[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2555-2565]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          STUDENT SUCCESS ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 5.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 121 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 5.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from New York (Mr. Collins) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1558


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the 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, with 
Mr. Collins of New York in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) and the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5, the Student Success Act. 
This week, we have an opportunity to advance bold reforms that will 
strengthen K-12 education for children across America.
  A great education can be the great equalizer. It can open doors to 
unlimited possibilities and provide students the tools they need to 
succeed in life. Every child in every school deserves an excellent 
education, yet, Mr. Chairman, we are failing to provide every child 
that opportunity.
  Today, approximately one out of five students drops out of high 
school, and many who do graduate are going to college or entering the 
workforce with a subpar education. The number of students proficient in 
reading and math is abysmal. The achievement gap separating minority 
students from their peers is appalling. Parents have little to no 
options to rescue their children from failing schools.
  A broken education system has plagued families for decades. Year 
after year, policymakers lament the problems and talk about solutions, 
and once in a while, a law is enacted that promises to improve our 
education system.
  Unfortunately, past efforts have largely failed because they are 
based on the idea that Washington knows what is best for children. We 
have doubled down on this approach repeatedly, and it is not working.
  Federal mandates dictate how to gauge student achievement, how to 
define qualified teachers, how to spend money at the State and local 
levels, and how to improve underperforming schools. And now, thanks to 
the unprecedented overreach of the current administration, the 
Department of Education is dictating policies concerning teacher 
evaluations, academic standards, and more.
  No one questions whether parents, teachers, and local education 
leaders are committed to their students, yet there are some who 
question whether they are capable of making the best decisions for 
their students.
  Success in school should be determined by those who teach inside our 
classrooms, by administrators who understand the challenges facing 
their communities, by parents who know better than anyone the needs of 
their children. If every child is going to receive a quality education, 
then we need to place less faith--less faith--in the Secretary of 
Education and more faith in parents, teachers, and State and local 
leaders. That is why I am a proud sponsor of the Student Success Act.
  By reducing the Federal footprint, restoring local control, and 
empowering parents and education leaders, this commonsense bill will 
move our country in a better direction.

                              {time}  1600

  The Student Success Act provides States and school districts more 
flexibility to fund local priorities, not Washington's priorities. The 
legislation eliminates dozens of ineffective or duplicative programs so 
that each dollar makes a direct, meaningful, and lasting impact in 
classrooms. The bill strengthens accountability by replacing the 
current national scheme with State-led accountability systems, 
returning to States the responsibility to measure student performance 
and improve struggling schools. The Student Success Act also ensures 
parents have the information they need to hold their schools 
accountable. It is their tax money, but more importantly, it is their 
children, and they deserve to know how their schools are performing.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill reaffirms that choice is a powerful lifeline 
for families with children in failing schools by extending the magnet 
school program, expanding access to high quality charter schools, and 
allowing Federal funds to follow low-income students to the 
traditional, public, or public charter school of the parents' choice.
  Finally, the Student Success Act reins in the authority of the 
Secretary of Education. We must stop the Secretary from unilaterally 
imposing his will on schools, and this bill will do just that. Perhaps, 
Mr. Chairman, that is why the White House and powerful special 
interests are teaming up to defeat this legislation. They fear the bill 
will lead to less control in Washington and more control in States and 
school districts. Let me assure the American people: that is precisely 
what this bill will do.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to help all children, regardless 
of background, income, or ZIP Code, to receive an excellent education 
by supporting the Student Success Act, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5, a bill to 
reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, a 
landmark civil rights law enacted under President Lyndon B. Johnson. As 
we approach the 50-year anniversary of its enactment, we cannot take 
lightly ESEA's mission, goals, and achievements over the course of five 
decades. It is by that yardstick of history that we must judge H.R. 5 
today and determine if it will move our education system closer to 
meeting the challenges of the 21st century and prepare our students for 
the global economy.
  We all know too well that quality education is even more vital today 
than it was generations ago. In our rapidly changing economy, our 
Nation's continued success depends on a well-educated workforce. A 
competitive and educated workforce strengthens the very social fabric 
of America: people with higher levels of education are less

[[Page 2556]]

likely to be unemployed, less likely to need public assistance, less 
likely to become a teen parent, and less likely to get caught up in the 
criminal justice system. Over the course of ESEA's history, we have 
recognized that for many politically disconnected populations, 
equitable access to an education has not been a reality. It was 
necessary for the Federal Government to fill in the gaps of funding our 
public school systems.
  Inequality was inevitable when most school systems are funded by real 
estate taxes, and further by virtue of the fact that in our democratic 
society, we respond to political pressure. For 50 years, Congress has 
recognized that low-income students were not getting their fair share 
of the pie and that supplemental resources were absolutely necessary to 
ensure that all children had access to quality public education. As a 
result, Congress has a longstanding policy to target our limited 
Federal funding to schools and students who get left behind in an 
unequal system.
  Mr. Chairman, one of this bill's most troubling provisions, which 
strikes at the heart of ESEA's long history of targeting resources to 
our neediest students, is the so-called portability provision. Now, 
present law gives greater weight to funding in areas of high 
concentration of poverty. Under H.R. 5, portability, a State agency 
could use all of its title I funds to districts based solely on the 
percentage of poor children, regardless of the concentration of poor 
people in a district.
  As a result, much of the title I support intended towards those areas 
of concentration of poverty would be reallocated to those wealthier 
areas. In other words, the low-income areas would get less, and the 
wealthy areas would get more. I ask: If that is the solution, then I 
wonder what you think the problem was? Analysis from a number of 
organizations, including the Department of Education, demonstrates 
title I portability will take money from the poorer schools and school 
districts and give more to affluent districts. This disproportionately 
affects students of color, and this is just simply wrong.
  Data shows that H.R. 5 would provide the largest 33 school districts 
with the highest concentration of Black and Hispanic students over $3 
billion less in Federal funding than the President's budget over the 
next 6 years. Furthermore, the Center for American Progress found in 
its review of portability that districts with high concentrations of 
poverty could lose an average of $85 per student, while the more 
affluent areas would gain more than $290 per student.
  There is an overwhelming body of research that shows that targeting 
resources to schools and districts with the highest concentrations of 
poverty is an effective way to mitigate the effects of poverty. Current 
law reflects this evidence and targets funding to schools where there 
are greater concentrations of poverty, and this bill rolls the clock 
back and reverses that.
  To add insult to injury, H.R. 5 eliminates what is called maintenance 
of effort, a requirement of ESEA that States maintain their effort and 
that the Federal money will supplement what they are doing. As a result 
of this bill, States could use their education funds to fund tax cuts 
or other noneducation initiatives, thus turning ESEA into a glorified 
slush fund where politics would drive funding allocations. And we know 
who is going to lose when politics are at play--our children.
  There are other flaws with H.R. 5. This bill sets no standards for 
college or career readiness and allows students with disabilities to be 
taught with lesser standards. It limits our investment in education 
over the next 6 years because there are no adjustments for inflation. 
It block grants important programs, diluting the purpose and the 
outcome. Taken as a whole, these policies will have a disproportionate 
impact on students of color, students with disabilities, and our 
English language learners. It is no wonder that business groups, labor 
groups, civil rights, disabilities, and education groups have all 
expressed deep concerns about this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong opposition to H.R. 5, as it will turn 
the clock back on American public education. In its current form, the 
bill abandons the fundamental principles of equity and accountability 
in our education system, it eviscerates education funding, it fails to 
support our educators, and it leaves our children ill-prepared for 
success in the classroom and beyond. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, it is now my great pleasure to yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education.
  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his great 
leadership on this bill and in the committee generally.
  I rise in strong support this afternoon because every student, Mr. 
Chairman, every student deserves an effective teacher, an engaging 
classroom, and a quality education that paves the path for a bright and 
prosperous future. That is what we all want. Unfortunately, despite the 
best of intentions, the Nation's current K-12 education law has failed 
to provide students this fundamental right. In fact, the law has only 
gotten in the way.
  Far from taking us back to the past, this bill will take us to the 
future, where we should have been for a while now in terms of 
education, so that we can maintain competitiveness with the rest of the 
world and win in the 21st century.
  No Child Left Behind's onerous requirements and the Obama 
administration's waiver scheme and pet projects have created a one-
size-fits-all system that hinders innovation and stymies local efforts 
to improve student learning. As a result, too many young adults leave 
high school today without basic knowledge in reading, math, and 
science. They are ill-equipped to complete college and compete in the 
workforce, and consequently they are deprived of one of the best 
opportunities they have to earn a lifetime of success. We shouldn't 
shackle any student to that kind of future.
  Americans have settled for the status quo for far too long, and today 
we have an opportunity to chart the new course. The Student Success Act 
departs from the top-down approach that has inefficiently and 
ineffectively governed elementary and secondary education and restores 
that responsibility to its rightful stewards: parents, teachers, State 
and local education leaders, and the local taxpayers.
  First, the bill gets the Federal government out of the business of 
running our schools. It eliminates the dizzying maze of Federal 
mandates that has dictated local decisions and downsizes the bloated 
bureaucracy at the Department of Education that has focused on what 
Washington wants rather than what students need. The whole theme of 
this bill is that we trust teachers, parents, local education 
officials, and our local taxpayers much more than we would ever trust a 
Federal bureaucrat.
  Mr. Chairman, I find it funny that the other side, those who are 
against this bill, actually cite the Department of Education in arguing 
what a bad bill this is. Imagine a Federal bureaucrat actually arguing 
to devolve its power back to its rightful owners. Of course they are 
going to be for the status quo. They benefit from the status quo. The 
students do not.
  Second, the bill empowers parents and education leaders with choice, 
transparency, and flexibility. It ensures parents continue to have the 
information they need to hold schools accountable and helps more 
families escape underperforming schools by expanding alternative 
education options such as quality charter schools. It also provides 
States the flexibility to develop their own systems for addressing 
school performance and the autonomy to use Federal funds in the most 
efficient way.
  This bill respects, Mr. Chairman, that it is the people's property. 
It is their tax dollars. We shouldn't be forcing any kind of 
maintenance of effort requirement on States or local jurisdictions. It 
is their decision to decide what to do with their money.

