[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11729-11738]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5, STUDENT SUCCESS ACT

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 303 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 303

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 5) to support State and local accountability 
     for public education, protect State and local authority, 
     inform parents of the performance of their children's 
     schools, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill, it shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 113-18. That amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are 
     waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may 
     be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before action 
     thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
     or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against 
     such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute made in order as original text. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 1 hour.

                              {time}  1245

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. House Resolution 303 provides for a structured rule 
providing for consideration of H.R. 5, the Student Success Act.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the House Education and the Workforce 
Committee and I have been working to reauthorize the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act. Our efforts in reauthorization have centered 
on four principles: reducing the Federal footprint in education, 
empowering parents, supporting effective teachers, and restoring local 
control.
  H.R. 5, the Student Success Act, ensures that local communities have 
the flexibility needed to meet the needs of their students. This 
legislation reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 
also known as ESEA, for 5 years, while making commonsense changes to 
update the law and address some of the concerns following the last 
reauthorization.
  Despite good intentions, there's widespread agreement that the 
current law is no longer effectively serving students.
  Instead of working with Congress to reauthorize ESEA, the Obama 
administration began offering States temporary waivers in 2011 to 
exempt them from onerous requirements in exchange for new Federal 
mandates from the Department of Education.
  These waivers are a short-term fix to a long-term problem, and leave 
States and districts with uncertainty about whether they will again be 
subject to

[[Page 11730]]

the failing law, and if the administration will change the requirements 
necessary to receive a waiver.
  It is time to give students, parents, teachers, and school districts 
certainty to make decisions and flexibility to make the best decisions 
for their communities. H.R. 5 is a step in the right direction and will 
provide this certainty and flexibility.
  Since Republicans returned to the majority in the House in 2011, 
we've held 20 hearings on the reauthorization of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act. The committee considered five reauthorization 
bills in four markups in the 112th Congress, in addition to a markup 
and favorable reporting of H.R. 5 this year.
  I'm pleased to work with my colleagues on the Rules Committee to 
report rules for floor debate and the consideration of legislation that 
promote transparency and participation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying 
bill, H.R. 5, the so-called Student Success Act. The Student Success 
Act is an ideological attempt to reduce the crucial Federal role in K-
12 education.
  To be clear, there's no excuse for bad policy that interferes with 
student learning and prevents opportunity from reaching all corners of 
this land. There's no excuse for bad classroom practices at the local 
level. There's no excuse for bad policies at the State level, and 
there's no excuse for bad policies at the Federal level.
  However, we should also make no excuses for good policies at the 
State level, make no excuses for good policies that help improve 
classroom practices at the Federal level.
  Unfortunately, under this restrictive rule, many of the commonsense 
amendments that would have helped improve this bill were shut out, 
including an amendment that I authored that would combat bullying and 
harassment against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students, to 
ensure that schools are a safe learning environment for all children.
  Under this rule, other amendments that were offered by both my 
Democratic and Republican colleagues were not included and not allowed 
to proceed to the House floor for a debate.
  My colleague, Ms. Foxx, said that ``local communities have the 
flexibility they need to meet the needs of their students.'' She stated 
that that was one of the goals of this bill.
  I think the second goal that we should have with Federal education 
policy is, yes, to give local communities the flexibility to meet the 
learning needs of their students, but so, too, to not give local 
communities the flexibility to continue to not meet the needs of their 
students.
  There are too many failing schools across our country--high schools 
that, year after year, have dropout rates in excess of 50 percent; 
elementary schools where kids are falling further behind every year.
  We need to do everything we can as a society--that means at the State 
level, that means at the Federal level, that means at the district 
level--to make sure that, yes, the district has the flexibility and the 
school has the flexibility to do what works, but not the flexibility to 
continue to do nothing, which would only consign another generation of 
American kids, particularly and disproportionately our most at-risk 
families, to failure.
  If the underlying bill becomes law, States wouldn't be required to 
set performance targets based on student growth, proficiency, or 
graduation rates. Effectively, it would allow States to define success 
down, simply to make themselves or their districts look good. The bill 
doesn't even define low-performing schools, nor does it establish 
parameters for intervention or timelines for improvement.
  I have not heard any Member of this body, on either side, argue for 
Federal micromanagement. That's a straw man. We want to make sure that 
reform-minded superintendents are armed with the tools they need to 
make the tough decisions.
  And there's no silver bullet in education. Sometimes it might be 
converting it into a charter school, sometimes it might be changing the 
staff, sometimes it might be closing a school, sometimes it might be an 
extended learning day.
  One of the most critical aspects of successful school reform, in 
fact, is the local buy-in. And that's why I, as well as my colleague, 
Ms. Foxx, would agree that the Federal Government dictating what they 
should do is counterproductive towards effective school reform. 
However, continuing to do nothing is a guaranteed continued recipe for 
failure.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to provide schools with more flexibility to 
design school improvement systems than the rigid measures under No 
Child Left Behind. I think we can agree on that. But we can't let them 
continue to do nothing and fail children.
  No child in our country should be trapped in a failing school with 
little or no recourse or real choice. We need to mend accountability, 
not end it.
  This bill constitutes the Federal Government throwing up its arms and 
simply letting the States define success downward, making themselves 
look good, patting themselves on the back saying, ``Job well done,'' 
when more and more children are falling through the cracks.
  We need a Federal role as an honest referee, a disruptive force to 
break up school district monopolies. We need to use our limited funds 
to give reform-minded school leaders leverage and resources and cover 
that they need to ensure that failing schools are subject to dramatic 
interventions that improve school quality.
  No child should ever be trapped in a failing school. And we, as 
adults, should not be finger-pointing, saying oh, that's the State, 
that's the district, that's the Federal Government, that's your 
principal's fault, that's your teacher's fault. That's not the answer. 
The answer is to make the school work for the kids and make sure that 
every family has access to a good school.
  While No Child Left Behind certainly has its flaws, including the 
problematic and wrongful definition of adequate yearly progress as a 
benchmark for success, it, nevertheless, did move us forward when it 
comes to serving low-income and minority students, students with 
disabilities and English language learners, and provided a new layer of 
transparency that prevented school districts from sweeping these 
problems under the rug.
  Unfortunately, here, with this bill, H.R. 5, it takes another step 
backward, effectively excluding students with disabilities from school 
accountability systems. Currently, there's a 1 percent cap, saying the 
students with severe disabilities up to 1 percent of students can take 
alternative assessments based on alternative achievements standards.
  This bill removes that cap, meaning that school district or that 
State, at their discretion, under this bill can simply say, you know 
what? We don't think any of our IDEA students, any of our Special Ed 
students can learn, so we're not going to include them in the 
accountability metric. They don't have to take the test. Or if they do, 
we're not going to count it. Or they can do an alternative test, and 
we'll look at that and sign off.
  And we will never know, Mr. Speaker, under this bill. It truly, in 
our publicly-funded public education system, is continuing to meet the 
learning needs of all kids, including those with disabilities or not, 
which is why, across the disability advocacy community, there is strong 
opposition for this bill.
  It's rare that a bill can unite such disparate forces as the Chamber 
of Commerce, organizations representing teachers, the civil rights 
community, advocates for the disabled, all in staunch opposition to a 
bill. Why?
  Because the bill represents a step backward for public education in 
this country. This bill doesn't invest in our Nation's teachers, the 
most important frontline workers that provide a quality education for 
kids across the country.

