PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 6, 2015
Restoration of Parental Rights and State Sovereignty Act of 2015
Amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) to prohibit the Secretary of Education from forcing a state to satisfy any requirement imposed as a condition of receiving assistance under an ESEA grant program.
Prohibits the Secretary from releasing assistance to a state under an ESEA grant program unless the state's legislature has by law expressly approved the program. Allows that approval to be accomplished by a vote to affirm a state budget that includes the use of such federal funds, but requires that budget to expressly include any requirement imposed as a condition on the state's receipt of those funds.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Prohibits ESEA funds that are not allocated to a state due to the state's failure to affirmatively agree to their receipt from being reallocated among the other states.
Expresses the intent of Congress that control over public education and parental rights to control their children's education is vested exclusively within the authority reserved to the states and individual Americans by the Constitution, except when states expressly approve federal terms or conditions on educational assistance or the federal government is obliged to enforce minimum federal equal protection or due process standards.
People & committees
Rep. Culberson, John Abney [R-TX-7] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Mar 23, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.106 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.106 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.106 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.106 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.