[[Page 2557]]

  With the Student Success Act, we have an opportunity to overcome the 
failed status quo of high stakes testing and Federal waivers. We have 
an opportunity to reduce the Federal footprint in our Nation's 
classrooms. We also have an opportunity to signal to moms, dads, 
teachers, administrators, and State officials that we trust them to 
hold schools accountable for delivering a quality education to every 
child.
  As my good friend, former colleague and fellow Hoosier Governor Mike 
Pence, said before the House Education and the Workforce Committee 
earlier this month:

       There is nothing that ails education that can't be fixed by 
     giving parents more choices and teachers more freedom to 
     teach.

  That is exactly what this bill does. This bill fosters an environment 
to accomplish that very thing. So I urge my colleagues to join me in 
replacing a broken law with much-needed, commonsense education reforms 
and ask you to vote ``yes''--``yes''--on the Student Success Act.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), a member of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member, for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, there is overwhelming bipartisan consensus that we need 
to replace No Child Left Behind. And there is overwhelming bipartisan 
consensus that a rewrite of No Child Left Behind should promote local 
flexibility and support schools, not punish them. So I am deeply 
disappointed that the House has not come together to produce a 
bipartisan bill.
  Despite a common goal and a long history of setting aside differences 
to work together on this important legislation, this bill does not 
adequately support America's students. Unfortunately, the Student 
Success Act shifts resources away from communities where poverty is 
most concentrated and freezes funding for America's most needy students 
at a time when public school enrollment is on the rise and more than 
half the students come from low-income families.
  H.R. 5 does not support a well-rounded education for all students, it 
does not ensure college- and career-ready standards for all students, 
it does not promote quality afterschool programs, and it does not do 
enough to reduce emphasis on high-stakes tests.
  The original goal of ESEA was laudable--equity. ESEA deserves a full 
review by the House so we can implement thoughtful solutions that 
reflect the current needs in our schools. But this bill does not 
protect historically underserved students.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this act, and I ask my colleagues to do the 
same. We need a law that is serious about addressing the challenges 
educators and students face today.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Culberson), who has been active in this bill.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask, if I could, for the 
chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee to engage in a 
colloquy with me concerning the importance of ensuring the Federal 
Government does not interfere with States' rights over public 
education.
  Mr. KLINE. I, as the chairman of the full committee, would be happy 
to engage in that colloquy.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I believe there is no constitutional 
role for the Federal Government in education.
  However, I understand that the funds under this act are accepted 
voluntarily by each State, but I am concerned that State bureaucrats 
often simply accept these funds and all the strings without any input 
from our constituents or locally elected officials. I saw this in the 
Texas House.
  I very much appreciate that the gentleman from Indiana and Chairman 
Kline worked with me to protect the 10th Amendment and to ensure that 
States knowingly accept the strings attached to these programs before 
they receive any funding under this bill.
  I want to be clear that this provision simply ensures that locally 
elected officials, parents, and other interested stakeholders have the 
opportunity to stand up and voice concern or support for accepting 
Federal funding at their State capital before any unelected, 
unaccountable bureaucrat can accept that money and all the strings that 
come with them.
  I want to ask if the chairman concurs that this is the intent and the 
result of the language that you have included in the Student Success 
Act?
  Mr. KLINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Let me thank my colleague from Texas for his leadership on this 
important issue. I understand and appreciate your concern about this 
Federal role in education policy.
  That is why we were happy to include your amendment in the underlying 
bill. It made the bill stronger and gave another tool to parents and 
local officials to protect their rights when it comes to educating our 
children.
  This amendment, in combination with other strong provisions to rein 
in the Secretary, including an absolute ban on his ability to force any 
State to adopt the Common Core State Standards or any other particular 
standards, ensures the Federal Government cannot dictate what is taught 
in schools, what assessments are given, or what standards are used.
  In fact, this amendment ensures States willfully accept the limited 
requirements that will come with these funds and reaffirms what 
decisions should be left to the States.
  I thank the gentleman for offering this provision and his commitment 
to a limited Federal role in education, and I yield back to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you from the bottom of 
my heart for protecting the 10th Amendment rights of the States to 
control their public school system and affirming a parents' right to 
control their child's education.
  I appreciate you confirming the intent of this amendment. It will 
mean a far greater role for States and parents in their child's 
education.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), a member of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I hate to throw cold water on the last 
colloquy, but I think it is important to note as we debate this bill, 
which never had the benefit of a public hearing or a single 
subcommittee hearing, is that the Federal mandate for annual testing 
does not change as a result of this law.
  What does change regarding that testing requirement is that the 
dedicated funding stream, which Congress at least had the decency to 
pass back in 2002, that is eliminated.
  What you are doing is you are maintaining a mandate and you are 
eliminating the funding to pay for that mandate for testing. What we 
are ending up with, for all the talk about reducing the Federal 
footprint, is that we are doubling down on the Federal requirement that 
States have to have annual testing in schools, which every Member in 
this Chamber has heard about in loud protest over the last 13 years.
  What this shows is that when the process is broken--and it was broken 
in this case, no committee-subcommittee meetings, no hearings, rushing 
it to the floor on a hyperpartisan basis, not one single Democratic 
amendment was accepted at the committee during markup, that is what you 
end up with, is a deformed bill, which should be defeated.
  I urge in the strongest terms possible a ``no'' vote. Let's go back 
and do this the right way.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Just to address a notion of what is done in secret and what is not 
done in secret and whether or not people have had a chance to weigh in 
on this legislation, as my friend knows--and I do thank him for not 
mentioning basketball, by the way--as my friend knows, this bill has 
had multiple hearings over several years.
  It has been debated in committee. It has been debated on the floor of 
the House. It has been debated in the media. It is much discussed and 
much