[[Page 11731]]

  While, to its credit, it eventually replaces highly-qualified 
teachers with a new teacher accountability system that's tied into 
student success, which is a key component of my STELLAR Act that I 
introduced with Representative Susan Davis, it fails to provide 
teachers with the professional development and support they need to 
succeed in the classroom.
  And during the 3-year transition period, it does away with all 
measures, indicators and requirements for teacher quality, including 
getting rid of the definition of highly-qualified teacher. So for 3 
years, our Federal taxpayer money that we are custodians of will go, in 
part, to pay the salaries of people with absolutely no quality input or 
outbased controls.
  While I applaud the eventual replacement of the definition of highly-
qualified teacher, and most people agree that we can do better 
measurement of teacher quality, the answer is simply not to throw up 
our arms and say we're not going to look at teacher quality.
  While H.R. 5 retreats on the significant and constructive Federal 
role, Ranking Member Miller's Democratic substitute advances a 
comprehensive vision of school accountability and improvement. The 
Democratic substitute would ensure that schools take into account 
student growth, proficiency rates, including disaggregation for groups, 
including students with disabilities, English language learners, 
minorities; design targeted interventions for low-performing schools; 
partner with school districts to use evidence-based criteria to improve 
school and classroom performance.
  It is an advanced vision of school improvement that has received 
broad unified support from the education reform community, the civil 
rights community, and the business community.
  The Federal Government must ensure that all students receive a high 
quality, world-class education. We are a country. Education is under 
the local control of school boards subject to the laws of the State. As 
a Nation, we cannot abrogate on our responsibility to have a human 
capital development strategy that allows us to compete with other 
nation-states in the 21st century.
  The Democratic substitute would ensure that schools set high 
expectations and use quality assessments for students with 
disabilities. We do not propose, in the Democratic substitute, nor does 
President Obama support any kind of national standard or national test.
  Certainly, some States have chosen to work together to develop core 
common standards. Other States have developed other high quality 
standards and assessments. The Federal role should be to not allow 
States to define the success downward and capitulate the entire 
generation and consign an entire generation of children to failure.
  I'm disappointed the Rules Committee didn't make in order my Student 
Non-Discrimination Act, which I introduced with Congresswoman Ros-
Lehtinen and 155 of our colleagues. When you have a bill that has so 
many cosponsors, I would hope that the Rules Committee would at least 
allow a debate and floor vote on this bill.
  My Student Non-Discrimination Act would establish a comprehensive 
Federal prohibition on discrimination in public schools based on actual 
or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.
  Every day, across our country, tragically, kids who are perceived to 
be gay or lesbian are subjected to pervasive discrimination, harmful to 
both students and our education system. Surveys indicate that as many 
as 9 in 10 LGBT students have been bullied.
  Just this last week we lost another life to bullying. On Sunday, a 
young man named Carlos in New Mexico took his own life after being 
bullied and called derogatory LGBT names since the age of 8. It's hard 
to imagine the torment that Carlos went through every single day. And 
unfortunately, too many LGBT students and their families often have 
limited recourses to fight this kind of discrimination that makes 
schools an unsafe and unwelcome learning environment for them.
  My amendment would simply provide protections for LGBT students to 
ensure that all students have access to public education in a safe 
environment, free from discrimination, free from harassment, free from 
bullying, intimidation and violence.
  I would have hoped that every Member of this body would agree that 
there's a bipartisan consensus that, regardless of what people think of 
divisive social issues like gay marriage or other LGBT issues, school 
should be a safe place for all students to learn.

