fourth grader on the street, he might be arrested and prosecuted.

Additionally, parents are frequently prohibited from reading these books at school board meetings. In Klay County, Florida, a father attempted to read from the book “Lucky” at a schoolboard meeting, but his microphone was cut off. A district spokesperson later explained, “When addressing the board, since our meetings are televised, we must abide by FCC laws and regulations.”

So, think about this. What we are using taxpayer funded dollars to put in front of our children is prohibited under FCC laws and regulations.

In Asheville, North Carolina, a local pastor was interrupted by schoolboard officials while he read from, “It's Perfectly Normal.” To which he replied, “If you don't want to hear it in a schoolboard meeting, why should children be able to check it out of the school system?”

In my home state of Illinois, Chicago public schools featured sexual education curriculum beginning in kindergarten. In the first grade, there were lessons on how to identify gender identity. In second grade, students were taught the concept of gender stereotypes and how to, quote, advocate for change. By fifth grade, there was an introduction to puberty blockers.

I have seen this curriculum. It is obscene. I don't know what else to say. They're introducing our first graders to how to masturbate with pictures. We go on into lower elementary schools, introducing them to gross oral and anal sex. People I talked to do not believe me. I have to show them the curriculum. It is happening, 100%. They are using taxpayer dollars for it.

That is why I've introduced HR7661, Stop the Sexualization of Our Children Act, to counteract students’ exposure to inappropriate content by prohibiting the use of federal taxpayer dollars to promote sexually explicit materials. The ANS simply makes a technical change.

Surely we can all agree, this should not be a partisan issue that pornographic content has no place in schools. And I can tell you as someone that spent time in a public school classroom, ended up homeschooling my children, there is not time in the day to be able to introduce our children to all the wonderful educational materials and wonderful literature there is.

This is the other terrible thing about this, they are wasting precious classroom time. Therefore, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill and I yield back. Thank you.

Chairman Walberg

The gentle lady from Georgia, Miss Mcbath… you're recognized for five minutes.

Rep. McBath

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This bill is not about protecting children…

This bill is about pressuring schools and teachers into conforming to this Republican majority's specific world view. It's about erasing history and replacing difficult conversations about complicated issues like the Holocaust and slavery. Two of the greatest evils ever to be inflicted upon the world. Two evils whose victims stories deserve to be told in this country.

Yes, hearing about these things is very uncomfortable for all of us. The heinous acts of violence and degradation described and depicted should disturb every single one of us. That's part of how we know the things done to the victims were so wrong. Just reading or hearing what really happened to these people makes one simply recoil. But that doesn't mean that we should hide from them. People deserve to know the truth at the appropriate age. And this bill treats 16 and 17 year olds the same as kindergarteners or first graders. Two ages that are completely different levels of maturity that are prepared for vastly different levels of information and sensitivity.

Just like public schools don't start off teaching math to kindergarteners with trigonometry or calculus, they don't start off teaching history to our youngest children with nude photos of Holocaust victims or any other extremely sensitive part of history.

This bill would ban programming for all students under the age of 18 that includes sexually oriented material, including any program, activity, literature, or material that exposes students to nudity. It then lists a variety of exceptions, including standard science coursework, but there's no mention of history. No mention of history whatsoever. Would this ban include learning about the force stripping that was done to so many victims of the Holocaust before they were executed?

Would there be a ban on 17-year-olds learning about the daily reality of female slaves in our country? About women who were unable to give consent, who lived under the constant threat of rape and assault? Should that history not be taught? These examples can't be dismissed as just sexual and cast aside.

That's the history of what happened here. What a disservice to the victims that suffered. To sum up what happened to them with one simple word and hide away their story is unconscionable.

These stories are testaments to the lives that these people truly lived and the horrors that they were forced to endure. Horrors that must be confronted if we are ever truly want to see them stop. It's easy for us to just turn away from these things because they're uncomfortable and they're hard for us to understand or hard for us to fathom. But that is not what Congress should be encouraging. I am opposed to this bill and I yield back.

Chairman Walberg

Gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Harris. Do you wish to be recognized?

Rep. Harris

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise today to support the Stop the Sexualization of Children Act because tax dollars should not be used to promote explicit material to minors. At its core, this legislation is about protecting children from content you would find in X-rated movie. It's about curating good content for kids, not banning books. This bill guards against using federal taxpayer dollars to promote or develop sexually oriented materials for children. And let me be clear, what's often overlooked, this legislation defines this by referencing existing federal definitions of graphic sexual conduct. Just as importantly, it also makes clear what this bill does not do.

It does not prohibit the teaching of legitimate science such as biology. It does not restrict the study of classical works of literature or art. There's a profound difference between studying timeless works that have helped shape Western civilization and exposing children to modern materials that contain graphic and explicit sexual content. This bill draws that line.

Students can still learn about great works that have shaped civilization from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet to masterpieces like Michelangelo's David. It also protects the study of major religious text and other historically significant writings.