[[Page 2558]]

known--in contrast to the bill, the amendment, a substitute that my 
friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle brought forward 
in committee, 851 pages, that nobody had seen outside the Democrat 
Caucus, so I believe this bill is well known, and it is the right 
direction to move us forward into the future to make sure that all of 
our children receive the quality education they deserve.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just 
to respond to the idea that our substitute was produced.
  I would apologize to the gentleman for having sprung the substitute 
on him.
  However, 2 legislative days after his bill was introduced, he 
scheduled a markup on the bill, so we produced a response to his bill 
in 2 legislative days. That is all the time we were allowed.
  We would have allowed hearings. We would have liked hearings on his 
bill and our bill, but that just wasn't to take place because of the 
rush to judgment.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Fudge), the 
ranking member of the Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary 
Education Subcommittee.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose H.R. 5, the Student 
Success Act.
  The Elementary and Secondary Education Act reaffirmed the Supreme 
Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education that every child has 
the right to an equal educational opportunity. H.R. 5 undermines the 
law's original intent, turning back the clock on equity and 
accountability in American public education.
  As we commemorate the 50th anniversary of ESEA, Republicans have 
chosen to honor the anniversary by bringing a partisan bill to the 
House floor that tears apart the historic Federal role in education.
  H.R. 5 should be known as the ``Ensure Students Don't Succeed Act.'' 
The bill is a backward leap in our country's education system, not a 
forward one.
  Every student in America has a right to a quality education. It is 
our job as Members of Congress to make sure that right is protected, 
something that H.R. 5 does not do.
  I refuse to fail our children and their families because our children 
deserve so much more than this legislation provides.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I am very, very pleased to yield 4 minutes 
to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the 
chair of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. Chairman, the current K-12 education system is failing our 
students, and State and local attempts to make it better have been 
hampered by an enormous Federal footprint.
  Parents and education leaders have lost much of their decisionmaking 
authority to Washington bureaucrats, and the Secretary of Education has 
bullied States into adopting the Obama administration's pet projects.
  Unsurprisingly, student achievement levels remain worrisome. Just 36 
percent of eighth grade students read at grade level, and only 35 
percent are proficient in math.
  For far too long, our schools have been governed by a top-down 
approach that stymies State and local efforts to meet the unique needs 
of their student populations. We can't continue to make the same 
mistakes and expect better results. America's students deserve change.
  Fortunately, this week, the House of Representatives has an 
opportunity to chart a new course with the Student Success Act, 
legislation that reduces the Federal footprint in the Nation's 
classrooms and restores control to the people who know their students 
best: parents, teachers, and local leaders.
  The Student Success Act gets Washington out of the business of 
running schools. It protects State and local autonomy by prohibiting 
the Secretary of Education from coercing States into adopting Common 
Core or other standards or assessments and by preventing the Secretary 
from creating additional burdens on States and school districts.
  The bill reduces the size of the Federal education bureaucracy. 
Currently, the Department of Education oversees more than 80 programs 
geared towards primary and secondary education, most of which are 
duplicative and fail to deliver adequate results for students. The bill 
eliminates over 65 of these programs and requires the Secretary of 
Education to reduce the Department's workforce accordingly.
  The Student Success Act repeals onerous, one-size-fits-all mandates 
that dictate accountability, teacher quality, and local spending that 
have done more to tie up States and school districts in red tape than 
to support education efforts. It returns responsibility for classroom 
decisions to parents, teachers, administrators, and education 
officials.
  The bill also provides States and school districts the funding 
flexibility to efficiently and effectively invest limited taxpayer 
dollars to boost student achievement by creating a local academic 
flexible grant. It provides the public with greater transparency and 
accountability over the development of new rules affecting K-12 
schools.
  Education is a deeply personal issue. After years of the Secretary of 
Education running schools through executive fiat, we understand that 
people are concerned about what a new K-12 education law will do.
  That is why a number of key principles have guided our efforts to 
replace the law since we began the process more than 4 years ago: 
reducing the Federal footprint, restoring local control, and empowering 
parents and education leaders.
  Those principles are reflected throughout the legislation, including 
specific safeguards that protect the right of States to opt out of the 
law, as well as the autonomy of home schools, religious schools, and 
private schools.
  Organizations such as the Council for American Private Education, the 
Home School Legal Defense Association, and Committee on Catholic 
Education of U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have expressed support 
for the Student Success Act because they know it will keep the Federal 
Government out of their business and preserve their cherished rights.
  A host of administration bureaucrats is attempting to defeat these 
much-needed changes. They know each reform that returns flexibility and 
choice to parents and school boards represent a loss of power in D.C.
  It is time we put the interests of America's students above the 
desires of Washington politicians.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. KLINE. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. FOXX. By reversing the top-down policies of recent decades, the 
Student Success Act offers conservative solutions to repair a broken 
education system.
  It would finally get Washington out of the way and allow parents, 
teachers, and State and local education leaders the flexibility to 
provide every child in every school a high-quality education.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), a member of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank Ranking Member Scott.
  I have to ask the majority: When did local control come to mean spend 
Federal dollars but ditch the Federal oversight?
  During our markup last week--and I certainly heard today Member after 
Member arguing how removing Federal standards would help local leaders 
make tough decisions. This is absolutely backwards.
  For 9 years, I served on the second largest school board in 
California, the sixth in the Nation, and I distinctly remember every 
school in the district making a compelling case for extra resources.
  Which is why, frankly, we should be debating how to increase the size 
of the pie that goes to education, rather than only arguing on how to 
cut it up.
  I still remember particularly one board meeting agonizing over the 
decision to move money from one needy

[[Page 2559]]