                              {time}  1300

  I am pleased that the underlying bill includes constructive language 
with regard to the expansion and replication of successful charter 
schools. I'm also pleased that the committee made in order two 
amendments I offered to improve this flawed bill. The first amendment 
further improves the Charter Schools Program. I enjoyed working with 
Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller on improving and modernizing 
the Charter Schools Program. Both the underlying bill and the 
Democratic substitute contain strong language around helping quality 
charter schools grow and expand to meet the demands of the more than 1 
million kids who remain on charter school waiting lists across our 
country unable to attend the school of their choice.
  A recent Stanford CREDO study found that charter schools that are 
successful in producing strong academic progress from the beginning 
tend to remain strong and successful schools as they grow and expand.
  My amendment, which I'm offering with Mr. Petri, would allow charter 
schools to receive Federal funding through the Charter Schools Program 
to use their grant dollars for vital startup costs like professional 
development, teacher training, and instructional materials. As a 
charter school founder, I know that this additional flexibility 
provided under our proposed amendment would really help get quality 
charter schools off the ground.
  The amendment also allows per-pupil revenue to be more portable 
across school districts to provide States with the ability to move 
towards more innovative multidistrict models, including online 
education or competency-based education, if they so desire.
  Finally, my amendment would ensure that charter schools are doing 
substantial outreach to low-income and other underserved populations. 
We know that many high-performing charter schools are already leading 
in this regard in helping our most at-risk families achieve success. We 
want to ensure that they continue to lead the way in providing access 
and choice for more families.
  I'm also pleased my amendment I offered with Representative Brooks 
regarding computer science is made in order. My amendment with 
Representative Brooks would clarify that Federal funds can be used for 
computer science education. It's particularly important because it 
relates to funding for teacher preparation and professional development 
based on the bipartisan Computer Science Education Act, which 
Representative Brooks and I introduced earlier this year.
  In today's knowledge-based economy, it's more important than ever to 
ensure our education system aligns with the demands of the 21st-century 
workforce. We need high-quality teachers to have access to training in 
all relevant fields, including computer science education.
  I also worked with Mr. Petri on another amendment regarding charter 
schools, which I withdrew. But I want to talk about some additional 
changes that are included in our All-STAR Act that I look forward to 
continue working with Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller to make 
crucial changes on the Charter School Programs that were included in my 
amendment with Mr. Petri.
  The amendment I offered with Mr. Petri would offer improvements to 
help grow and replicate high-quality charter schools that are 
demonstrating outstanding results across the country. There's currently 
6,000 charter schools serving more than 2.3 million students. Yet there 
are over a million students on charter school waiting lists. My 
amendment would have increased the

[[Page 11732]]

overall authorization for this high-impact, low-cost program to $330 
million so that with our limited Federal resources we have the maximum 
impact on increasing choice and learning opportunities for families.
  My amendment would also have allowed for the continuation of the 
Charter Schools Program grants from the Replication and Expansion of 
High-Quality Schools Program, a very successful program that helps more 
families access the highest-performing charter schools.
  In this time of austerity and constrained public resources, we need 
to maximize the impact of every dollar spent by making sure we only 
invest in what works, fostering innovative new approaches both for 
results as well as for cost savings to achieve even greater gains in 
student achievement. That means investing in those public charter 
schools that are getting great results as well as allowing charter 
school operators with a strong evidence base of student achievement, 
particularly with our most at-risk kids and families, along with robust 
management capacity, to replicate and expand so they can serve more 
students.
  I look forward to continuing the work with Chairman Kline and Ranking 
Member Miller to include some of those priorities in the ESEA 
reauthorization and further legislation.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague from the Education Committee and the great State of Wisconsin 
(Mr. Petri).
  Mr. PETRI. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my support for the rule and the 
underlying bill, H.R. 5.
  I am in frequent contact with educators in my district in Wisconsin. 
One of the concerns I hear the most is that Federal money comes to 
local schools and districts in a variety of funding streams, each with 
its own restrictions and reporting requirements. I am constantly asked 
if there's a way that we can consolidate some of these funding pots so 
that schools can better apply the funds to those areas where they will 
have the most effect. These feelings are strongest in smaller or more 
rural schools, where funding tends to be the most limited. H.R. 5 would 
give them that much-needed local flexibility.
  Wisconsin schools are doing a lot of innovative things to prepare 
their students for success in the 21st-century economy. They know that 
the nature of work is changing: jobs in manufacturing, where Wisconsin 
is a leader, require critical thinking, the ability to be innovative 
and to work with people of varying skill levels, and the ability to 
communicate effectively. These skills were favorably noted in a 2012 
National Research Council report and in a recent Gallup Poll that found 
that those who have those skills are twice as likely to have higher 
work quality than those who don't.
  Wisconsin is a member of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, a 
coalition of States, education groups, and employers that's working to 
ensure that students have these critical skills. I hear from educators 
that these innovative programs help to bring to life the subjects that 
students are studying in school, oftentimes renewing their focus on 
core academics. Again, I also hear that schools and districts are 
hamstrung by their inability to put Federal funds to use in these 
innovative ways. So I'm pleased that the Student Success Act, through 
its Local Academic Flexible Grant and in other ways, gives educators 
the flexibility to pursue these innovative initiatives at the local 
level.
  I would also like to mention the subject of geography, which is a 
core academic subject under No Child Left Behind, but has never 
received the same level of support as other core academic subjects. The 
National Geographic Society has invested millions of its own dollars to 
help invest in the future of geographic education--a critical 
investment, given the importance of geography to our national and 
international well-being. It's critical that geography be on a level 
playing field with other core academic subjects. This bill accomplishes 
that goal by letting geography compete equally for funds to enhance the 
professional development of teachers in this critical subject.
  I, again, want to emphasize my support for the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Castor), a former member of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his 
unceasing efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule and H.R. 
5 because the Republican bill fails America's students.
  Mr. Speaker, America's public schools are the envy of the world. 
We're fortunate to live in a country that believes that every child 
should be educated and given the opportunity to succeed in life. Our 
public schools are one of the best examples of American values. No 
matter where a child comes from, no matter what challenges a student 
faces in life--a disability, autism, poverty--that student can receive 
a good education.
  Our local public schools are largely community-based and locally run; 
but the Federal Government provides important support, especially for 
working-class communities and for students with disabilities and 
learning challenges. We have important work to do to continue to 
improve public schools and recruit good teachers; but under this bill, 
Republicans want to go in the other direction.
  The Republican bill before the House today proposes a harsh 
prescription for students and families who seek better schools and 
talented teachers. H.R. 5 guts education funding for students and 
teachers by over $1 billion below last year's levels at a time when we 
want high-quality curricula, and States and local school districts have 
been challenged financially.
  Back home in my Tampa Bay area district in Florida, I have over 200 
title 1 schools, like Foster Elementary in Hillsborough County and 
Woodlawn Elementary in Pinellas County. These are students from 
working-class families. Over 90 percent of these students qualify for 
free and reduced lunch. It is the longtime compact between the Federal 
Government and our local schools that ensures support to these students 
that do not come from wealthy families. The students who attend these 
schools range from ones with special needs that require title 1 help to 
work with exceptional education teachers; English Language Learners 
that need a little extra help from translators; and students with 
severe emotional behavior disorders.
  The Republican bill retreats from these students and the 
responsibility to education.
  No Child Left Behind has been riddled with problems from the start. 
Its one-size-fits-all policy hasn't worked, but this Republican bill is 
not the answer. It's a step backward. And I urge my colleagues to 
oppose the rule and the underlying bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished 
colleague from Tennessee, Congresswoman Blackburn.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady from 
North Carolina for her excellent work on this measure and all of the 
work she has done in committee. Dr. Foxx is such a skilled educator. 
We're pleased to have her in our conference. I know that Chairman 
Kline, who has really put a lot of effort into this bill, is so pleased 
to have her.
  I do rise to support H.R. 5. This commonsense bill helps parents, 
teachers, and students. It will help prepare our children to compete in 
the global workforce. It helps to right the wrongs of our broken 
education system by bringing back flexibility to the system and 
encouraging more effective teaching and learning in our schools.
  I have to tell you that as a mother and a grandmother, as a classroom 
volunteer and a homeroom mother for many years, I know how important it 
is for our children. And the reason that we are bringing this bill 
forward is because of concern and in preparing every child to compete.