The purpose of our schools should be clear to equip young people with the tools they need to succeed by focusing on reading, writing, math, and science. Not to expose them to content that would make adults blush.

I thank my colleague, Representative Miller of Illinois, for leading on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Stop the Sexualization of Children's Act. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Chairman Walberg

I now recognize the gentle lady from Oregon for 5 minutes.

Rep. Bonamichi

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Instead of focusing on federal issues that actually matter in K12 education, like saving the Department of Education from extinction or fully funding IDA or ESSA, this bill blatantly interferes with local control and would force a radical book banning agenda on public schools across the country.

Republicans have repeatedly denied any interest in banning books. We just heard that. But this bill does exactly that. This bill tramples on the rights of parents and educators and schoolboard members and state legislators by setting a federal mandate on local curriculum.

In 1969, the United States Supreme Court said students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate. And yes, there are some limits on First Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court ruled in the 1970s that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment, but members of this committee don't get to decide what obscenity is… this bill in fact doesn't even begin to meet the Supreme Court test. It uses a broadly defined sexually oriented material with its own overly broad definition that appears to apply equally to kindergarteners and high school seniors.

Additionally, I strongly object to defining classic works of art and literature as any works identified by Compass Classroom. This is a Christian home school curriculum developed by individuals who promote religious creationism over scientific evolution.

This type of ideology has absolutely no place in public schools which as we should all know serve students from many different backgrounds and religions. And additionally, if you spent time talking with teachers and visiting classrooms and you know that educators, whether they be classroom teachers or school librarians, they're not interested in exposing their students to books that are not age appropriate.

Is there real quantitative data that shows this is an issue? We've heard anecdotes, discussions better raised with educators and school boards, but not to promote federal legislation that would apply to and interfere with virtually every public school in the country.

We took an oath to defend the Constitution. The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Legislation that would limit public school curriculum to materials approved by a religious group, that's not at all consistent with the First Amendment.

Also, and concerningly, this bill defines sexually oriented material to include gender dysphoria and transgenderism, which I'm not sure is a word, but there's no clarification of what these terms mean. 

Once again, my colleagues are stoking the flames of culture war issues, but in doing so, they are dehumanizing a group of individuals who happen to be different from them. The goal here is not an elimination of ideology, but of people. People who are just as deserving of dignity, respect, and love as anyone else. And I truly look forward to the day when my colleagues quit picking on trans students.

This bill represents a sweeping overreach of congressional authority fueled by narrow-mindedness and religious extremism. And as I've said many times, this is the United States Congress, not a school board. Let's leave local issues to local districts and end federal interference in school curriculum.

And Mr. Chairman, I want to read briefly from a statement from the American Library Association…

The American Library Association said HR7661 isn't fundamentally about protecting kids. It's about giving politicians broad authority to restrict whose stories are allowed on our shelves. That should concern anyone who believes in the freedom to read and the right of families to make decisions for themselves. Rather than targeting librarians and teachers, Congress should invest in them.

…

I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this amendment… I want to uphold the Constitution and free speech rights and reject HR 7661. And I yield back.

Chairman Walberg

… the gentleman from California, Mr. Takano. You are recognized for 5 minutes.

Rep. Takano

What I want to talk about is HR7661 the so-called stop the sexualization of children act which should be more aptly called the don't say trans act.

It prohibits schools from receiving elementary and secondary education act funds from using those funds to develop, implement, facilitate, host, or promote any program or activity that… provide or promote literature or other materials that include quote unquote sexually oriented material to children under the age of 18. Now, sexually oriented material is defined to include, among other things, any materials that involve gender dysphoria or transgenderism, quote unquote.

Now, this bill would have far reaching consequences, including barring any discussion of transgender people or topics in the classroom, banning books with transgender characters or to discuss the existence of transgender people, and banning gay, queer, straight alliances. This prohibition on programs or activities that include quote unquote sexual oriented materials could also be used to target other LGBTQ plus materials as well.

Well, what I want to say is there is nothing taboo about being trans. This bill cannot erase the fact that trans people are a part of our communities. They are our family, our friends, our co-workers and neighbors. Acknowledging the existence of transgender people is not sexual.

Parents across the country want their children to learn in safe, affirming environments. This bill is meant to isolate and target trans kids and teachers. Bills like this one that censor the existence of trans people in… our society reinforce the negativity and hostility that many trans people, especially youth, already experience.

Just to give you an example, in 2021, … 68% of all LGBTQ plus students surveyed by Glisten reported feeling unsafe in their school environment due to the their perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression. In addition, more than three quarters of LGBTQ plus students who attended school in person during the surveyed period reported experiencing in-person verbal harassment based on their sexual orientation, gender expression, or gender at some point uh this past year.

In 2024, a peer-reviewed study found that state level anti-transgender laws increased incidents of suicide attempts amongst transgender and non-binary youth by as much as 72%. A 72% increase. 