school to another. We had to cut our budget, and we had to make a 
decision. In the end, the law and the safeguards around title I helped 
direct us to make sure the money went to the students that needed it 
most.
  Ultimately, the direction in the law helps us balance competing 
needs, and I urge opposition to the bill.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), a member of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. TAKANO. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 5, also known 
as the Student Success Act. Having spent 24 years as a classroom 
teacher, I am especially concerned about the title I funding mechanism 
in this legislation. We have seen time and time again that block grants 
often redirect funding away from intended populations and are a prelude 
to further cuts.
  I also oppose the Republican bill's portability provision, which 
betrays the original intent of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act. ESEA is meant to promote equitable opportunity and education for 
all and to help raise the academic achievement of low-income children. 
This legislation will do the opposite.
  Finally, I object to the utter lack of Federal accountability in H.R. 
5. While I oppose the current test-driven, high-stakes accountability 
system, I want the right accountability system, not no accountability 
system.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation goes too far. It cuts too deep and 
takes too many steps backward. I oppose H.R. 5. I call on my colleagues 
to do the same.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to address this issue of grants and block grants and so 
forth we are starting to hear a little bit about.
  I have been hearing for years, as I talk to superintendents in 
Minnesota and around the country, their frustration with the maze of 
Federal programs, 80-some Federal programs, each with its soda straw of 
funding and requirements for action and reporting. They have told me 
again and again: I have got money here, and I don't need it there. I 
need money here, and I can't move that money. I don't have the 
flexibility to move that money. I need to be able to put the resources 
where my students need it.
  So, by eliminating 65 of those soda straws of individual controls and 
giving that flexibility to superintendents, we allow the money to be 
spent where it is needed the most. I think that is one of the great 
strengths of this bill, and it is one of the reasons why the American 
Association of School Superintendents does support this legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), a member of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Ranking Member Scott.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill breaks the promise made 50 years ago to help 
all kids get a good, quality public education and to recognize the 
challenges faced by kids living in poverty.
  When talking about the problems with this Republican bill, one 
wonders where to start. Is it the tearing apart of public education 
that comes in the form of dismantling title I funding? or the fact that 
the portability scheme is a slippery slope to turning our public school 
system into one big taxpayer-funded voucher program with public dollars 
sent to private schools? or the fact that Republicans have failed to 
address the need for early education or the maintenance of efforts of 
education? or that this bill diminishes the focus on professional 
development for teachers or the clear protections for collective 
bargaining agreements that are already part of State laws? or, 
ultimately, that this bill provides insufficient funding lower than 
what the title I authorization for last year authorized under the 
current law?
  This bill doesn't provide real student success, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. KLINE. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), a member of the committee.
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was passed 
50 years ago to embody the promise that education is a right, not a 
privilege. We are supposed to be guardians of that promise, not the 
architects of its demise.
  This reauthorization was an opportunity for Congress to delve in and 
debate the most pressing issues facing our schools. Sadly, the 
Republican majority chose to introduce a partisan bill behind closed 
doors without a single public hearing. Now we have a bill that reflects 
that lack of inclusion, takes hundreds of millions of dollars from our 
most vulnerable children, and weakens the safeguards that govern 
taxpayer money.
  When I served on my local school committee, a tough economy meant 
some really difficult decisions. Not everyone was happy, but we 
listened. We listened to teachers, administrators, parents, students, 
experts, and fiscal watchdogs, and we were guided by one simple 
principle: what is best for our students. It is a shame Congress 
couldn't find the will to do the same.
  I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 5.
  Mr. KLINE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams), a former college professor 
and now a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank Ranking Member Scott.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5.
  Two weeks ago, our committee came together expecting to seriously 
consider this bill, but instead Republicans said ``no'': ``no'' to 
moving beyond the status quo, ``no'' to investing in the futures of our 
kids, ``no'' to supporting our teachers and principals, and ``no'' to 
ensuring the success of our neediest students.
  Guess what. You said ``yes'' to taking money from our poorest 
students like Robin Hood in reverse, ``yes'' to erasing the gains we 
have made over the past 50 years, and ``yes'' to denying students 
success. This bill ignores the obvious needs of our students and turns 
its back on some of our most vulnerable.
  I hope we are not fooled by the name of the bill. Student Success is 
a failure. It clearly sets up our students to fail. H.R. 5 fails on all 
accounts. It fails our neediest students. It fails to invest in our 
teachers and our principals. It fails to prepare students for college 
and careers. This bill deserves an F.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. KLINE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, could you advise how much time 
is available to both parties?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 15 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from Minnesota has 13 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a former mayor.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  It is our responsibility to provide America's young people with every 
opportunity to obtain a world-class education in the best possible 
environment so they can compete in an increasingly global economy. That 
is why it is critical that we reauthorize ESEA the right way. Schools 
and educators deserve certainty, continuity, and direction based on new 
research and informed by our experience from the last decade, and 
students deserve the best education we can provide. H.R. 5 is not the 
right way to do it.
  H.R. 5 would freeze funding at current levels for 6 years, 
representing over $800 million in cuts compared to

[[Page 2560]]

presequester funding. By funding programs with block grants and 
introducing title I portability, this fails to support greater 
achievement of low-income students, students of color, students with 
disabilities, and English language learners. This fails students in so 
many ways.
  We should be working together to ensure that a reauthorized ESEA 
improves student achievement, supports teachers and principals, and 
provides high-quality education for all students. This bill does not 
accomplish this.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. KLINE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member on the 
Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human 
Services, Education, and Related Agencies.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Upon signing the original Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, President Johnson described education as ``the only 
valid passport from poverty.'' This bill threatens to tear up that 
passport. It caps Federal education funding at 2015 levels, levels 
which are already woefully inadequate after years of drastic cuts, and 
makes no provision for inflation, let alone the growing need for 
Federal education programs.
  The bill allows States to direct Federal dollars away from schools in 
districts with the greatest poverty. It permits States to reduce 
education funding with no accountability. It allows schools in 
wealthier neighborhoods to use title I funding without having to target 
funds to the students with the greatest needs. It is a blatant betrayal 
of the ESEA's fundamental purpose, which is to level the playing field 
for low-income kids.
  It weakens or eliminates many successful programs, including 21st 
Century Community Learning Centers initiative, which provides quality 
after school, summer school programs for disadvantaged children.
  Mr. Chairman, it used to be that hard work in schools and on the job 
was the surest ticket to the middle class. Today, that compact is 
broken. Millions of hardworking families do not earn enough to make 
ends meet, let alone move up in the world. The cuts proposed in this 
bill would make matters even worse. Kids from poor neighborhoods are 
already being neglected, while those from wealthy areas get an ever-
increasing slice of the pie. These disparities reverberate throughout 
their lives to create an increasingly divided, unequal society.
  Let me put it simply: Without broad access to quality education, 
there is no future for the middle class. With this legislation, the 
majority is saying to America's low-income kids: You are on your own.
  Mr. Chairman, that is not who we are. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this bill.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bishop), a new member of the committee.
  Mr. BISHOP of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 5, the Student Success 
Act, because our system, education system, is failing. Where I come 
from, we call trying to do things over and over again and expecting a 
different outcome insanity. I believe our system is broken to the 
extent that it is a moral imperative for Congress, at this point, to 
step up and act. Our students, our parents, our teachers should not 
have to settle for a failing system.
  Before Congress, I worked in the private sector, and I also had an 
opportunity to work in State government, including the opportunity to 
serve as the majority leader of the Michigan Senate. At that time, I 
saw firsthand how much more effective we can be at the State level to 
use State resources and control where they are going than to have the 
Federal Government come in, step in and use, and expect the State to 
spend it in a certain way.
  This system of top-down does not help the States; it puts us in a bad 
position. As a State legislator, had I the opportunity, I would have 
come here and supported the cause as well because it is the right thing 
to do. I do believe it is high time that we defend the 10th Amendment 
and rein back the Federal Government's role, especially in our 
children's education. Local teachers and parents know our children 
better than the Department of Education in Washington, D.C., ever 
could; and the result is that our system is broken, and that becomes 
clearer and clearer every day.
  I just want to mention a couple statistics that I find alarming but 
instructive. First of all, 35 percent of our fourth graders are reading 
at a proficient level. Only 26 percent of our high school seniors are 
proficient in math. Just a couple examples that I mention. Those 
examples are unacceptable.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. KLINE. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. BISHOP of Michigan. The Student Success Act gives authority back 
to our States and expands opportunities so our children can get the 
best education opportunity possible. That is what they deserve, and 
that is what I was sent to Washington, D.C., to support.
  This bill is also critical in ensuring the Federal Government cannot 
force a failed program like Common Core on the States. When looking at 
education reform, it is also important to make sure that we continue to 
protect the rights of our home schoolers and our private schools. That 
is exactly what this bill does.
  Mr. Chairman, we must reduce the Federal Government's footprint in 
our children's classrooms because it is making a mess of the education 
system. We are long overdue for change, and I believe the Student 
Success Act will move our Nation in the right direction.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, because this bill limits the amount of funding 
available, it moves money from low-income areas to wealthy areas, 
eliminates targeted funds for English learners and those with 
disabilities; it fails to set meaningful standards.
  A lot of organizations oppose the legislation, including business 
organizations, child advocacy groups, civil rights groups, the 
organizations supporting those with disabilities and health groups, 
including the Congressional Tri-Caucus; the Advocacy Institute; the 
Afterschool Alliance; the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee; 
the American Association of People With Disabilities; the American 
Association of University Women; the American Federation of Teachers; 
the American Foundation for the Blind; the Association of University 
Centers on Disabilities; Autism National Committee; Autistic Self 
Advocacy Network; the Center for American Progress; the Center for Law 
and Social Policy; the Children's Defense Fund; the Committee for 
Education Funding; the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities; the 
Council of the Great City Schools; the Council of Parent Attorneys and 
Advocates, Inc.; Democrats for Education Reform; Disability Rights 
Education & Defense Fund; Easter Seals; Education Post; Education Law 
Center; First Focus Campaign for Children; Gay, Lesbian & Straight 
Education Network; Human Rights Campaign; the Bazelon Center for Mental 
Health Law; Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; Leading 
Educators; the League of United Latin American Citizens; the Mexican 
American Legal Defense and Educational Fund; the NAACP; the NAACP Legal 
Defense and Educational Fund; the National Association of School 
Psychologists; the National Center for Learning Disabilities; the 
National Council on Independent Living; the National Council on Teacher 
Quality; the National Center on Time & Learning; the National Congress 
of American Indians; the National Council of La Raza; the National 
Coalition for Public Education; the National Disability Rights Network; 
the National Down Syndrome Congress; the National Education 
Association; the National Urban League; the National