[[Page 11733]]

  I'm troubled by a recent report that says the U.S. ranked 18th out of 
23 industrialized countries in the quality and quantity of high school 
diplomas. These are all items that need our attention. The feedback we 
have gotten through the years from No Child Left Behind's one-size-
fits-all mandate does not work. People do not want these decisions 
being made in Washington. The Student Success Act would fix this by 
repealing the Federal accountability system and restoring much-needed 
local control. It would also stop the administration's act of coercing 
States through Race to the Top funds and into adopting specific 
national academic standards, otherwise known as Common Core. It would 
put an end to that.
  H.R. 5 would reverse the Federal footprint in our education system by 
repealing the K-12 waiver schemes and the pet programs that have been 
put in place. This is the right step that we should take for our 
students for their success and educational opportunities.
  Mr. POLIS. The gentlelady said the U.S. ranks 18th on the quality and 
quantity of high school diplomas. This bill is a recipe to do even 
worse--worse on the quality by allowing States to define success and 
their standards down and worse in the quantity by removing graduation 
requirements as one of the issues that the Federal Government looks at 
with regard to the success of State formulas.
  I am honored to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Chu).
  Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and to 
H.R. 5. This bill radically reduces the role of the Federal Government 
in education at a time when we need to revitalize our education system. 
It slashes over $1 billion in funding to teach our kids. It eliminates 
accountability in our education system that ensures students graduate 
from high school and those with special needs don't get left behind.
  I am particularly concerned about the impact this bill will have on 
community services that benefit the students struggling the most. 
Studies show that when we don't address students' social and economic 
disadvantages at schools, we undo the work that's achieved by having 
good skills and teachers with adequate resources. An astounding two-
thirds of the achievement gap is due to factors outside of school. 
Children are more likely to succeed in schools when their comprehensive 
needs--nutrition, health, and a safe and stable home--are met.