Attempts to erase trans people and content from schools and ban queer straight alliances will only exacerbate the challenges trans students already face and further isolate them. Instead of addressing actual problems in our education systems, this what I call “don't say trans bills”… stigmatize trans youth, trans teachers, and the children of trans parents.

America is a country of freedom of speech and freedom of ideas. Yet, this bill seeks to censor curriculums and ban books in order to erase American history and erase the existence of transgender people. Censoring transgender related materials and topics also sets a dangerous precedent that politicians can censor a range of school content based on… that politician's political ideology…

States, school districts, and teachers know how to draft age appropriate standards and curriculum for students… 99.9% of the school districts are very much focused on age appropriate standards.___ There is no need for this overreach of a bill to create an issue or create a solution to a problem that does not exist. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Chairman Walberg

I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Kylie, for 5 minutes.

Rep. Kiley

Thank you, Mr. Chair. There is undoubtedly some truly horrifying examples of vile content being taught to children, very young children in some schools across the country. And we discussed some of this at a recent hearing of the K12 education subcommittee. And I know that the purpose of this bill is to protect our kids from that kind of content and to protect the rights of parents from having their kids exposed to it.

That being said, I do want to sound a few notes of caution about how this bill is currently written and the first relates to this idea of age appropriateness because that’s really at the core of these concerns is that kids are being taught content that is simply not age appropriate. But this bill isn't really guided by that principle of age appropriateness in so far as its restrictions are categorical across all of K through 12. And some of these issues cut a lot differently depending upon the age of the child.

You know, for example, we don't generally teach sexual education in kindergarten, but basic sex ed is taught in later grades. Or even if you take the language from the bill, which says that one form of this sexually explicit contact involves gender dysphoria or transgenderism. Certainly I would agree that under no circumstances is it appropriate to be bringing these issues into a kindergarten classroom, but if we're talking about seniors in high school reading a book that happens to have a minor character that identifies as transgender, whether that book should or should not be allowed strikes me as a much different issue that might better be debated at the level of the local school board.

And that brings me to the second point is that the language here cuts quite broadly and it's sort of hard to avoid that when you're talking about trying to create language that encompasses the entirety of what could appear in literature or art or or any other subject… the result of that is that you know you could have situations where you have forms of truly valuable or meritorious content that end up getting restricted or that create a kind of chilling effect. And this does in some sense come dangerously close to violating the principle of not dictating curriculum at the federal level.

And the bill seems to acknowledge this, which is my final point, which is that it does have this list of great books and so forth, that are essentially exempted from the bill. And so acknowledging that these are works of such great merit that even if they do have some inappropriate content or some content that otherwise runs afoul of the prescriptions of this bill, the merit is so great of these particular works that it outweighs that harm. But if this is the case, if we can have recognize that there's a balance to be struck here, why should that only be possible with a specific circumscribed lists of texts? And that essentially freezes what are considered the great works in time. Why shouldn't that be an issue or a matter that is debated at the local level with respect to individual works?...

So thank you. I very much do appreciate the intent of the author and I yield back.

(Some amendments to H.R. 7661 were proposed. Most of them were not accepted. Upon the last proposed amendment, Rep. Miller spoke once more)

Rep. Miller

…We define prohibited sexually oriented materials the same as existing criminal code.

At any rate, we're certainly open to ideas to sharpen and enhance the bill. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the left don't seem to think inappropriate content is a real problem in our schools. They've shown little interest in voting for the underlying bill.

Mostly, they've only criticized us for trying to protect our children. I wish they would be more concerned about these issues. The majority has made a good faith effort to protect children from sexualization.

That's what this bill does. Given the minority has shown little interest in actually protecting children and given that this amendment is unnecessary, I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment and for the bill and I yield back.

(A while later, Rep. Bonamici, from Oregon, responded to Rep. Miller)

Rep. Bonamici

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to speak in support of the amendment, but again, I don't think an amendment is going to save this bill, which is again going to be a catastrophe for schools to try to administer, risking constitutional violations and mass confusion.

But I also want to respond to my colleague who said that Democrats are not interested in protecting children, because nothing could be farther from the truth.

The number one cause of death for children is gun violence. We haven't had a single hearing in this committee about gun violence. The number two cause of death for children is accidents like motor vehicle accidents, childhood cancer.

There are a lot of things that are threatening children more than a book in a school. So, we should focus on what is truly important in protecting children.

Making sure they have access to quality early childhood education, for example, that's protecting children. Making sure they have access to health care, that's protecting children. Making sure that they have housing, that's protecting children. Addressing gun violence, concerns about ICE raids, that is protecting children.

I tell you I was just at a gala for childhood cancer over the weekend and I talked to parents who had lost their child to cancer. I talked to cancer researchers who do everything they can for childhood cancer. Not one of them complained to me about any sort of book that was in any kind of school and what risk that was to kids.

Let's focus on what really matters to protecting children and address those real issues.

And I yield back.