[[Page 2561]]

Women's Law Center; Partners for Each and Every Child; the Poverty & 
Race Research Action Council; Public Advocates Inc.; Stand for 
Children; Southeast Asia Resource Action Center; TASH; Teach Plus; 
TNTP; the Education Trust; the United Negro College Fund; the 
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; and the U.S. Chamber 
of Commerce. They are all in opposition to this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell).
  Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I often don't come to the floor 
to speak, but I felt compelled on this particular bill, H.R. 5, to talk 
about it. Why? Because I represent a district that has 90 percent of 
the public schoolchildren who live and receive reduced or free lunches 
and it is important for me to just state for the record that I think 
that a bill that takes away funding from public schools--targeted 
funding for low-income and poverty students--would be an abomination.
  This bill is here because of the work of Lyndon Johnson 50 years ago. 
It was a civil rights bill, frankly. Why? It was an acknowledgment that 
socially disadvantaged children needed additional help. Somewhere along 
the line, Mr. Chairman, we have lost as a nation the notion of ``our 
children.''
  It is always ``my child,'' not ``our children.''
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Until the parents of more affluent children 
see that their lives are intrinsically linked to children who are poor, 
we as a nation will never be the beloved community that so many civil 
rights leaders fought and died for.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia for the opportunity to 
speak on this underlying bill, and I want to urge my colleagues to vote 
against H.R. 5.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), a member of the committee.
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota 
for his work on this bill. It is a very important bill, and it is 
certainly very applicable to what is going on in our country right now.
  Mr. Chairman, Federal intervention in our Nation's classrooms is at 
an alltime high, and the Obama administration continues to believe that 
they think they know what is best for our children. However, despite 
the continued intrusion into our children's classrooms, student 
achievement remains stagnant.
  Out of 34 countries, students in the U.S. rank 20th and 27th in 
science and math respectively, so it is clear that our education system 
is not adequately serving our children, and it is not going to be fixed 
by Washington bureaucrats. Our education system can only be fixed by 
parents, teachers, aunts, uncles, coaches, and community leaders--the 
people who actually know what is best for our Nation's children.
  That is why I am supporting H.R. 5. I am supporting this bill to put 
some restraints on the administration, to rein in the Department of 
Education, and to put the keys to our children's educations and futures 
back in local control where it belongs.
  It repeals out-of-touch teacher qualification programs, and it allows 
State and local officials to determine who is qualified to teach their 
children. It also eliminates 65 programs and creates a grant program 
with greater flexibility for school districts.
  We all know that children learn differently and at their own pace, 
and without this bill, the Secretary of Education can prohibit funds 
from being sent to States unless they adopt certain one-size-fits-all 
standards, like Common Core.
  I will be the first one to say that additional reforms to our 
education system are needed. No, this is not the silver bullet, but it 
is a great start, and it is a great bill. I support this bill, and I 
urge all of my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I just want to state for the record that graduation rates have been 
up since No Child Left Behind was passed. Black and Latino children are 
doing better, so it has been working, but we need to continue to 
improve.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to read the Statement of Administration 
Policy, which speaks to the administration position on H.R. 5. The 
Statement of Administration Policy goes as follows:

       The administration strongly opposes H.R. 5, the Student 
     Success Act, as approved by the House Committee on Education 
     and the Workforce. Congress must act in a bipartisan way to 
     reform the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to 
     help States prepare all children for college and careers by 
     giving them flexibility from No Child Left Behind mandates. 
     However, H.R. 5 represents a significant step backwards in 
     the efforts to help all of the Nation's children and their 
     families prepare for their futures.
       H.R. 5 abdicates the historic Federal role in elementary 
     and secondary education of ensuring the educational progress 
     of all of America's children, including children from low-
     income families, students with disabilities, English 
     learners, and students of color. It fails to maintain the 
     core expectation that States and school districts will take 
     serious, sustained, and targeted actions when necessary to 
     remedy achievement gaps and reform persistently low-
     performing schools. H.R. 5 fails to identify opportunity gaps 
     or remedy inequities in access to the resources and supports 
     students need to succeed, such as challenging academic 
     courses, excellent teachers and principals, afterschool 
     enrichment or expanded learning time, and other academic and 
     nonacademic supports.
       Rather than investing more in schools, H.R. 5 would allow 
     States to divert education funding away from the schools and 
     students who need it the most through the so-called 
     ``portability'' provision. The bill's caps on Federal 
     education spending would lock in recent budget cuts for the 
     rest of the decade, and the bill would allow funds currently 
     required to be used for education to be used for other 
     purposes, such as spending on sports stadiums or tax cuts for 
     the wealthy. H.R. 5 fails to make critical investments for 
     the Nation's students, including high-quality preschool for 
     America's children, support for America's teachers and 
     principals, and investment in innovative solutions for the 
     public education system.
       The administration agrees on the need for high-quality 
     statewide annual testing as required in H.R. 5, so parents 
     and teachers know how children and schools are doing from 
     year to year and to allow for consistent measurement of 
     school and student performance across the State. However, 
     this bill should do more to reduce redundant and unnecessary 
     testing, such as asking States to limit the amount of time 
     spent on standardized testing and requiring parental 
     notification when testing is consuming too much classroom 
     learning time.
       The administration opposes H.R. 5 in its current form for 
     all of these reasons but particularly because it would deny 
     Federal funds to the classrooms that need them the most and 
     fails to assure parents that policymakers and educators will 
     take action when students are not learning.
       If the President were presented with H.R. 5, his senior 
     advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Workforce Protections.
  Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, since No Child Left Behind was put in place, the 
Federal Government has dictated how States and school districts spend 
money, gauge student learning and school performance, and hire 
classroom teachers.
  Frankly, Mr. Chairman, it isn't working. Washington bureaucrats, no 
matter how well meaning they are, will never have the personal 
understanding of the diverse and special and unique needs of students 
than the teachers, administrators, and parents who spend time with 
them.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand here today because I have to speak for Erin and 
Moses. Erin is my daughter-in-law and the mother of my four 
grandchildren. Moses was a student who tested her teaching ability and 
her passion for teaching.
  Erin came to teach in a fourth and fifth grade classroom for special 
needs