                              {time}  1315

  These support systems--sometimes called ``wraparound services''--are 
particularly important for low-performing and low-income schools that 
greatly benefit from these services.
  But instead of supporting programs that are scientifically proven to 
help close the achievement gap, H.R. 5 takes away the designated 
funding for them and lets States do with the money as they please. It 
completely cuts funding for after-school programs. It eliminates social 
and emotional programs that help keep our students safe, healthy, and 
ready to learn. And with the money that's left? There's no guarantee 
that it will be used to provide these services to students who need 
them the most.
  We shouldn't leave to chance whether a school will care about 
students beyond their test scores. But this bill sets a dangerous 
precedent by exempting the Federal Government from responsibility to 
ensure schools adequately support students and families that face 
challenges outside of school.
  Instead of improving No Child Left Behind, this bill takes us even 
further backwards. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and 
the underlying bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield 4 minutes to my 
distinguished colleague from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
rule as well as the underlying bill, H.R. 5, the Student Success Act.
  I want to thank also, as others have, the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina for her continued leadership on an important issue. And I also 
would like to commend the gentleman from Colorado on his interest in 
this legislation as well. Although we differ in opinions on what this 
legislation would do, I believe it is a conversation that we need to 
have.
  You see, I have had the privilege to be married to a public school 
teacher for 25 years. I also have three children who are the product of 
a public school education, one of whom is a special needs child who has 
spina bifida, who graduated just a few years ago. I was happily there 
to present her with her diploma when she rolled across that stage.
  We can talk about a lot of things today; but when it gets down to it, 
it's about the kids in our country and how they're educated and what 
role this body is to play in that. I think that's an honest 
conversation.
  As I speak today as a parent, education policy is near and dear to my 
heart because I believe our democracy was founded on the principle that 
every child should have the opportunity to learn. And I believe that 
the goal of our educational system should be to instill in our children 
a love for learning that they will carry with them throughout their 
entire life.
  There is nothing I love better than to walk into a room and see my 
child reading a book--a 14-year-old, a 17-year-old reading a book--or 
learning. That is what we cry for, as parents.
  Whenever I'm home in Georgia, I encounter numerous folks who tell me 
their concerns about the endless expansion of our Federal Government--
not just its size, but its scope and power. Like the parents and 
teachers I've heard from lately--and also live with--I'm very concerned 
about the top-down approach that this administration in Washington 
seems to be taking on education. Probably the best known example is the 
Common Core Standards, which has been mentioned already, which 
Washington wants to use as a national litmus test for States seeking 
funding. Again, it's a carrot-and-stick approach. When we look at this, 
is that what we want us to be in the business of doing?
  As you will hear further from my colleagues, there is plenty of 
concern about the content of this so-called Common Core; and I could 
speak a lot about that, but I choose to focus on one thing and that is, 
I can't wrap myself around the fact that there are so many who wish to 
see Washington's role in education expanded and beyond the level it 
should be, when that role should not exist on the level that it does.
  In fact, my friend from Colorado, he made this statement and he said 
that the Federal Government needs to be an honest referee. I appreciate 
that. However, I disagree in the fact that using an honest referee to 
use a carrot-and-stick approach with money and standards is not the way 
it should work.
  I'm old school. As I've said before, I believe the referee on a 
football field should be not seen, and this goes very much against 
that. The referee should be there, but not be the center of attention, 
which Washington has become in education.
  Make no mistake, I believe our education system should be a global 
leader; and in order for our students to be competitive on the world 
stage, our schools must have high standards.
  We have seen firsthand in this country what occurs when our students 
fall behind in STEM education. That cannot continue to happen. We must 
raise the bar and demand excellence in our schools. However, education 
standards should be developed at the State and local level by those 
intimately familiar with the needs of the children and our educational 
policy, not from inside the beltway.
  The beauty of public education is that every child, regardless of 
race, gender, religion and geography, has the opportunity to learn. Our 
Nation is great because our people are great. And if we as a Nation 
fail our most basic responsibility--providing education for our 
children--then our people and our Nation will no longer be a shining 
light in a dark world.
  I am proud to be a member of a party that believes that the best 
educational opportunities exist when the Federal Government gets out of 
the classroom, when the teachers are allowed to teach

[[Page 11734]]

children how to learn, not how to bubble an exam.
  I am tired of having to watch my wife for 20-something years worry 
more about filling out a form than actually having to be able to do her 
lesson plan the next day because she is inundated with the 
requirements. I'm proud that we can teach and that we can learn and 
that we can promote that, not on a Federal level, but on a State and 
local level.
  Current Federal law clearly prohibits Federal approval or 
certification of academic standards to ensure State and local control 
over the classroom. Apparently, and unfortunately, this law just 
doesn't seem to matter up here. They decided that they know better than 
parents and teachers. As a parent, and as the husband of a school 
teacher, that thinking doesn't fly with me.
  Our education system has its roots in the State and local government 
for a good reason. No one has a stronger interest in the child's 
success than his or her parents. No one knows what really works in the 
classroom like our teachers. The community surrounding a child 
naturally understands that student's needs and has a deep desire to do 
what it takes to ensure his or her success. I support the Student 
Success Act because it places education decisionmaking where it 
belongs--in the hands of parents and teachers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I thank the gentlelady.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a lot this country can do to improve education 
in our Nation and to empower our kids to take on the challenges of the 
21st century. But those changes must be considered and debated and 
adopted by the parents whose children will live with the consequences 
of those choices.
  Decisions of this magnitude rightfully belong not in Washington, but 
on Main Street, and the Student Success Act rightly restores the proper 
means of education policymaking in this country.
  I strongly support H.R. 5 and support this rule.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, think of the excitement next month as so 
many young Americans return to school; and what this legislation does, 
it would greet them with a big cut in funds to our most disadvantaged 
schools.
  I can tell you that in Texas, Governor Perry and his cohorts will 
redirect these funds from disadvantaged students faster than you can 
say ``oops.'' And you will find other Governors across America with a 
similar tepid support for public education--the same kind of people who 
have come to this floor and called them ``government schools'' instead 
of public schools--you'll find them seeing cuts to disadvantaged 
students as the easiest way to plug a State budget gap.
  While No Child Left Behind is flawed, removing support for 
economically disadvantaged students is not the way to fix it. At 
Wheatley Middle School in San Antonio, in one of our poorest 
neighborhoods, title 1 funding has helped Principal Mary Olison and her 
team make real progress--a 30 percent improvement in math, reading and 
science scores; now the district's second best record in attendance; 
and disciplinary actions have been reduced 75 percent.
  Those educators are out there struggling. Now is not the time to 
remove the support they need to do their very difficult jobs. Cutting 
this support would turn back the clock on the progress there and across 
America.
  Title 1 funding has already been cut for the next school year. This 
really is a ``leave more students behind act'' that will lock in those 
cuts and allow State diversion of much-needed funds.
  And really, this bill turns a blind eye to the achievement gap, to 
the racial disparities in our classrooms, and it particularly ignores 
the needs of students who want to learn English by cutting the English 
Language Learners program, which helps many of our Latino neighbors in 
Texas.
  With the damage that has already been inflicted in my home State to 
public schools, now is not the time to reduce Federal aid to our 
schools that are the most disadvantaged.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill needs to be sent to detention. It needs to be 
given an F. It needs to be rejected. It is not the way to strengthen 
education.
  I believe in our public schools as a way to bind our communities 
together. We need to be investing more, not doing less.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Over the last four decades, the Federal Government's role in 
elementary and secondary education has increased dramatically. The 
Department of Education currently runs more than 80 K-12 education 
programs, many of which are duplicative or ineffective.
  As a school board member, I saw how the vast reporting requirements 
for these Federal programs tie the hands of State and local leaders who 
want to make the best education available for their students.
  Since 1965, Federal education funding has tripled; yet student 
achievement remains flat. More money is clearly not going to solve the 
challenges we face in education.
  Our children deserve better. It's time to acknowledge more taxpayer 
dollars and more Federal intrusion cannot address the challenges facing 
schools. H.R. 5, the Student Success Act, will streamline the Nation's 
education system by eliminating more than 70 duplicative and 
ineffective Federal education programs; cutting through the 
bureaucratic red tape that is stifling innovation in the classroom; and 
granting States and school districts the authority to use Federal 
education funds to meet the unique needs of their students.
  The bill also requires the Secretary of Education to identify the 
bureaucrats in Washington who run the programs to be consolidated or 
eliminated in H.R. 5 and eliminate those positions to ensure that the 
bureaucracy shrinks with the programs.
  Additionally, this legislation will take definitive steps to limit 
the Secretary's authority by prohibiting him or her from coercing 
States into adopting academic standards like the Common Core. It also 
halts the executive overreach in the waiver process by prohibiting the 
Secretary from imposing extraneous conditions on States and local 
districts in exchange for a waiver.
  The Student Success Act protects State and local autonomy over 
decisions in the classroom by removing the Secretary's authority to add 
new requirements to Federal programs.
  Mr. Speaker, Federal policy should not tie the hands of local 
educators to make the best decisions for their students and 
communities. H.R. 5 is a step in that direction.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the ranking member of the Education and Workforce 
Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, if a school said that African American 
children could not take advanced math, it would be wrong and illegal. I 
think most of us agree if a school said that Jewish children couldn't 
enroll in a certain program, that would be wrong--and it is illegal.
  In most States in this country, though, if a school says that a child 
who is gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgender, or perceived to be, 
there is no legal protection for that child. Now, this is not simply a 
theoretical problem. LGBT children have been bullied and harassed and 
mistreated across this country. The stories are heartbreaking, and they 
often end in family tragedy, like suicide.
  There is a serious proposal that would remedy this injustice that was 
sponsored by 156 Members of the House of Representatives and there was 
an attempt to make that in order for debate and a vote. It should have 
been, and it was not.
  This is a serious issue. Frankly, unless the majority leadership 
agrees

[[Page 11735]]

there would be a separate and independent chance to move that bill, 
this was the chance to move that bill.
  No child should be left behind. Certainly, a child should not be left 
behind because of their race, their religion, their ethnicity. That 
should extend to their sexual orientation as well, and we should have 
had a chance to vote on that.
  For that reason and many others, I oppose this rule.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, Republicans do agree that schools should be 
safe places for all students to learn. However, as my friends and 
colleagues know, the amendment to which they have been referring had 
several parliamentary problems when it was introduced.
  To begin with, it was not germane to the underlying bill.

                              {time}  1330

  Additionally, it violated CutGo provisions in House rules. My 
understanding is that although the CutGo issues were ultimately 
resolved, the amendment was not redrafted to fix the germaneness 
problem.
  For these reasons, the amendment was not made in order.
  Mr. POLIS. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Ms. FOXX. No, not until I finish.
  However, I appreciate the gentleman's strong feelings on the issue 
and respect his desire to protect students.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud of this bill, and I'm proud of the open and 
transparent process by which it has been brought up for consideration.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, what I was going to discuss with the 
gentlelady is that the CutGo issue was resolved, as she mentioned, and 
waivers that are routinely granted on a broad variety of amendments 
simply could have been approved by the Rules Committee, as is 
customary, and advanced this amendment to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for 
yielding and for his tremendous support.
  First of all, I agree that we must take a critical look at No Child 
Left Behind and address its numerous shortcomings, but the Republican 
proposal is not the answer.
  This bill guts education. It violates the civil rights of students, 
and it does not support educators. It leaves students with 
disabilities, low-income students, students of color, English-language 
learners, migrant students, and LGBT students out in the cold.
  The so-called Student Success Act, which really is the Letting 
Students Down Act--that's what it really is--guts education. It guts it 
by $1 billion below the fiscal 2012 level, locking in, really, these 
already detrimental sequester cuts. It would fail to support meaningful 
improvements and reforms at the Nation's lowest performing schools. 
This bill does not support students, it does not protect students, and 
in no way does it guarantee access to equal quality public education.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me just say, the rule fails to make in 
order the student nondiscrimination amendment, which would protect 
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students across the country 
from harassment and bullying. Every child deserves these protections.
  So we should go back to the drawing board on this bill. We should 
call it for what it is, and that's ``letting students down.'' That's 
what this bill does. And we should really look at how we invest in our 
future through education rather than making it more difficult to 
improve student achievement.
  Once again, this bill begins to erode our system of public education; 
it violates our students' civil rights; it does not support our 
teachers and our educators; and finally, let me just say, it fails to 
prioritize STEM education that would eliminate the Mathematics and 
Science Partnership program, which really is the only program at the 
Department of Education focused solely on teacher professional 
development in STEM subjects.
  I hope that we vote against this rule and also the underlying bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Our colleagues have said that H.R. 5 guts education funding. That is 
not accurate. H.R. 5 authorizes funding for all programs under the act 
as the final appropriated amount for ESEA programs in FY 2013. Those 
amounts are level-funded for the 6-year life of the bill.
  While authorizing spending for the act at the final FY 2013 level, 
H.R. 5 prioritizes Federal spending by protecting core programs. Title 
I aid for the disadvantaged, as well as targeted population programs: 
migrant education, neglected and delinquent, English-language 
acquisition, Indian education, and rural education are authorized at FY 
2012 levels.
  Additionally, because the bill consolidates many existing programs, 
funds currently spent on those lower priority programs have been used 
to increase the authorization for these core programs. As a result, our 
bill would authorize more spending--I'll emphasize--more spending for 
these core programs in FY 2014 than the President's own FY 2014 budget 
proposal.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to the rule and to the underlying bill. This 
education bill fails students in so many ways it is difficult to know 
where to begin.
  In addition to putting forth a proposal that will cause so much harm, 
the majority denied many opportunities for amendments and improvements 
to the legislation that we are considering today.
  Among those amendments that were denied consideration was one offered 
by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) to prohibit discrimination 
in public schools based on actual or perceived sexual orientation or 
gender identity.
  The Student Nondiscrimination Act is an important piece of 
legislation that will protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender 
students across our country from harassment and bullying and would hold 
schools accountable for failing to protect our Nation's children.
  The Federal Government has a responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to do all 
that we can do to ensure the safest and best possible environment in 
which students can learn. When students are bullied or harassed because 
of who they are, they are denied the opportunity to achieve their full 
potential.
  Refusing to include provisions of the Student Nondiscrimination Act 
means we are failing our duty to protect all of our Nation's children 
and to guarantee them a safe and nurturing environment in which to 
learn.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5 continues the charter school, magnet 
school, and tutoring programs to provide parents with more choices in 
educating their children.
  Along with parental involvement, encouraging and supporting effective 
teachers in the classroom is critical to student success in quality 
education. Most Americans can regale you with stories of their favorite 
teachers who made a lasting impact on their lives. H.R. 5 also supports 
the development and implementation of teacher evaluation systems that 
are designed by States and school districts with input from parents, 
teachers, school leaders, and other stakeholders.
  In addition to evaluation systems, the Student Success Act reduces 
confusion and duplication by consolidating teacher quality programs 
into a single, flexible grant program to be used by States in school 
districts to support creative approaches to recruit and retain 
effective educators.
  The recurring theme throughout this legislation is empowering the 
people closest to students to make decisions for their communities and 
ensuring that the law is flexible to meet the needs of diverse States, 
regions, and student populations.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