[[Page 2562]]

students in Cicero, Illinois. Freshly minted out of her educational 
training and master's program, she came in with a passion for teaching.
  She came in because she was sent in that classroom as a full-time, 
continuing substitute because the teacher of that classroom had gotten 
up one day, had walked out of the classroom, and had never come back.
  Erin was given the opportunity of a lifetime of teaching these 
students, and she began to invest her life into those students, 
especially in one young student, a fourth grader by the name of Moses.
  Moses came from a difficult situation. Moses at that time in the 
fourth grade was not even fully potty-trained, but Erin invested her 
time and talent and, frankly, her treasure in the life of that student, 
as well as of the others. She had a wonderful outcome in working with 
the parent in the home, as well as with Moses in the classroom.
  The next year, Erin was given the opportunity to be a full-time 
teacher, not a sub anymore. I will never forget the day when Erin came 
to me, with tears in her eyes, and said: ``Dad, I'm not sure I'm cut 
out for teaching.''
  I said: ``Erin, why? You had an amazing impact for that 6 months of 
time you spent in the same classroom last year.''
  She said: ``Now, all I'm doing is filling out paperwork for Illinois, 
for Chicago, and for the Federal Government.''
  She ultimately had our twin grandsons and went from the classroom to 
the home, but there will be a day that comes when those four kids are 
at the stage when she can go back to the classroom. I want Erin to go 
back and have the ability to teach, to love on those kids, to direct 
them, to work with the parents, and not spend time filling out 
bureaucratic forms.
  Mr. Chairman, that is why I support the Student Success Act. It 
replaces Federal control with State and local control.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. KLINE. I yield the gentleman another 1 minute.
  Mr. WALBERG. The bill allows States to establish and implement their 
own standards and assessments. The bill allows States to develop their 
own accountability plans for improving underperforming schools by 
eliminating federally prescribed school improvement and turnaround 
interventions. The bill provides State and local school districts 
flexibility.
  Mr. Chairman, that is what we are speaking for. It is for the Erins 
and for the Moseses of the world--educational opportunities that should 
lead us into the future in great ways for this country and to lead the 
world.

                              {time}  1700

  This is what we are talking about, Mr. Speaker. The Student Success 
Act places control back in the hands of education's rightful stewards: 
the teachers, the administrators, the States, the parents, and, 
ultimately, the students.
  Let's pass this bill.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Abraham). The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Kline) has 4 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott) has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Consortium for Citizens With Disabilities says:

       The Student Success Act does not fully support students 
     with disabilities, and in fact, it creates incentives for 
     schools and districts to take students with disabilities, 
     unchecked, off the track from having equitable access to and 
     achieving a regular high school diploma.
       Incidence data reflects that less than 1 percent of all 
     students have the significant cognitive disabilities, which 
     corresponds to about 10 percent of students with 
     disabilities.
       Without this limitation, we fear that schools may 
     inappropriately assign students to the alternative 
     assessment. Data show assignment to these alternative 
     assessments may lead to reduced access to the general 
     curriculum and limit a student's access to earn a regular 
     diploma.

  That is why the disability groups oppose the legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to end with a reminder that this limits the 
funding. It transfers money from low-income areas to high-income areas. 
That is not just urban areas. There are over 2,400 low-income rural 
districts that will lose about $150 million, or 15 percent, of their 
total allocation, under the current law. The legislation eliminates 
targeting for English learners and those with disabilities. Finally, it 
fails to set meaningful standards.
  For those reasons, we should join the administration in opposing H.R. 
5, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  As is always the case in these debates on the floor, we hear a lot of 
things. Some of them are actually factual; some of them are not. There 
is, shockingly, some hyperbole that comes along with this.
  We did hear some things, though, from both sides of the aisle that I 
think are worth underscoring. One of the speakers on the other side of 
the aisle talked about how schools and States need continuity--I think 
was his word--predictability. That is exactly what we do not have now.
  Right now, this country is operating under the law of the land, which 
is No Child Left Behind, and under a big, convoluted scheme of 
temporary conditional waivers which provide no continuity, no 
predictability, and that is why we are hearing on both sides of the 
aisle--from coast-to-coast and off the coast, as a matter of fact--that 
we need to replace No Child Left Behind.
  I believe that as we replace No Child Left Behind, we need to put 
responsibility in the hands of parents and teachers and school boards 
and States, and not in the hands of Washington, D.C.
  I think that it is not fair to say that there is not a problem. We 
heard from the ranking member that graduation rates have gone up. On 
the other hand, they haven't gone up much, and we are still in a 
position where a fourth, or 26 percent, of high school seniors are 
proficient in math. That means 74 percent--maybe I need to have a 
little math here--are not. Only 38 percent of those high school seniors 
can read at grade level. We have a problem with one in five students 
dropping out. We need to address that problem.
  We heard a lot of talk about where title I funds go and portability 
to public schools. It is a question, I understand. There is a 
disagreement here, but we happen to believe it is fair that if you are 
a poor kid, if you are eligible for title I funds, you ought to get 
those funds. There is a disagreement. I think the children, if they are 
eligible, if they are in poverty, ought to get their share of title I 
funds.
  One of the things we didn't talk much about today as we talked about 
the problems out there, we know that in some areas of the country you 
have children trapped in absolutely failing schools where less than 
half of the kids graduate and those that graduate are nowhere near 
ready to go to college or go to work.
  So we have seen across the country and in most States public charter 
schools popping up, giving parents hope, giving them a chance to get 
those kids out of failing schools.
  I said this the other day in the Rules Committee, because it was so 
moving to me. I went to a charter school in north Minneapolis. There 
were 430 kids in that school. Their parents are delighted with the 
education they are getting now and thrilled to get their kids out of 
failing schools.
  When I asked the principal and the founder of the school if she could 
take more kids, she said: No, this is the right size for this school. 
She would like to replicate the school--and that is what this bill 
allows--so she can have another successful charter school. And how 
successful is it? There are a thousand kids, Mr. Chairman, on the 
waiting list to get in that charter school because their parents want 
to get out of a failing school system. This bill allows that to happen.
  It comes down to, fundamentally: Who do you trust, Washington or 
local government? We want to put the control in the hands of parents 
and local school boards and States.