[[Page 11736]]


  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
  H.R. 5 takes a U-turn for educational policy.
  It is interesting, our friends on the Republican side of the aisle in 
a farm bill a couple of weeks ago managed to unite environmentalists, 
farm groups, and taxpayer advocates in unanimous opposition to their 
proposal, and now they have done it again. They brought together 
business, education, civil rights groups, and a broad cross-section of 
organizations that don't agree with each other very often to oppose 
this bill. In part, it is what happens when you simply refuse to work 
in a bipartisan and cooperative fashion, as the committee used to do.
  I have a very vivid example of the impact of this shortsighted 
approach. I represent Grant High School in Portland, Oregon. They won 
the national competition for the U.S. Constitution contest. That 
project of ``We the People'' has been zeroed out by Congress, and 
programs like this are not going to come back if we approve the 
approach of this bill.
  It not only continues to undercut programs for education, the overall 
spending for education is, in fact, dramatically reduced. It keeps the 
sequestration cuts. We are going to lose over $10 million this year in 
Oregon, for instance. And worse, it locks in the post-sequestration 
funding level through 2019.
  In addition, it takes away protections for key priority programs, 
dismantling provisions that would ensure equity. This legislation 
undermines the Federal partnership with the State and local communities 
to support education. That is why it is opposed by such a wide array of 
groups and why this House should reject it as well.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is really puzzling why our colleagues continue to misrepresent 
what H.R. 5 does when the public can read the bill and know the truth. 
For example, our colleagues have said that H.R. 5 eliminates 
protections for students with disabilities, low-income students, and 
students from major racial and ethnic groups. This charge is simply 
false.
  The Student Success Act maintains annual testing requirements in 
reading, math, and science. It also maintains the law's requirement 
that schools in districts disaggregate and report subgroup data on 
student performance. This ensures student achievement results for 
special needs students and other traditionally disadvantaged 
populations are transparent and parents and communities have the 
information they need to evaluate their schools properly.
  Critics of this approach believe in the now widely discredited 
premise captured in No Child Left Behind that the Federal Government 
can and should devise an accountability system appropriate for all of 
the nearly 100,000 public schools in the country. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, 
that is one of the most widespread criticisms of what we have known as 
No Child Left Behind, which was really a reauthorization of this bill 
several years ago. It is puzzling to me that they continue to criticize 
what is bad about what exists and yet say they want to do it again. It 
doesn't make any sense.
  H.R. 5 is based on a different premise that true education reform 
comes not from the top down, but from the bottom up.
  Acknowledging that Washington can't fix schools does not mean we are 
backing away from our strongly held belief that schools should have 
standards to which they are accountable and that those standards should 
be equally applied across all school groups. It means we must empower 
and trust States and communities, those closest to the classroom, to 
develop an accountability and school improvement system that best meets 
the educational needs of their students.
  All of the wisdom of the world is not in Washington, D.C., Mr. 
Speaker. It is out there in the country. It is out there with the local 
people, with the American people who are very bright and know how to do 
things for themselves.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentlelady if 
she has any remaining speakers.
  Ms. FOXX. We do not, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. POLIS. I would like to inquire of the Speaker how much time 
remains on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of the time.
  First, in response to the gentlelady's, Ms. Foxx's, allegation that 
Members on our side of the aisle have misrepresented the bill, that is 
completely false.
  The bill does, in fact, remove the 1 percent cap for students with 
disabilities. A school district or a State can say, We are not even 
looking whether students with disabilities are making progress at all. 
Perhaps we are excluding every child with an IEP; we are excluding 
every child that receives IDEA funding, Federal funding, for taxpayer 
money that we are custodians for.
  In addition, it allows States to define success downward. Rather than 
having meaningful college and career-ready standards, a State can 
simply say, We write our standards such that we are going to make all 
of our students brilliant because they are all going to pass it, then 
we are going to pat ourselves on the back and say, ``Job well done.'' 
Those kids might not be ready for college and they might not be ready 
for careers. We, as a nation-state, cannot afford not to do better with 
regard to serving our public kids.
  This bill slashes education funding. I don't know how you call moving 
$3.6 billion worth of programs into a $2 billion block grant anything 
less than slashing education funding.
  What is being eliminated? School improvement grants, turning around 
some of our lowest performing schools and giving them the opportunity 
to succeed. Race to the Top, which has encouraged reforms at the State 
level, including my home State of Colorado, which replaced teacher 
tenure with an evaluation system, with bipartisan support.