[[Page 2563]]

  I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chair, I rise today in 
opposition of H.R. 5, the ill-named Student Success Act. H.R. 5 would 
undermine significant gains made by No Child Left Behind, and 
eviscerate the Elementary and Secondary Education Act by dismantling 
its foundation of equity and accountability.
  Under this bill, school districts with the highest concentrations of 
Hispanic students would lose more than $1.9 billion in federal funding. 
Los Angeles Unified School District which is more than 74 percent 
Hispanic faces the largest cut in Title I funds, over $80 million, 
which amounts to nearly 25 percent of their budget.
  School districts with a high concentration of students living in 
poverty could lose $700 million in funding and high-poverty districts 
could see cuts as large as 74 percent. The portability of Title I funds 
would divert and dilute limited funds from schools with high needs and 
high concentrations of poverty. This undermines the fundamental purpose 
of Title I: to assist high needs and high poverty schools. With 35 
percent of Latino children under the age of five living in poverty, 
this is the time to increase, not decrease funding.
  Education is our nation's great equalizer. I would not be where I am 
today if it were not for the quality public education I received. For 
over 50 years, ESEA has been our nation's driving force for educational 
equity. Unfortunately, this Republican bill would dismantle the 
foundation of equality and accountability that ESEA has built over the 
last half-century. If we want our nation to remain a leader in the 
world, we must improve equal access to quality education for the next 
generation. Our students are the future of tomorrow, and we simply 
cannot let them down.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today to express my 
opposition to H.R. 5, the Student Success Act. This bill undermines the 
fundamental purpose of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
(ESEA), which was created to ensure that disadvantaged children are 
provided a high-quality education that allows them to compete on a 
level playing field with their more-advantaged peers.
  Among its many problematic provisions, this bill cuts crucial 
education funding, fails to hold states and districts accountable for 
supporting and improving the achievement of all students, eliminates 
and weakens protections for disadvantaged students, and lacks critical 
support systems for our nation's educators.
  I believe No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is flawed and must be reformed, 
and reauthorization presents a tremendous opportunity to make much-
needed improvements and bring our education system into the 21st 
century. However, instead of fixing the problems of NCLB, the Student 
Success Act does not reflect best practices and fails to strike the 
appropriate balance between flexibility and accountability.
  Reauthorization should support college and career-ready standards, 
address the overuse of testing in teacher and school evaluations that 
currently forces educators to substitute test preparation for 
instruction, and feature an accountability system that includes 
meaningful targets for improving student attainment that gives schools 
and districts flexibility in how they achieve those goals.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 5 and instead support 
reauthorization that restores our nation's commitment to providing 
equal opportunity for all students regardless of their background and 
protect our country's students including the most vulnerable, which was 
the intention of this landmark civil rights law.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5, the 
``Student Success Act,'' which would harm the education of our nation's 
youth.
  I thank Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Scott, and all the members of 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce for their work to improve 
education for our nation's children.
  Unfortunately, the bill before the House for consideration, should it 
become law, would harm our most vulnerable children, including those 
who attend urban and rural schools, and special needs children who need 
equal access to an excellent education.
  The bill as it exists now allows for the establishment of separate, 
lower standards for students with developmental disabilities.
  As a result of these standards, opportunities available for students 
with disabilities later in life would suffer considerably.
  H.R. 5 converts much of the funding currently directed at English 
learners, migrant students, or at-risk students into block-grants, 
which would enable those funds to be spent outside the target 
populations.
  Support for these students would also be eroded by suspending 
requirements that school districts improve the English-speaking ability 
of such students.
  One of the most dangerous provisions of this bill is the proposal to 
allow ``portability'' of funds under Title I of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act.
  This proposal, if enacted, would allow states to redirect funds away 
from districts with the highest concentrations of poverty, and into 
more affluent districts with less need for such support.
  This proposal is especially harmful for Houston school districts, 
where an estimated 31.5% of children live below the poverty line. The 
vast majority of these children are Black or Hispanic.
  As legislators, as Americans, we have a generational responsibility 
to enhance the lives of those who will follow us, especially the most 
vulnerable.
  It is sobering to me, as the founder and co-chair of the 
Congressional Children's Caucus and someone who has long advocated on 
behalf of young people from all backgrounds, to see a bill that would 
have such a negative impact on the very children who need our help the 
most.
  In addition to these sad truths, the bill currently under 
consideration would strike a devastating blow to our schools' ability 
to provide the variety of programs that our children deserve.
  It repeals dedicated funding for programs such as student safety, 
after and summer school programming, STEM education, education 
technology, arts education, literacy and block-grants support, forcing 
high-need districts to choose between funding vital services.
  It should not be overlooked that one of these programs that is 
considered expendable is STEM-focused education, an area of importance 
both nationally and to my constituents in Houston.
  The Houston region is one of the most important industrial bases in 
the world and was recently ranked the No. 1 US manufacturing city by 
Manufacturers' News Inc.
  Houston is also home to the largest medical complex in the world--the 
Texas Medical Center--and provides clinical health care, research and 
education at its 54 institutions.
  These jobs, and truly the middle class of this decade as a whole, are 
dependent on workers who get the right STEM education and job training 
today.
  Brookings' Metropolitan Policy Program's report ``The Hidden STEM 
Economy'' reported that in 2011, 26 million jobs or 20 percent of all 
occupations required knowledge in 1 or more STEM areas.
  The same report stressed that fully half of all STEM jobs are 
available to workers without a 4 year degree and these jobs pay on 
average $53,000 a year, which is 10 percent higher than jobs with 
similar education requirements.
  To eliminate federal funding aimed at enhancing STEM education is to 
cripple an entire generation of America's youth, leaving them without 
skills that may be essential in securing their own future and the 
economic prosperity of our nation.
  Finally, it must be addressed that the defining characteristic of our 
primary and secondary education system has been to prepare our students 
for college.
  H.R. 5 does not contain any provisions that states consult with 
institutes of higher education in order to ensure that their academic 
standards are consistent with what will be demanded of those students 
once they graduate.
  As a result, many students, even after receiving a high school 
diploma, will find themselves unprepared to pursue a college degree if 
they choose to.
  Furthermore, the bill eliminates the current requirements that 
districts take action when their schools are under resourced and unable 
to meet the needs of all students.
  Together with the lack of consideration and support for at-risk and 
low-income youth, this will result in those students being marginalized 
and denied educational opportunity rather than given the support and 
resources they so desperately need.
  There is no greater testament to the substantial and wide-ranging 
harm done by this bill than the coalition of organizations that have 
voiced their opposition, including:
  National Education Association
  American Federation of Teachers
  Committee for Education Funding
  Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD)
  American Association of People with Disabilities
  Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
  NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund
  League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
  National Council of La Raza
  U.S. Chamber of Commerce

[[Page 2564]]