                              {time}  1345

  Investments in innovation: replacing these important, tangible 
programs that are some of the highest-leveraged dollars that the 
Federal Government spends, which is amorphously block-granting money to 
States, sending more money into the ``system'' without any reforms or 
any accountability required.
  As elected officials who are concerned about our Nation's welfare and 
as providers of 10 percent of education funding, we in the Federal 
Government have an obligation to provide transparency and 
accountability and, yes, to be a referee in the K-12 education system. 
We have an obligation to ensure that schools cannot fail kids year 
after year. We cannot retreat from the goals of No Child Left Behind, 
and while it was flawed, it has shined light on achievement gaps for 
minority and low-income students, and has unleashed State- and local-
based reforms that we are just beginning and continue to benefit from. 
We need to use what we have learned from our experiences under No Child 
Left Behind to build on what reform-minded States and districts are 
doing. We need to encourage flexibility, improve and streamline the 
Federal role, invest in what works, and change what doesn't work.
  I look forward to working together across the aisle to provide more 
transparency, accountability and to ensure funding equity in our 
Nation's schools. H.R. 5 would bring us back to a time in which adults 
had every incentive to hide poor student performance and students were 
left to attend failing schools for generations--without choice and 
without recourse.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat this 
partisan bill. I urge a ``no'' vote on this restrictive rule and the 
bill. I encourage my colleagues to move forward in improving our public 
education system.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Many of my Republican colleagues and I feel that the Federal 
Government

[[Page 11737]]

should be out of education altogether, but that is not what we are 
recommending here. Rather, H.R. 5 is a reasonable first step in 
empowering the people closest to the students to make decisions for 
those students.
  That being said, as long as taxpayer money is being used by the 
Federal Government to fund education, Congress must ensure that funding 
recipients are being held accountable for how they use that hardworking 
taxpayer money. Washington must live within its means just as families 
all across this country do, and limited resources require wise 
stewardship. Again, those closest to the students--parents, teachers, 
principals, local school boards, school district leaders, and States--
know what works best for their diverse student populations.
  The Student Success Act recognizes this by allowing States to develop 
their own accountability systems that incorporate three broad 
parameters: an annual measure of the academic achievement of all public 
school students against State academic standards; an annual evaluation 
and identification of the academic performance of each public school in 
the State based on student academic achievement; a school improvement 
plan to be implemented by school districts when schools don't meet the 
State standards. These broad accountability measures not only serve to 
steward taxpayer money carefully but ensure parents have the 
information needed to make the best decisions about their schools' 
education.
  Let's give control back to the people who know the needs of their 
students and communities best, and let's pass this rule and underlying 
bill. We tried it the other way, and it hasn't worked. Control from 
Washington has not brought us improvement in our educational programs.
  Mr. Speaker, my background as an educator, school board member, 
mother, and grandmother reinforces my belief that students are best 
served when people at the local level are in control of education 
decisions. I also believe that education is the most important tool 
Americans at any age can have. I was the first person in my family to 
graduate from high school and go to college, where I worked full time 
and attended school part time. It took me 7 years to earn my bachelor's 
degree, and I continued to work my way through my master's and doctoral 
degrees.
  From my own experience, I am convinced this is the greatest country 
in the world for many reasons, not the least of which is that a person 
like me, who grew up extremely poor in a house with no electricity and 
no running water, and with parents with very little formal education 
and no prestige at all, could work hard and be elected to the United 
States House of Representatives.
  No legislation is perfect, and that is why I look forward to working 
with my colleagues to address their concerns and improve the Student 
Success Act through the amendment process. However, I have never been 
one to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and while H.R. 5 isn't 
perfect, it's a step in the right direction of reducing the Federal 
role in education, empowering parents, teachers and local school 
districts, and increasing local control. That's why I am a proud 
cosponsor of this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote in 
favor of this rule and the underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 303, if 
ordered, and on approval of the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232, 
nays 192, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 364]

                               YEAS--232

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--192

     Andrews
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen

[[Page 11738]]


     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Conyers
     Diaz-Balart
     Herrera Beutler
     Holt
     Horsford
     McCarthy (NY)
     Negrete McLeod
     Pallone
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1416

  Messrs. RANGEL, GARCIA, and Ms. GABBARD changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. TURNER and Ms. SINEMA changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question is 
on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230, 
nays 190, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 365]

                               AYES--230

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gabbard
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--190

     Andrews
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Braley (IA)
     Conyers
     Diaz-Balart
     Herrera Beutler
     Holt
     Horsford
     Hudson
     Lynch
     McCarthy (NY)
     Negrete McLeod
     Pallone
     Stewart
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1424

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 365, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 365, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________