  Business Roundtable
  I urge all members to join with me in heeding their counsel and 
opposing H.R. 5.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5, the so-
called Student Success Act, which should really be called the Letting 
Our Students Down Act.
  Instead of making much needed improvements to the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act (ESEA), H.R. 5 would weaken critical federal 
protections for our most vulnerable--including students of color, 
students with disabilities, low-income students, English-language 
learners (ELL), migrant students and LGBT students. It would gut our 
nation's education funding by foolishly locking in Fiscal Year (FY) 
2015 funding levels for the next 6 years--with no exceptions to adjust 
for inflation.
  H.R. 5 would also divert critical Title I funds away from the highest 
poverty schools and districts--undermining our nation's commitment to 
ensuring that all students--regardless of their zip code or where they 
were born--should have equal access to high-quality education.
  This is outrageous and it is wrong.
  Simply put, H.R. 5 undermines our promise to students that they will 
have equal access to high-quality education.
  So let's defeat this egregious bill and work to reauthorize ESEA that 
will reinvest in our future, help close the achievement gap, and 
prepare our students for a 21st Century workforce.
  I urge my colleagues to vote NO on H.R. 5.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5, the 
``Student Success Act,'' which would harm the education of our nation's 
youth.
  I thank Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Scott, and all the members of 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce for their work to improve 
education for our nation's children.
  Unfortunately, the bill before the House for consideration, should it 
become law, would harm our most vulnerable children, including those 
who attend urban and rural schools, and special needs children who need 
equal access to an excellent education.
  In my 18th District of Texas, over 30% of students in the Houston 
Independent School district (HISD) live below the poverty line.
  H.R. 5 threatens to cut over $17 million from HISD, one of the 
largest reductions in Title I funding in the state of Texas.
  I cannot stand by and support legislation that takes funds and 
resources away from children who are already struggling to meet their 
own basic needs.
  This bill allows Title I ``portability'' which would allow states to 
redirect funds away from high concentrations of poverty and siphon 
monies to low-poverty schools.
  This proposal, if enacted, would allow states to redirect funds away 
from districts with the highest concentrations of poverty, and into 
more affluent districts with less need for such support.
  The vast majority of the children affected by ``portability,'' are 
black or Hispanic.
  As legislators, as Americans, we have a generational responsibility 
to enhance the lives of those who will follow us, especially the most 
vulnerable.
  H.R. 5 guts education funding, while diverting funds away from high-
poverty schools by freezing funding at FY 2015 levels for six years, 
which represents over $800 million in cuts to these programs compared 
to pre-sequester funding.
  Mr. Chair, what does it say about our commitment to our youth that we 
are willing to cut funding for the future leaders of America?
  For decades, we threw money at education without making sure our 
schools were actually improving, or whether we were giving teachers the 
tools they need, or whether our taxpayer dollars were being used 
effectively.
  And our students too often paid the price.
  The bill as it exists now allows for the establishment of separate, 
lower standards for students with developmental disabilities.
  As a result of these standards, opportunities available for students 
with disabilities later in life would suffer considerably.
  H.R. 5 converts much of the funding currently directed at English 
learners, migrant students, or at-risk students into block-grants, 
which would enable those funds to be spent outside the target 
populations.
  Support for these students would also be eroded by suspending 
requirements that school districts improve the English-speaking ability 
of such students.
  It is my concern as H.R. 5 is currently drafted abdicates the 
historic Federal role in elementary and secondary education of ensuring 
the educational progress of all of America's students, including 
students from low-income families, students with disabilities, English 
learners, and students of color.
  `No Child Left Behind' needs to be fixed, but Republicans are pushing 
a bill that would gut education funding, eliminate and weaken 
protections for disadvantaged students, does not provide a well-rounded 
education for all students, and does not support educators.
  The Statement of Administration Policy from the Obama administration 
agrees on the need for high-quality statewide annual testing as 
required in H.R. 5, so parents and teachers know how children and 
schools are doing from year to year and to allow for consistent 
measurement of school and student performance across the State.
  However the administration has stated that this bill should do more 
to reduce redundant and unnecessary testing, such as asking States to 
limit the amount of time spent on standardized testing and requiring 
parental notification when testing is consuming too much classroom 
learning time.
  In its current state the Obama administration recommends a veto of 
H.R. 5.
  It is sobering to me, as the founder and co-chair of the 
Congressional Children's Caucus and someone who has long advocated on 
behalf of young people from all backgrounds, to see a bill that would 
have such a negative impact on the very children who need our help the 
most.
  In addition to these sad truths, the bill currently under 
consideration would strike a devastating blow to our schools' ability 
to provide the variety of programs that our children deserve.
  It repeals dedicated funding for programs such as student safety, 
after and summer school programming, STEM education, education 
technology, arts education, literacy and block-grants support, forcing 
high-need districts to choose between funding vital services.
  It should not be overlooked that one of these programs that is 
considered expendable is STEM-focused education, an area of importance 
both nationally and to my constituents in Houston.
  The Houston region is one of the most important industrial bases in 
the world and was recently ranked the No. 1 U.S. manufacturing city by 
Manufacturers' News Inc.
  Houston is also home to the largest medical complex in the world--the 
Texas Medical Center--and provides clinical health care, research and 
education at its 54 institutions.
  These jobs, and truly the middle class of this decade as a whole, are 
dependent on workers who get the right STEM education and job training 
today.
  Brookings' Metropolitan Policy Program's report ``The Hidden STEM 
Economy'' reported that in 2011, 26 million jobs or 20 percent of all 
occupations required knowledge in 1 or more STEM areas.
  The same report stressed that fully half of all STEM jobs are 
available to workers without a 4 year degree and these jobs pay on 
average $53,000 a year, which is 10 percent higher than jobs with 
similar education requirements.
  To eliminate federal funding aimed at enhancing STEM education is to 
cripple an entire generation of America's youth, leaving them without 
skills that may be essential in securing their own future and the 
economic prosperity of our nation.
  Finally, it must be addressed that the defining characteristic of our 
primary and secondary education system has been to prepare our students 
for college.
  H.R. 5 does not contain any provisions that states consult with 
institutes of higher education in order to ensure that their academic 
standards are consistent with what will be demanded of those students 
once they graduate.
  As a result, many students, even after receiving a high school 
diploma, will find themselves unprepared to pursue a college degree if 
they choose to.
  We must look at the environments in which we are asking these 
students to succeed and ensure we have the best protections in place to 
provide safe educational institutions.
  Amendment #93 of this bill, Jackson Lee Amendment, supports 
accountability-based programs and activities that are designed to 
enhance school safety, which may include
research-based bullying prevention, cyberbullying prevention, 
disruption of recruitment activity by groups or individuals involved in 
violent extremism, and gang prevention programs as well as intervention 
programs regarding bullying.
  H.R. 5 eliminates the current requirement that districts take action 
when their schools are under resourced and unable to meet the needs of 
all students.
  Together with the lack of consideration and support for at-risk and 
low-income youth, this will result in those students being marginalized 
and denied educational opportunity rather than given the support and 
resources they so desperately need.
  I urge all my colleagues to join with me and oppose the passage of 
H.R. 5.

[[Page 2565]]


  Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5 The 
Student Success Act. I rise in opposition to this bill because 
education is a civil right. The Elementary and Secondary Schools Act, 
also known as ESEA, was initially passed in 1965 as part of President 
Johnson's ``War on Poverty.'' President Johnson understood that without 
a good education, economic stability was impossible and poverty 
inevitable.
  The goal of the original ESEA was to provide a fair and equitable 
education to every child in America. Unfortunately, H.R. 5 is neither 
fair nor equitable. This bill creates the warped concept of Title I 
Portability, which would shift resources from poor school districts 
such as the ones in my district of Brooklyn, New York to wealthier 
communities. Children in poor districts stand to lose upward of $85 per 
student, while children in wealthier communities would gain an average 
of $290 dollars per student.
  It ends the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program, among 70 other 
programs also slated for elimination. You would think that with the 
rise in school shootings and rampant school violence, that if we ever 
needed a Safe and Drug Free School Program it would be now.
  It also eliminates Title III, which helped to ensure that English 
Language Learners attain English proficiency. H.R. 5 not only 
figuratively, but also literally, silences the voices of our Hispanic 
students and in doing so relegates them to a life of inequity and 
poverty.
  Under H.R. 5, New York State is projected to receive $1.52 billion in 
2016 and $6.943 billion over the 2016-2021 period. This is $46 million 
less in 2016 and $606 million less over the 2016-2021 period than under 
the President Obama's budget. In fact, my district of Brooklyn, New 
York is in Kings County. Kings County, with a poverty rate of 33.3 
percent, will see a $39.9 million cut in Title I funding under this 
bill.
  Today, we Democrats are shining a light on H.R. 5 so that America can 
see how ugly, dangerous and divisive this bill really is. And just like 
during the civil rights movement, we won't back down! We won't give up! 
We will fight until every child in America--Black, Brown, Asian or 
White--has a fair, equitable, and quality public school education--
because Education is a Civil Right.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. 
Ros-Lehtinen) having assumed the chair, Mr. Abraham, Acting Chair of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration 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, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________